[This report is an excerpt. Click here to download the full report. ]

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION

The Jadis Blurton Family Development Center
Child Custody Evaluation

8th June, 2018

REASONS FOR REFERRAL

In relation to the Children’s Appointment on June 13th, 2018, Deputy District Judge A.N. Tse Ching ordered on December 11th, 2017 that a Single Joint Expert (SJE) be appointed to assess the psychological health of the child of the family, namely FW, a girl born on October 27th, 2005, and provide an expert report. The Petitioner and Respondent agreed to appoint Dr. Jadis Blurton as the SJE.

APPROACH TO PARENTING

Mr. Wong reports that until August 2016 he was the primary caregiver of Felicity. He was instrumental in her early education and initiated her very active extracurricular life, especially in performing and participating in contests, which began in 2014. He adds that until August 2016, Ms. Fang had very little involvement with Felicity; she saw her briefly upon her return from work around 10 pm each weekday and spent Saturday late afternoon and evening with her for an ice-skating lesson and dinner. He was also the primary contact with Felicity’s schools.

Mr. Wong states that his strengths as a parent include his primary concern for Felicity to grow up into a happy and fulfilled human being with success not just in academics but also in her other interests and, most importantly, in her relationships with people. He reports that his parenting style is to allow Felicity to decide things for herself and understand the consequences of her own actions; he does not want her to do things simply because he has said so, although he may give her advice, and he believes allowing her to make her own choices will facilitate better long term outcomes. For example, if Felicity does not want to do her homework he would ensure there was a structured time for her to do it but would give her the choice of whether she does it or faces the consequences at school. Mr. Wong further states that his first concern is always what is best for Felicity; this is why he refrains from saying anything negative about her mother, even though this has resulted in Felicity believing her mother and hating him; he wants to teach Felicity to love not hate. He also wants to teach Felicity the importance of being a team player. For example, when there was a disagreement in her rock band about whether she should continue as the lead singer and the teacher wanted one of the boys to take the role, Mr. Wong encouraged Felicity that the boy would be a strong leader whilst Ms. Fang demanded Felicity be the leader and when her position was usurped she withdrew Felicity from the band.

With regard to discipline, Mr. Wong believes he is both very lax and very strict. He allows Felicity lattitude to make choices, and even mistakes, but also strictly enforces rules that have been overstepped and does so calmly with the removal of privileges such as computer time. He does not believe in physical punishment, screaming or yelling.

Mr. Wong acknowledges that he and Ms. Fang have very different parenting styles. He also has many concerns about Felicity’s emotional wellbeing since August 2016 when she has been largely in the care of Ms. Fang. He is very concerned that Felicity worries about getting into a top tier university as both parents attended such. He believes the pressure she feels from Ms. Fang to be accepted into Harvard University is very detrimental and he reassures Felicity that it is not the end of the world if she is not. He is also concerned that Ms. Fang sets a very inappropriate role model for Felicity, by not only constantly lying to others but also persuading Felicity to lie for her, even forcing Felicity to say that her father slept with her grandmother and has been sexually abusing her. He further reports that Felicity is forced by her mother to sign inappropriate written oaths and is suffering immense emotional conflicts in relation to complying with her mother’s wishes so that her mother will continue to advocate for her. For example, Felicity lies to support her mother even though she knows it is wrong to do so. In addition, he reports concern that Ms. Fang is unable to control her emotions and temper, and frequently uses force against others, thus setting a very bad example to Felicity and putting her in potential danger; for example, she has hit both him and Grandma.

Mr. Wong further reports that Ms. Fang manipulates Felicity’s fears and weaknesses and threatens and yells at her, and is gradually passing on to Felicity her negative outlook on the world and people in general. He cites examples he believes indicate mental abuse of Felicity, including Ms. Fang’s threats to Felicity that she would tell her schoolteacher about her “bad behavior”; threaten to not only not help her get into Harvard University or good schools, but to even write a letter to Harvard to specifically advise them to not enroll her; and threatens to disown Felicity. Moreover, he believes that because of Ms. Fang’s animosity towards him, she prevents him from seeing Felicity for fear that should they have normal contact Felicity would change her mind about him, “brainwashes” Felicity to hate him, and as a result Felicity risks losing her father. He provided an example with a submitted recording from the dashboard videocamera of Ms. Fang’s car, in which Felicity can be heard complaining that she wants her father in her life, whilst Ms. Fang argues against this and reminds Felicity of how Ms. Fang herself was very unhappy when Mr. Wong was living with them and she wants him to die as that would make her really happy.

