International Journal of Group Psychotherapy

ISSN: 0020-7284 (Print) 1943-2836 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujgp20

Coordinated Group Psychotherapy of Children and Parents Robert O. Pasnau, Miriam Meyer, L. Jeannette Davis, Richard Lloyd & George Kline To cite this article: Robert O. Pasnau, Miriam Meyer, L. Jeannette Davis, Richard Lloyd & George Kline (1976) Coordinated Group Psychotherapy of Children and Parents, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 26:1, 89-103, DOI: 10.1080/00207284.1976.11491319 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1976.11491319

Published online: 29 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujgp20

Coordinated Group Psychotherapy of Children and Parents ROBERT 0. PASNAU , M.D., MIRIAM MEYER, M.S .W., L . J EANN ETTE DAVIS , M.S.W., RICHAR D LLOYD, M.D ., and GEORGE KLINE, M.D .

CuRRENT PRI NC IPLES OF GROUP THERAPY with children developed out of Slavson's work with activity groups around 1934. It was then that he discovered that such groups, set up for "little sisters" in the "big sister" department of a child guidance clinic, had therapeutic effects. In attempting to determine which factors had led to the children's improvement, he concluded that it was the group per se that had been therapeutic (Slavson, 1964) . Activity group therapy can be described as the provision of a neutral arena in which the youngster can freely act out impulses. It further provides the opportunity for "sublimative activity, gratifying experiences, group status, recognition of achievement , and unconditional love and acceptance from an adult. Through these activities children overcome basic character malformations ... and fear of expressing aggressive and hostile impulses" (Slavson, 194 7, p. 33). The group allows for reorganization of the child's ego through a process of identification with the therapist (symbolic of the good , ideal p arent), individual group members (who may represent siblings), and the group as a whole (Slavson, 1964) . The group may also have a catalytic effect which accelerates the acting out of instinctual drives

The a uthors are in the Department of Psychia try, University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.

89

90

Robert 0 . Pasnau etal.

(Slavson , 194 7). In contrast to adolescent or adult groups, the child can change markedly in this environment without having to gain insight into the causes of his behavior. The mode is essentially noninterpretative and encourages regression (particularly in the first phase) . As Irvin (1960) states, "Regression serves as a function of catharsis and is a major means for fulfilling the dynamic aims of activity group therapy" (p. 23). The phases through which activity groups pass are the same as in other groups . Schiffer (1969) refers to three phases : the preparatory , re-educational, and termination phases, while Frey and Kolodny (1966) divide the stages into preaffiliation, power and control , intimacy, differentiation, and separation. Essentially, there seems to be agreement that the initial phase is a period during which there is regression, testing of limits, exploration, and relaxation. The longest period is the middle phase in which transferences develop toward the therapist(s) and other group members; there is a decrease in anxiety and guilt ; and the group becomes an interactive, cohesive , meaningful force (both verbally and nonverbally). In the final phase , there is an increase in frustration tolerance and an improvement in group members' self-image, with a greater responsiveness to group controls. Transferences become diluted and identification is closer to reality. Although temporary regression may occur due to separation anxiety, this anxiety is resolved through acceptance , and the group is concluded (Schiffer , 1969). Although the literature describes parent groups (Hampton , 1962; Maizlish and Hurley , 1962-1963; Westman et al. , 1963) , often children are seen in treatment without parental involvement. Work with parents can help them to recognize and deal with their ambivalence , hostility , and guilt feelings, and clarification that a child's way of communicating is through the language of activity provides the parents with an understanding that these behaviors are not necessarily actions against them . Additionally, it is a responsibility of therapists to help parents to accept or at least become aware of their role in the pathogenesis of their child's problem. Some of the treatment modalities which have been described in the literature include the following: 1. Short-term (6-week) treatment for parents while the child was seen on an individual basis (Epstein, 1970). 2 . Long-term group treatment for latency children during which

Treat ment of Children and Parents

91

their parents were seen in individual supportive sessions (Frey and Kolodny, 1966). 3. Three differen t group approaches to alienated children in the school withou t the inclusion of parents in ongoing treatment (Scheidlinger , 1965). Only three articles described an approximation of the coordinated group approach : 1. Karson (1965) described short- term (6 months) groups for latency boys and separate groups for their mothers. Each group had a therapist and an observer, with the observer at times becoming involved in the process. Over a four-year period, thirty such groups were conducted with very positive results. 2. LeVay and Ruthod (1963) described a concurrent group therapy approach to mothers and children who were seen over a two- to five month period in weekly sessions. Term ination of group members occurred when improvement - was noted. This study was designed specifically to determ ine what effects this mode of group intervention would have. It was found that of the 22 children involved, 14 had maintained their improved adjustment level when follow -up contact was made one ye ar later. 3. Ganter, Yeakel , and Polansky ( 1967) reported on a research project in which severely disturbed children and their parents were seen in weekly concurrent group sessions for a minimum of two hours per week. The groups met for a period of six months. Of the children's groups , all but one were led by male and female cotherapist, while the parent groups worked with only one therapist. The goal of these groups was to increase the children's accessibility to individual therapy in an effort to fo restall the institutionalization which would otherwise have been necessary. T he results were very encouraging. Of the 47 children referred , only five required institutionalization. T HE CHILDREN'S AND PARENT'S GROUPS: DYNAMICS AND PROCESS This paper will describe a one-year project in which coordinated group psychotherapy was employed with children and their parents. Each week a parents' group and a children's group were held in different rooms at the same time. Each group was led by a female and male cotherapist. Each week following the group meetings the four

92

Robert 0 . Pasnau et al.

group leaders met with a consultant to discuss their group experiences and to share information with each other. The initial period of about four months was one of transition for both groups. Because the criteria for group membership had not been clearly identified by the four cotherapists, major shifts in the parent group composition occurred. Criteria for admission to the children's group had been that the patient be a l;>oy between the ages of seven and nine , psychoneurotic , not retarded, and that he have a parent or parents willing to participate in the adult group . The parent group originall y consisted offour mothers and one father. At the insistence of the male cotherapist of the parent group , who desired experience with a two-parent group treatment format, the criterion for the two- p arent membership in the group was implemented. One divorced mother, one single mother , and one grandmother were terminated from the group , with alternative treatment programs provided for them . The children's meetings were held in a large outdoor play area during the first five months. In the sixth month , the group moved indoors to a large , multipurpose room because of cold weather and the early dusk . In this location there was a stage and a puppet theatre , both of which provided a useful stimulus for the production of fantasy material. The parents' group met separately in a room designed for group therapy throughout the entire 11 months. The first four-and-a· half months of both groups were characterized by orientation of new members , uncertainty as to who would be present at each session, and beginning development of a group identity . In the children's group , the two Randy's were regular in attendance from the beginning. The other four members of the group were introduced between the third and fifth months . The two Randy's, as a result , formed early close relationships with the cotherapists and transference phenomena were present long before other group members were assimilated . Randy K. initially appeared to be very dependent and clinging, did not like to share attention with others , and was continually asking fo r help with things that he could easily do fo r himself. H e related in a verbal , pseudo-mature manner , but had great difficulty with peer rela tionships. His envy of the "parental relationship" and his fear of punishment for his feelings and wishes were man ifested in his insistence that the cotherapists were married to one another. He was also very concerned about oral gratification . The goals for Randy were to help him deal with his overwhelming need for