Mr. Wong is very aware of the impact that the way in which he and Ms. Fang relate to each other has on Felicity; he tries to ensure there are no parental arguments in front of Felicity, and refrains from talking with Felicity about any problems he is having with Ms. Fang. He adds that since April 2017, Ms. Fang has completely blocked off all communication channels with him, and even prior to this their mutual communication was very poor.

Ms. Fang states that she and Felicity both know they “are each other’s best buddies”. She adds that they live happily and harmoniously without Mr. Wong, and just want to be left alone. She reports that one of her parenting strengths is the disciplined approach she adopts, whereby Felicity has a weekly schedule listing all her tasks. She adds that whilst she is strict she is also creative and inspirational and has inspired Felicity to establish her own charity foundation, ‘Felicity’s Spotlight Foundation’. She describes her use of the “G-system”, whereby she awards Felicity with “G-points” for desired behaviors and removes them for undesired behaviors. She adds that whilst she pushes Felicity she also respects her, and has no regrets about enforcing her to do her homework even when Felicity would subsequently telephone her father and ask to be rescued. She further notes that Felicity has adopted a proper attutude towards homework and “knows that not only does the work need to be complete but it also has to be excellent.” However, she also states that Felicity would achieve even greater results if she were to demonstrate greater perseverance. Ms. Fang further reports that Felicity protests but is “wonderfully susceptible to reason and does not require physical punishment for lessons to sink in.” Nonetheless, she reports a past incident when Felicity refused to finish her homework and threatened to call her father and she then hit her very hard three times on her outstretched palms.

Ms. Fang’s primary concern about Mr. Wong’s parenting style is that in her opinion what he wants for Felicity is not in her best interests. For example, she reports that Mr. Wong is not focused on her academic achievement and has encouraged Felicity to quit school and become an actress. She also states that when he was responsible for her after school care he used to leave her alone in the home, in front of a computer and with only a piece of bread to eat, such that she had to arrange food delivery for Felicity. She also believes that Mr. Wong has told lies about Felicity’s mental wellbeing in order to manipulate her school. Further, she reports that Mr. Wong has been physically and verbally abusive to her herself, and violent towards her brother such that he required hospital treatment. Ms. Fang also opines that Mr. Wong is morally depraved and in the past urged her to join him in an orgy. Moreover, in February 2018 she first alleged that he had behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards Felicity.

On direct questioning about this Ms. Fang reported that the first such incident occured when Felicity was between Grade 3 and Grade 4 and attending a doctor’s appointment, and Mr. Wong touched her buttock whilst she was lying prone on the examination couch. Ms. Fang states that when Felicity was in Grade 4 and the two of them were watching a movie together, Felicity told her that her father had touched her inappropriately. She also recounted an episode in a McDonald’s restaurant during which Felicity later said her father had attempted to touch her thigh. Ms. Fang has not witnessed any inappropriate touching behaviors by Mr. Wong but says she believes this to be possible.

Ms. Fang perceives no need to interact or continue any form of relationship with Mr. Wong and states that her and Felicity’s wish is for him to stay out of their lives. She adds that they both consider him a “plight and a pest”, and she states that “Felicity could hardly care how I interact with her biological father as long as he stays away and does no more damage to our lives.” She further reports that the current custody arrangement would be better if Mr. Wong simply “dropped the ruse and paid no more visits so that [she] and Felicity could enjoy [their] Saturday evenings together.”

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS

Mr. Wong

Mr. Wong arrived on time for his scheduled interviews. He was of athletic build and was dressed appropriately for weather, age and circumstance. Rapport with the Evaluators was established easily and Mr. Wong appeared comfortable and relaxed throughout, yet became visibly distressed when discussing the difficulties surrounding his visitation with F. His speech was fluid and he presented as a very articulate and well-educated individual who was insightful, reflective and questioning.

At F’s request, a father-child observation with her and Mr. Wong was not conducted.