Treatment of Children and Parents

93

love and mothering, decrease his overdependence on adults, and learn how to relate to peers. Randy K. 's mother presented in the adult group as an anxious, self-sacrificing, unassuming woman. Perceiving herself and her children as helpless victims of her husband's brutality, she consistently responded hysterically to her children's "chaotic behavior." Mr . K ., who came to the group four months later and who never became a regular attending member , believed that physical punishment was necessary for child training and that striking his wife when she was hysterical was reasonable. Thus , Mr. and Mrs. K. communicated with one another in a brutal milieu . The other group members confronted Mrs . K. with her helplessness and her provocation of her husband to abuse her and the children physically, and they encouraged her to look to her own needs and to be more firm with the children . By the time of the termina tion of the group, Mrs. K . had progressed in the group and reported considerable growth in Randy. Mr. K., who had demanded structure and systematization from the members, withdrew from the group during ~ he eighth month. Randy D., the other original member of the children's group, was more active and less verbal than Randy K. He especially enjoyed aggressive activities such as ball games, climbing, and racing. Frequently, he would deliberately test limits, especially when he had to share the therapist's attention . In group conflicts, he would always defend either the therapist or the underdog. He did not produce fantasy material verbally but gave factual accounts of current happeni ngs. The goal for Randy was to help him achieve gratifying relationships without having to resort to hyperactive, destructive b~havior Randy D.'s parents faithfully attended the parents' group from the beginning. Mrs . D . presented with a veneer of composure and competence . However, her anxiety and lack of self-assurance were quickly revealed. She was concerned about her impatience and inconsistency with Randy, a hyperactive child . Every impulse or angry act on Randy's p art frightened her. She fea red that Randy would become brutal like her father had been . Mr. D ., on the other hand, saw Randy as a m isfit in the family . He was pessimistic that any change in his own behavior or that of his wife would be of help to Randy . He was generally congenial, smiling, and intellectually interested in the p eople in the group. Initially, the parent group accepted Randy's parents' behavior.

94

Robert 0. Pasnauetal.

However , as the group cohered, the other members began confronting Randy's parents by asking that some of the "goodies" going to Mr. D . be shared with the children. His parents were later able to give Randy more support and attention as they became more open with each other. They rem ained relatively unaware of the changes in themselves and credited Randy's improvement to the fact that his defensive anger had given way to tears . He related better to his peers and he accomplished more in school. During the third month , Chris and Calvin joined the group . Chris was quite verbal but showed a marked tendency to withdraw and isolate himself. His self-esteem was very low, and he had great difficulty with peer relationships. In competitive situations he tended to feel totally defeated. The goal for Chris was to help h im to deal with these problems. Calvin , on the other hand, was extremely active both physically and verb ally, but he had difficulty relating with other boys. The goal for him was to help him increase his ability for satisfying peer interactions . Mrs. H ., Chris's mother, did not attend the group sessions but was seen in individual therapy elsewhere. Calvin's mother, Mrs . W., entered the adult group during the third month . She denied th at Calvin or she had serious problems. She attempted to convince other group members that the problem lay with her former husband and that he should be in therapy, not she or Calvin . She brought Calvin for evaluation at his father's insistence . Calvin's father , however , elected not to participate in the treatment process. It was not until several months had passed in the group that Mrs . W . was able to express her concern that she could not relate to Calvin the way she did to her daughter. She began to recognize that she h ad difficulty in expressing both positive and negative feel ings toward her son . She complained that Calvin , like herself, withdrew when he was hurt. She was concerned that she found it difficult to give him comfort , reporting that she had received little comfort herself as a child . Her life with her nuclear family and with her husband had been "one big hassle ." She , therefore , avoided all "hassles" with Calvin . The group pointed out to her how this prevented a more intimate relationship with her son. They also showed her that she expected too much of Calvin , on the one hand, and yet did not allow h im to develop autonomy, on the other. She moved from an initially rigid and defensive involvement with other group members to an active emo-

Treatment of Children and Parents

95

tional p articipation in the group process. She reported positive changes in herself and Calvin. He too, like Randy D., gave up defensive anger for tears. By the end of the third month of the boys' group, spontaneous rapport and interaction had begun to be apparent. It was felt that a group identity was beginning to fo rm . Throughout the fourth month, however, only two or three members were present at each meeting. Predominant themes were control and the giving and receiving of "goodies. " In the parent group attendance was irregular, too. (A partial explanation for the difficulties in the treatment groups lies in the intensification of conflict between the four cotherapists during this time, which is discussed in the following section .) Jess joined the group during the fourth month and was integrated without difficulty. He enjoyed physical activities but had d ifficulty with more intimate peer relations. He related to adults in a verbal, distant manner . The goal for him was to help him with these problems of intimacy. Jess's parents, Mr. and Mrs . P., also entered the parent group in the fourth month. Mrs. P. presented herself as a genteel woman often fighting for composure and blushing frequently. She was extremely sensitive and easily intimidated. She verbalized how all alone she felt and how she tried to fill the void with ~eaningful activities. Mr. P. carne across in the group as being powerful a nd authoritarian. He was concerned with his own needs and found it difficult to accept his wife's bid for recognition as someone separate and distinct from himself. He especially had difficulty with issues of nurturing. He felt "shut out," helpless to reach his wife in her loneliness. In a similar way, he had felt helpless, angry, and anxious when his mother cried when he was a boy. Mr. and Mrs. P. had had previous group experience and were quite active in the group, as well as psychologically sophisticated. Mr. P. tended to come across as a cotherapist , for which the group confronted him. In group, Mrs. P. saw Mrs. K. as her mother, and interaction between them was intense . Struggling over how to cope with her feelings about her husband's intimidating her, she often questioned Mrs. K. about her relations with her husband. She saw the group as her family and expressed the belief that the group, like her nuclear family, would never be able to help her. The P.'s, who had come into the group ready to give up Jess as a scapegoat, took the opportunity to work on their marital problems .

96

Robert 0. Pasnau et al.

In the fifth month , Ronny, a boy with a diagnosis of elective mutism , joined the children's group. He entered freely into activities, making noises and laughing from time to time. He said nothing. The goal for Ronny was to eliminate the power struggle around talking and thus to free him to relate verbally to adults and peers. Ronny's parents, Mr. and Mrs. L., entered the parent group exclusively focused on their son's mutism. Ronny's mother presented herself as a quiet , proper, Latin-American woman . She deferred to her husband and was totally devoted to him and her children. Anger with a child was unthinkable to her. Ronny's father presented himself as warm and concerned. He , too, could not tolerate the thought that his son might have negative feelings toward him, as he later could not believe that he had had negative feelings toward his own father. The group encouraged Mrs. L. to speak for herself and often interrupted Mr. L. when he spoke for her. Similar "speaking for" was reported by both Mr. and Mrs . L. as usual behavior between the father and Ronny. The group confronted Mr. L., . asking him to give up his struggle for control of Ronny's speech. They pointed out to him that when Ronny turned away from him, went limp , or would not talk , it was possible that Ronny was expressing anger. Throughout the fifth month , the cotherapists of the children's group frequently brought up the subject of the advancing state of pregnancy of the female therapist and her ensuing departure . The group 's fear and anger about this and their concern about the possibility of the male therapist leaving as well were dealt with in a primarily nonverbal fashion. The baby arrived a week earlier than expected and consequently the therapist was not present at the ~eeting which had been scheduled to be her last before delivery. Her absence was met by total denial for the first fifteen or twenty minutes by all six group members. Finally, Randy K. asked where she was , and it was explained to the group that she had had her baby, a little girl. They immediately dispersed into active play which lasted for the rest of the meeting.

During the sixth month, the children's group meetings were characterized by hide-and-seek games, extremely lively activity , continual testing of limits, and the group's frequent insistence on leaving early. The issue of separation was very important in the dynamics of these interactions. At no time would the group deal verbally with the issue of the female therapist 's absence. The male therapist admitted to