Ms. Fang

Appointment scheduling proved difficult with Ms. Fang and F such that a request was submitted to her solicitors and Mr. Wong to delay the due date for this report. However, following advice from her solicitors Ms. Fang made herself and F available to attend as per her initial undertaking.

Ms. Fang rescheduled the start time of her first scheduled interview by two hours due to her delayed flight and she and F arrived 40 minutes late on the second day. She was well groomed, and on the first day was dressed in an identical outfit to that which F was wearing. Rapport with the examiner was established readily and Ms. Fang’s speech was very gregarious and rather pressured with few natural pauses. Further, she spoke at length in an impassioned manner regarding the loan agreement, and spontaneously returned to this topic, and financial matters, many times throughout her clinical interviews despite several reminders from the Examiners that some parts of the interview process were designed to understand the parent-child relationship rather than gather a historic account of the events leading up to the marital breakdown.

Over the course of the evaluation, Ms. Fang sent very frequent emails updating the Evaluators on the further awards, certificates and achievements of F. In addition, she became threatening towards the Evaluators when she believed that a telephone interview was to be conducted with Ms. Koenig at HIS, wrote at length in an email about the problems the Principal has caused her and stated that if Ms. Koenig were contacted her lawyers would ask the Judge to invalidate all reports submitted by the Jadis Blurton Family Development Center.

During the parent-child observation, it was clear that Ms. Fang and F share a close relationship. However, the Examiners suspect this unusual and somewhat atypical parentchild dynamic to be reflective of an inauthentic attachment bond. Furthermore, their scripted and rather staged performances during interviewing are thought to be indicative of crossgenerational triangulation. It is of note that they also utilized the parent-child observation period as a chance to rehearse for an upcoming competition.

There were many discrepanies and inconsistencies in Ms. Fang’s accounts of events. During clinical interview and in her written narrative submissions there was a marked focus on financial matters and the loan agreement, with little reference to the alleged inappropriate sexual behaviors. Furthermore, while this Custody Evaluation does not serve as a full Psychological Evaluation of the cognitive, affective or interpersonal functioning of either parent, clinical observations both in-person and those occuring via email correspondence revealed Ms. Fang to exhibit many characteristics associated with Cluster B personality disorders (i.e. Narcissistic; Boarderline; Histrionic) whereby individuals with these disorders often appear dramatic, emotional and/or erratic.

FW

F was accompanied by her mother and arrived late on both days of her evaluation; on the first day this was a result of a delayed flight. She was dressed appropriately for age, weather and circumstance and wore contact lenses. She was of tall stature and appeared older than her chronological age. Her psychomotor speed was fast. Rapport with the Evaluators was established easily and F presented as a very confident and self-assured young woman who was eager to portray her father in a poor light.

When given a Mandarin writing task, F initially attempted to use her mobile phone to access the characters and stated, “I’m not good at Chinese writing.” She struggled to form the characters, made multiple crossings-out and employed somewhat simplistic language, such that her final piece exhibited marked variance in writing skills to those utilized in the Chinese written letter she allegedly wrote which was submitted to the Court.

F appeared comfortable, calm and relaxed with her mother during observations. On the surface, she treated her mother with respect and courtesy; however, it was noted that F corrected her mother several times during their interview which resulted in both of them making good-natured fun of Ms. Fang. Oftentimes they appeared to interact more like sisters than a parent-child dyad and F’s nonverbal body language towards Ms. Fang was incongruent with her narrative suggesting she adores Ms. Fang; F rather aggressively chopped at her mother’s hand when it came close to her and she flinched when her mother touched her torso. Despite their apparently close relationship, the Examiners observed there to be a rigidity, inflexibility, and almost rehearsed manner to their interactions.

It was noted that F, despite understanding the instructions, refused to participate fully in a projective test designed to reveal an individual’s underlying motives, concerns and the way they view the social world. When the Evaluator commented on her reluctance to respond openly and spontaneously, F appeared to be aware of the purpose of the test and it was subsequently inferred that she was unwilling to reveal information about her inner thoughts.

Overall, F presented as a very mature and knowledgeable but rather aloof and emotionally guarded young woman with the demeanor and presence of an individual much older.

MENTAL STATUS AND CURRENT PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING

Mr. Wong

Mr. Wong was oriented to person, place, time and circumstance. Remote memory appeared unimpaired. No unusual or bizarre ideations are reported.