Treatment of Children and Parents

97

feeling angry, frustrated, and mildly depressed about being left in the impossible position of "taking care of all these kids alone." Following the move into the indoor multipurpose room, more structured meetings took place . Several plays were performed in which a person was devoured by animals. At the end of a meeting following a performance of the "Three Little Pigs" Randy K. explained an idea for another play as follows : "A boy is lost. He goes to the first house but there is a wolf. At the second house he finds a witch. He then goes to the third house where there is a good person who takes him in." On the way back to the lobby, it was announced that the female therapist would be back the next month . Randy K. expressed the opinion that she would never come back. In the seventh month she did return , and the group seemed glad to see her. Throughout the meeting there was much testing of limits and showing off on the part of the boys. By the second meeting following her return, it was clear that the group was moving into a new phase. The sense of group identity shifted into a new readiness to deal with dynamic issues. Toward the middle of this meeting, Randy K . began talking about what the male and female genitalia were, while other group members stuffed jackets and balls under their shirts, pretending they were pregnant. Various fantasies about how babies were born were expressed, following which Randy K. regressed dramatically, acting like a baby. With mother safely back, the group could begin to deal with their feelings about her pregnancy and absence. Throughout the eighth, ninth, and tenth months, the children's group continued to function as a cohesive unit. Members increasingly took problem -solving more upon themselves. As a result , there was less limit-setting by the therapists and more peer interaction. Along with this change in group process, individual members showed improvement. Randy K. began interacting more with the other boys and consequently became less dependent on the therapists. The group, rather than the therapists, increasingly ~et limits for Randy D . , and he responded well. Although Chris started to make progress in learning more successful ways of interacting and getting gratification from the group, he continued to have difficulty in relating, and it became clear that he needed individual work. Calvin's interactions with other group members improved. Jess showed signs of relating on a more personal level, becoming more actively involved in group activities and spending less time in solitary pursuits. Ronnie's production of vocal sounds

98

Robert 0 . Pasnau et al.

increased, but by the last meeting, he still had spoken only one word. This occurred when he fell and involuntarily said , " Ouch!" In each case, the observation of improvement was confirmed by parents' reports of improved behavior at home. The parent group 's development paralleled the children's group. Initially, members of the group were curious about each other's children. During the first phase of the group they sought answers from the cotherapists to explain the symptomatology of their sons. Calvin's mother insistently spoke of "coming to class. " Trust versus mistrust of the cotherapists became an early issue. The group expressed curiosity, then doubt and concern , that play could be of therapeutic value for their children. They struggled with giving up control of their child to someone else , especially wi thout direct feedback from the cotherapists of the children's group. As the group members grieved over the realization of a genetic or organic component underlying part of their sons' symptomatology (several of the children had organic problems as well as emotional), they received group support. They were t hen more clearly able to assess and utilize other helping resources. During the m iddle phase of the group , they focused on areas in which the disability or symptomatology of their children was exacerbated because of the parent-child relationship or the parent-parent relationship . Additionally, they received help with their own intrapsychic maladaptations and d iscomforts. Different points of view , insights, and awareness among the group members enlivened and enriched the group process . The twin forces of group pressure and group support helped melt away resistances. The group became cohesive during the seventh month , and although a considerable amount of work had taken place during the first six months, more intensive and productive results took place in the final five months. Over the last few weeks of both groups, the issue of separation was dealt with . In the boys' group the children tended to verbalize their feelings very little , but as termination approached , they became more and more active. In the parent group, feelings of ab andonment and concern with continued treatment resources were discussed . Following the last meeting of the boys' group , a party was held jointly with the concurrent parents' group. Here for the first and only time the parents , children, and cotherapists met together . During the last two weeks , an individ ual meeting was held with each family . At that time , the progress of b oth groups was summarized and recommendations for ongoing t reatment were made to each family.

Treatment of Children and Parents

99

THE COTHERAPY GROUP : DYNAMICS AND PROCESS When the groups were formed , the decision was made to have male-female cotherapists for each group. It was felt that this model would provide a m ilieu for the parents in which they would have opportunities to use the two therapists as real people against whom they could test their fantasy stereotypes of maleness and femaleness, identify with a like-sexed therapist, deal with fantasies about their own marital and parental relationships, and work out transference reactions toward both therapists as parent figures. It was also hoped to create a climate in which corrective emotional experiences would occur in terms of respected figures acting upon and resolving differences in constructive rather dian destructive ways. In the boys' group it was felt that the male-female configuration would provide the boys with the experience of nonthreatening adults who in the mother-father surrogate roles would allow them to work through maladaptive behavior patterns which they had developed with their own parents and other adults. One of the authors began the actual group process when she initiated contacts with staff and psychiatric residents interested in leading concurrent groups. Three of the respondents had had knowledge of group dynamics and previous group experience both as leaders and participants. However , only one had worked with concurrent groups, and none had worked together except for some individual case sharing between two. One member (GK) possessed a valuable knowledge base in family therapy. A faculty member who had previous experience with children's groups in a school setting volunteered to be the supervisor I consultant for the four cotherapists. The first meetings of the patient groups were held before criteria for group membership had been agreed upon. This came about because the co therapists were anxious to "get started." In the supervisory sessions considerable time was spent in learning about each other , testing out each other's personalities (whether or not individuals could work together), and finding comfortable ways to relate to the consultant /supervisor. The difficulties in this initial period were further compounded by a conflict over whether intact families only should be treated and whether it should be required that both parents attend the group sessions. For the first three months both therapy groups as well as the

100

Robert 0 . Pasnau etal.

cotherapy group were plagued by tension, indecision , and hidden agendas of the therapists , who were groping to establish their roles with each other without actually verbalizing any of the conflicts. Communication and cooperation became progressively more difficult in trying to arrive at decisions concerning the groups , their membership, and the length of group meetings. To complicate matters further, the m ee tings with the consultant became erratic , as were the brief sessions after each group meeting between the four cotherapists. One of the cotherapists went on vacation for five weeks , making for increased problems in communication. At the end of the second and the beginning of the third month , the issue of the parent group's membership finally brought into focus the anger , frustration, and competitiveness of the four cotherapists. At this point , feelings were openly expressed and dealt with. As a result, the consultation hour stabilized, and the meeting of the four cotherapists immediately after each group session improved in content and effectiveness. During this process the cotherapists and consultant were welded into a group. All the interactions were not exclusively negative . The more positive ones were expressed through joking, especially around sexual material , and then through increased socializing and touching. Once open confrontation of negative reactions had occurred , it was possible to be more cooperative and less competitive. The interactions were characteristically supportive and insightful after that . An instance to illustrate this was when one therapist left the group in the sixth month to have her baby. The cotherapists of the parents found themselves identifying with the child therapist's loss of support and h is anger at being left alone with the "kids." The three therapists shared their feelings about the absence of the fourth, and these more honest reactions and responses were in marked contrast to those aroused by the five-week vacation of one of the therapists earlier in the year when similar feelings had not been available for analysis. The working period of all three groups occurred from the sixth

through the ten th months. In the cotherapy group it was decided that the extra consultative h our per week should be eliminated. Instead , the hour immedia tely following the group sessions was scheduled for consultation. This enhanced the cotherapy hour considerably as the material and feelings about the group processes were fresher. However , the perspective that can be achieved only through a lapse of time

Treatment of Children and Parents

101

was lost. The foc us shifted from the processes among the cotherapists to analyzing the concurrent group dynamics, and information from both groups was exchanged freely. Recommendations on how best to encourage group communication, the changes each therapist perceived in the group members, and patterns that were developing were shared among the therapist and consultant. During this period, the cotherapy group meeting was relatively calm and treatment-oriented. The issue of separation, which is a difficult process under the best of circumstances, had a marked effect on the cotherapy group. Just when the concurrent groups were going well, it was time to disband them. From the outset, both therapists and families had known that the treatment would be time-limited . What the cotherapists had not anticipated, however, was the intensity of feelings about termination of the cotherapy group. At this critical time, the consultant left for a month 's vacation. What this meant was that during a period of anticipation of loss of the cotherapy group as well as the therapy groups (which activated the therapists' feelings of frustration, of having a job only partly completed; i.e., guilt, and of relief that the seemingly endless commitment to intensive weekly group sessions was over), the parent (consultant) was gone. The negative feelings were directed (naturally) toward the consultant, which led to intensification of positive feelings among the therapists. The situation remedied itself when the consultant returned during the final week of the groups and feelings about closure were clarified. DISCUSSION The advantages of coordinated group therapy can be summarized as follows : 1. It focuses on family interaction rather than individual action, thereby avoiding "an identified patient" syndrome more adequately. The fact that the parents and children arrive together, each with the knowledge that the other is receiving help for family problems, m ay be in itself therapeutic. 2. It adds to the more traditional family model in three ways: (a) The process implies that the parents have a separate relationship from the children which may or may not need special attention but which obviously exists. (b) Even though the parents are meeting separately from the