Mr. Wong’s emotional adjustment and attitude towards test taking, as indicated by clinical observations, self-descriptions and multiple normative data points, suggests no evidence of over-reporting or under-reporting. There is no evidence of somatic, cognitive, emotional, thought or behavioral dysfunction reflected in Mr. Wong’s protocol. He is likely to be selfreliant and power-oriented. Mr. Wong’s profile reveals a complete absence of any symptoms typically associated with clinically significant levels of depression and/or anxiety; however, he admits to not having many aspects integral to living a good and/or happy life such as rarely laughing, not having a good sex life, not being in love, not feeling relatively better than others, and not having close friends. He also admits to experiencing difficulties with familial relationships. His reported family difficulties include; the family having fights, problems getting along and the family having many problems.

Mr. Wong believes himself to be a competent parent who is able to make effective parenting decisions and carry out his responsibilities as a parent. This perception is corroborated by his spontaneous responses across parenting awareness measures whereby he was able to identify the critical issues, provide adequate solutions, communicate using concepts and words attuned to the developmental needs of his (hypothetical) children, and deal with them appropriately according to their emotional status. Mr. Wong’s data further show him to have a low likelihood of abusing a child.

Mr. Wong demonstrated a robust ability to keep a good sense of himself under stress (i.e. strong ego-strength) yet his knowledge of the importance of a child’s unique history and needs when dealing with that child in their problem situation and his awareness of the importance of effective parental communications were significant weaknesses. His data further suggest that Mr. Wong has a tendency to be overly verbose and rely on lengthy verbal responses or talking to discipline his child.

Clinical observations reveal him to be a forthcoming, insightful, intelligent, and sincere individual.

Ms. Fang

Ms. Fang was oriented to person, place, time and circumstance. Remote memory appeared unimpaired. No bizarre ideations are reported yet Ms. Fang appears to have a preoccupation with and some rather unusual cognitions and distorted beliefs surrounding her own and her daughter’s success. For example, Ms. Fang appeared to be obsessed with reporting on her daughter’s placement during her frequent and varied competitive pursuits despite the irrelevance of such information to the current Custody Evaluation. Furthermore, her monologues often took on a rather elevated and grandiose tone and were interpreted by the Evaluators as a reflection of an overly inflated sense of self.

Ms. Fang’s emotional adjustment and attitude towards test taking, as indicated by clinical observations, self-descriptions and multiple normative data points, suggests no evidence of over-reporting. However, there were indications of significant under-reporting as the test taker presented herself as very well-adjusted. This reported level of psychological adjustment is relatively rare in the general population. Given there is evidence, gathered from historical accounts and observed during clinical interviews, that Ms. Fang is not especially well adjusted, any absence of elevation on the substantive scales should be interpreted with caution: it is highly likely that elevated scores on the substantive scales are underestimates of the problems assessed by those scales. This is particularly relevant to her elevations across the Ideas of Persecution and Aberrant Experiences scales. Individuals with elevations on these scales often feel mistreated and picked on. They have difficulties forming trusting relationships and they are suspicious of and alienated from others. They may also report unusual and eccentric thoughts and delusional beliefs.

Ms. Fang’s test data indicate a parenting awareness just within the minimum range. Her elevated K-scale suggests the denial of any problems and weaknesses despite their observed presence in a clinical setting. Therefore emotional, thought, behavioral and interpersonal dysfunction cannot be ruled out. She failed to overtly express any form of general subjective distress or negative affect and reported herself to be passive, inhibited and very unlikely to express herself behaviorally, which was not corroborated by collateral informants or clinical observations. Individuals with this profile often have a serious lack of insight into and understanding of their own behavior. Subsequently the validity of the responses Ms. Fang provided during clinical interviewing and on other questionnaires and surveys is highly dubious.

FW

F was oriented to person, place, time and circumstance. Remote memory appeared unimpaired. No bizarre ideations are reported; however, her rather unusual preoccupation with winning and success was noted. While it is acknowledged that the pursuit of academic excellence through an Ivy League education is a value inherent to the Chinese culture, the intensity and all-consuming drive F and her mother put towards her endeavours is atypical and borders on pathological; F appeared obsessed with gaining entry into Harvard (and winning in general) and spent much of her time talking about this and judging the qualities of each of her parents based on their ability to facilitate this outcome.