102

Robert 0. Pasnauetal.

children , they are meeting at the same time. The message is that the parent-child relationship is important rather than just the parent or the child. (c) In the group approach, the families are given increased opportunities for interaction with other families who have similar problems. The disadvantages of coordinated group therapy should also be noted : 1. It reduces the actual interactions between child and parent which the traditional family therapy model encourages . 2. It increases the number of variables of which the therapist needs to be aware and demands greater expertise on his or her part. (This problem may be partially resolved by using cotherapists.) The problem of "appropriateness" for group therapy deserves some special comment. If one assumes a family therapy model , then a child who is appropriate for the group would also have parents who were appropriate for the group. However , the criteria for "appropriateness" in our groups included both the parents and the child, i.e . , "A twoparent , intact family, with a neurotic , behaviorally disturbed boy between the ages of seven and nine whose parents are motivated to accept psychiatric help through the concurrent groups ." Not all parents may be "appropriate" for the same group , but the homogeneity afforded by having children of the same age with "problems" provides the necessary preliminary basis of identification and cohesion which permits a therapeutic group experience . This means that the child's behavior , while not the sole criterion for admission to the groups , was a necessary requirement. In summary , the term "coordinated group psychotherapy" is applicable when the groups meet at the same time and when the focus of both groups is on the family unit, with the interpretations given to both the parents and the children aimed at building a supportive family m ilieu in which each person's individuality is respected and given direction .

REFERENCES Block. S. L. (1961 ), Multi-Leaduship as a Teaching and Therapeut ic Tool in Group Psychotherapy . Compr. Psychz'at., 2:211 -2 18 . Epstein , N . ( 1970), Brief Group Therapy in a Child Guidance Clinic . So cial Work, 15:33 -38.

Treatment of Children and Parents

103

Frey, L. and Kolodny, R . L. (1966), Group Treatment for the Alienated Child in the School. Thisjournal, 16:321-337. Ganter, G., Yeakel , M ., and Polansky, N. A. (1967), Retrieval from Limbo: The Int ermediary Group Treatment of Inaccessible Children. Child Welfare League of America. Hampton , P. J. ( 1962), Group Psychotherapy with Parents. A mer.]. Orthopsychiat., 32:918-926 . Irvin, A. M. (1960), Regression in a Children's Activity Therapy Group. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 31:22 -37. Karson, S. (1 965) , Group Psychotherapy with Latency-Age Boys. This journal, 15:81-89. LeVay, M. and Ruthod , N . H. (1963), Concurrent Therapy of Groups of Mothers and Children. Amer.j. Psychiat., 119:1169-1171. Maizlish , L., and Hurley, J. R. (1962- 63), Attitude Changes of Husbands and Wives in Time-Limited Group Psychotherapy. Psychiat. Quart. Supplement, 36-39: 230-249. Scheidlinger, S. (1965), Three Group Approaches with Socially Deprived Latency-Age Children. Thisjournal, 15:434-445. Schiffer, M. (1969), The Therapeutic Play Group. New York: Grune & Stratton. Slavson, S. R . (1964), A Textbook in Analytic Group Psychotherapy. New York: International Universities Press. ___ (1947) , The Practice of Group Therapy. New York: International Universities Press. Westman , J., Kansky, E. , Erikson, M., Arthur , B. , and Vroom, A. (1963), Parallel Group Psychotherapy with the Parents of Emotionally Disturbed Children. This journal, 13:52-60.

Dr. Pasnau 's address: .Department of Psychiatry School of Medicine The Center for the Health Sciences Los Angeles, Calif 90024

Coordinated group psychotherapy of children and parents.

International Journal of Group Psychotherapy ISSN: 0020-7284 (Print) 1943-2836 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujgp20 Coor...
5MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views