During her clinical interview, F spoke briefly about the allegations of sexual abuse made against her father. Her description of the alleged events were vague and lacked content. After sharing an incident whereby she sat on her father’s lap and he touched her thigh, she informed the examiner that she was “uncomfortable” talking about the allegations and expressed a desire to change the topic of the conversation.

F’s test results reveal an unusually small number of problematic thoughts, feelings and behaviors compared to other children her age, especially in light of her current family situation. Given her tendency to present herself in a socially desirable and favorable manner, it is therefore likely that despite appearing confident, outgoing and conforming she underreported emotional and interpersonal problems. Her profile is reflective of an individual with an inflated sense of self-worth, an air of imperturbability, and indifference toward social conventions. Although these individuals wish to present themselves in a coy personal style, they are prone to persistently seeking attention and stimulation, often evident in immature, exhibitionistic, and even dramatizing behavior. School and family relationships are often best characterized as shallow and frivolous and it is likely that F has learned to devalue others, mistrust their judgement and to think of them as naïve and simple-minded.

Collateral informants all confirm that F is mature, socially adept, confident and talented yet she appears to strive for perfection and she seems to want to be the best or first at every given opportunity. It is highly likely that she has learnt to value herself only on the basis of the approval of others. Therefore, her self-esteem may have come to be based primarily on external standards. This can leave the perfectionist individual feeling vulnerable and excessively sensitive to the opinions and criticism of others. In attempting to protect themselves, they may decide that being perfect is their only defence. This vicious cycle can drive high potential learners, like F, to accomplish great achievements, yet it can also be emotionally exhausting and psychologically damaging.

POTENTIAL FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Mr. Wong

Mr. Wong appears to demonstrate very good insight into the necessity for a child to have consistent access to each parent. He also appears genuine when he states that if F were in his care he would never restrict or prevent her seeing or communicating with her mother. Moreover, he sees no reason why F and her mother should not communicate freely as they wish unless she was in physical danger or it may seriously interrupt her schooling etc. To this end, he would ensure she has the necessary means for communication, including a smart phone and computer access, and he would provide opportunities to see extended family on both the paternal and maternal sides.

Mr. Wong reports that he enjoyed a perfectly happy and loving relationship with F before August 2016. He further reports, however, that after that time, once Ms. Fang decided to become truly involved in her life, she started preventing F from seeing him and insisted that she spend her after school hours at her teaching center rather than at home with him. After they were living in separate residences, this was then extended to preventing him from seeing her, until the Court ordered interim-interim access. If custody of F is granted to Ms. Fang, Mr. Wong very much hopes that it will be ordered that Ms. Fang does not cut off communications between him and F. He also fears that if Ms. Fang again cuts off communications it will have a very detrimental impact on F’s upbringing, and she will continue to teach F to hate him.

Potential Alienator Risk Status

Ms. Fang

On the other hand, Ms. Fang appears to actively discourage Mr. Wong’s contact with F. For example, Mr. Wong states that F is discouraged by her mother from communicating with him and is even fearful of engaging in the online game of Minecraft that they used to very much enjoy together and which could be played at their separate locations. In addition, since the interim-interim supervised access has been ordered, Ms. Fang has insisted that it take place at her home whilst she is also in the home, and prohibits Mr. Wong taking F out for dinner. She has allocated a sparsely furnished room, with no table, such that if Mr. Wong and F are to eat a meal together it has to be take-away food eaten on the floor. She has also ordered that the young woman who is acting as visitation supervisor reports directly and solely to her.

Moreover, Ms. Fang appears to genuinely believe there is no need for Mr. Wong to be involved in F’s life. Further, she appears to be actively against it. For example, video recordings from the dashboard camera in Ms. Fang’s car, taken before it was impounded, capture her telling F that they would both be happier if he were not in their lives. When F is heard to say in relation to her father, “I miss him”, Ms. Fang is heard to reply, “he will just mess up our lives. I want him to die. That’s what would make me really happy. Remember how unhappy I was when he was in the house.” On the same journey, when F asks her mother to give her a father, Ms. Fang replies, “No I won’t. I’m two parents combined. Okay? Trust me, okay?”

When asked what arrangements should be made if F’s caretaking were ordered to be split between each of her parents, Ms. Fang responded, “I don’t let F [to] be divided between her father and me.” She also added, “If I have my way, I would permit him to visit F only after she is married to a strong decent man who can protect her from him.”

Potential Alienator Risk Status

FW

An alienated child is one that holds unreasonably negative feelings and beliefs towards a parent that are disproportionate to their actual experience with the targeted parent. Children’s relationships to each parent after divorce can be conceptualized along a continuum of positive to negative.

Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting: Extended Version

1.ATTACHMENT SYSTEM SUPPRESSION

Secondary Criterion: Normal-Range Parenting:

2.(a)PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS

Sub-Criterion Met:

2.(b)PHOBIC ANXIETY TOWARD A PARENT

3.FIXED FALSE BELIEF

The child’s symptoms display an intransigently held, fixed and false belief maintained despite contrary evidence (a delusion) regarding the child’s supposed “victimization” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted-rejected parent (an encapsulated persecutory delusion). The child’s beliefs carry the implication that the normal-range parenting of the targeted-rejected parent is somehow “abusive” toward the child. The parenting practices of the targeted-rejected parent are assessed to be broadly normal-range.

CONCLUSION

Upon receiving joint instruction from Mr. Wong and Ms. Fang, this Custody Evaluation has been prepared for Court purposes in order to:

1)  report on the welfare and emotional and psychological state of FW;
2)  provide recommendations with respect to care and control arrangements made by the Court on her behalf.

Despite being capable and intelligent individuals, Mr. Wong and Ms. Fang appear to be having clinically significant difficulties transitioning from being an intact family unit to a functional separated family system. While Mr. Wong appears to understand the importance of a cooperative and civil co-parenting arrangement for F’s emotional and psychological wellbeing, Ms. Fang seems to be actively encouraging F to adopt a victimized role and misattribute her authentic grief reaction, over the loss of her father and primary attachment figure, as hate and anger. These strong negative feelings and Ms. Fang’s psychological maneuvering seem to drive F’s pathogenic desire to reject Mr. Wong.

Given that Mr. Wong appears to demonstrate normal-range parenting behaviors and Ms. Fang and F appear to have formed a cross-generational parent-child coalition against him:

1)  Their repetitive pattern of interaction within the family system is highly likely to be pathological;
2)  The breakdown of appropriate generational boundaries between parents and children significantly increases the risk of emotional abuse;
3)  Boundary violation and a failure to recognize the psychological distinctiveness of F from Ms. Fang will possibly interfere with F’s development and may lead to psychopathology in adulthood.

Restoring contact with her father and providing F with on-going family therapy is recommended as a matter of urgency.

Statement of Truth

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Mr. Wong and Ms. FangRecommendations for FW

• Mr. Wong and Ms. Fang should be granted Joint Custody, with Care and Control to Ms. Fang and Court mandated access and visitation to Mr. Wong. Care and control orders should include Tuesday and Thursday visitations with increased access to at least one weekly overnight visit on either Friday or Saturday. When indicated by the family therapist as emotionally safe for F, she may transition to additionally having weekday overnight stays with Mr. Wong. Another therapeutic goal, aside from building better relationships and improving communication between all family members, would be to work towards increasing access, with time, to a more equal 50/50 split.


• Should Ms. Fang deny Mr. Wong access and visitation as mandated by the Court, Care and Control should be removed from Ms. Fang and be granted to Mr. Wong.


• Mr. Wong and Ms. Fang should be mandated to jointly instruct a parenting coordinator. This neutral third party can monitor the effectiveness of their parenting strategies and the child abuse potential presented at any given time in order to warn the appropriate authorities if deemed necessary. This approach will ensure that all parties understand that their cooperation is necessary and their actions are being monitored. The parenting coordinator should be used as an objective sounding board to settle disputes arising from decisions regarding F’s education and participation in extracurricular activities.


• Through the parenting coordinator, a system that ensures a response to proposed plans with a secure time limit should be implemented. In the absence of a responding proposal or objection, silence should be taken as consent and proposed plans should be considered to be final.


• There is great value in a child having a continued relationship with each parent. Research strongly suggests that children profit from having relations with both parents, as all relationships within the family system are continuously interactive and potentially transformative for each family member. Further, once past infancy, there is also evidence to suggest that learning to deal with even mildly negative parenting styles gives children the opportunity to learn to effectively navigate these interactions, which in turn increases coping mechanisms that can be drawn on and used in difficult situations later in life. Both parents are encouraged to recognize that a continued strong bond with both her mother and her father is important to F’s psychological development both now and throughout her lifetime.


• Mr. Wong and Ms. Fang are encouraged to communicate through well-considered and thoughtful email exchanges and to behave civilly at school events. Eventually, parents should work towards developing mutual empathy and trust, developing cooperation and providing the motivation to communicate in a positive and supportive manner. In any case, disagreement or disapproval should not be expressed directly to F except in urgent circumstances. However, while it is helpful if both her parents are in agreement as to how F is to be managed, this is not always possible especially in cases with vastly different backgrounds and parenting styles. If different rules emerge, parents should make an effort to be supportive of the other parent’s rules even when they disagree, unless a health issue is involved. It is possible, for example, to say “You don’t have that rule here, but that’s your Mom’s/Dad’s rule and you have to obey that rule at her/his house. I will be upset with you if you don’t.” In this way, a child learns that he/she must obey their parents even when they themselves disagree with a rule, which becomes very important as children get older.


• Parental disagreements should be handled behind closed doors, or if necessary with the help of a third party. Parents should pick these battles carefully as it is not necessary to have uniformity across households, raising points of disagreement only when they are considered to be very important and with respect for the other parent’s views.


• It is also extremely important that one parent not be perceived as the "good" parent and the other the "bad" parent, something that F could exploit or take advantage of. This is only possible if both parents remain supportive of each other and of each other’s authority.


• Calls with the non-custodial parent during access visits should be strictly scheduled and compliance should be monitored by the Court-appointed parenting coordinator.


• F needs her parents’ encouragement and support if she is to successfully build healthy relationships with each parent. This reassurance goes beyond surface level gestures to encompass the much deeper level of subtle messages each parent sends to her about the other.


• To this end, as there have been incidents of denigration of one parent by the other, it is suggested that all text messages and emails sent to F in the future by her parents be made available to the parenting coordinator and ultimately, if appropriate, to the Court. Allocation of care and control may be re-evaluated if it appears evident that one parent is attempting to alienate or undermine the other. In that case, primary care and control should be awarded to the less alienating parent with heightened control over access arrangements with the more alienating parent, including continued monitoring of written messages.

• In view of the possible use of parental alienation tactics, F should attend Court mandated family therapy (with an appropriately qualified and adequately experienced therapist) to learn better ways to communicate with the view of improving her overall relationship with each parent. It is likely she will also benefit from ongoing weekly therapy to help build emotional literacy and appropriately manage intense or negative emotions she may harbor as a result of her parent’s divorce.


• It is of note that while F may appear to be confident and high functioning, her evasiveness and reluctance to take on the role of help-seeker may present as a serious barrier to treatment.


• F should be taught that the world does not end when she does not complete something perfectly. She should experiment with an activity and instead of aiming for 100 percent, try for 90 percent, 80 percent, or even 60 percent success.


• It may be beneficial for F to confront her fears that may be behind her perfectionism by asking herself, "What am I afraid of? What is the worst thing that could happen?"


• With the support of her parents, F should recognize that there can be value in the process of simply pursuing a goal and she might try to focus on the process of doing an activity not just on the end result. She may then be taught to evaluate success not only in terms of what was accomplished but also in terms of how much enjoyment came from completing the task.


• F should avoid all-or-none thinking in relation to her goals. She may benefit from learning to discriminate the tasks that are high priority from those tasks that are less important. On less important tasks, she should choose to put forth less effort.


• F should be taught that many positive things can only be learned by making mistakes. When she makes a mistake her parents can ask, "What can you learn from this experience?" She might find it helpful to list all the negative outcomes and positive outcomes and compare them to investigate whether she benefited from making that mistake.


• It is important F’s parents help reduce the pressure she is feeling. It is likely she may feel more comforted through positive affirmations about her personality traits rather than her achievements. This will show F that while achievement is important, it is not as important as strength in character and happiness.