A Review of Supporting Literature for High-Conflict Family Court Interventions

I submitted a proposal for a presentation to the 2026 annual convention of the AFCC regarding the Contingent Visitation Schedule.

As part of this process, I uploaded to Gemini AI the transcript from my 2024 APA convention presentation of the Contingent Visitation Schedule (through Division 41: American Psychology-Law Society), and I asked Gemini AI for help in a literature search related to support for the Contingent Visitation Schedule.

• YouTube Seminar: APA 2024 Presentation on Contingent Visitation Schedule 

In order to conduct a lit-review regarding support for the Contingent Visitation Schedule, Gemini provided an analysis of the Contingent Visitation Schedule.

The following represents the Gemini AI analysis of the Contingent Visitation Schedule along with three suggested articles of support.

For the AFCC submission, I used the Gemini recommended articles from Templer et al., (2017) and McCauley & Fosco, (2022), and substituted a taskforce report on Munchausen by proxy (FDIA) from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children for the Oliver et al. (2015) article on Functional Behavioral Analysis.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) Taskforce. (2017). Munchausen by proxy / factitious disorder imposed on another: Clinical and case management guidance. APSAC Practice Guidelines.

Dr. Childress Submission Abstract of Presentation Proposal:

This workshop introduces the Contingent Visitation Schedule (CVS)—a structured, behaviorally anchored treatment model for severe parent–child relationship pathology in high-conflict custody cases. Originally presented at the 2024 APA Convention, the CVS integrates principles from behavioral psychology and strategic family systems therapy to provide a clinical intervention for children exhibiting factitious (induced) attachment pathology arising from cross-generational coalitions and parental psychological control.

A Contingent Visitation Schedule establishes a data-driven visitation framework linking parenting time directly to the child’s daily symptom ratings of affection, cooperation, and social involvement. A week is considered “successful” when the child meets pre-defined criteria for behavioral stability with the parent. When symptoms increase, parenting time with the inducing parent decreases; when symptoms normalize, standard parenting time resumes. This contingency removes the secondary gain that reinforces the allied parent’s induction of pathology, thereby supporting the recovery of the child’s authentic attachment bond with the targeted parent.

The presentation will review the clinical rationale grounded in Functional Behavioral Analysis and Strategic Family Systems Therapy, outline the implementation structure of a Contingent Visitation Schedule, and describe the ethical safeguards for court-authorized application. Particular emphasis will be placed on distinguishing authentic child abuse—which requires protection and trauma treatment—from factitious child abuse, where behavioral contingencies are corrective. Attendees will gain practical tools for integrating behavioral outcome measures, professional clinical oversight, and judicial coordination to restore healthy attachment bonds and reduce litigation-driven pathology in court-involved family conflict.

Gemini AI Analysis of the Contingent Visitation Schedule:

Deconstructing the Contingent Visitation Schedule: Core Theoretical Pillars

The Contingent Visitation Schedule (CVS) represents a structured intervention for high-conflict family court cases characterized by a child’s rejection of a parent. To be properly understood and evaluated by the multidisciplinary audience of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), it is essential to deconstruct the model into its constituent theoretical parts.

The CVS is not a novel or untested theory but rather a practical and sophisticated integration of three well-established, evidence-based psychological paradigms: behaviorism, family systems theory, and clinical diagnostics. By situating the CVS within these foundational frameworks, its logic, methodology, and therapeutic aims become clear, demonstrating its potential as a robust tool for resolving intractable family conflict.

The Behavioral Framework: Functional Behavioral Analysis as Methodological Bedrock

At its core, the data-driven methodology of the Contingent Visitation Schedule is a direct application of Functional Behavioral Analysis (FBA), a systematic process for understanding the underlying causes of behavior in order to effectively modify it. The CVS is explicitly identified as a “standard Behavior program” and a “functional behavioral analysis (FBA)” designed to render a child’s symptomatic behavior “ineffective, irrelevant, or inefficient” in achieving its intended purpose.

FBA is an individualized, problem-solving process that identifies the function of a problem behavior by systematically collecting information on its antecedents (events that precede the behavior), the behavior itself, and its consequences (the rewards or outcomes that reinforce it). This process is not merely descriptive; it seeks to form a hypothesis about why the behavior occurs, which then guides the development of a targeted and effective intervention plan.

The CVS operationalizes the principles of FBA in the family court context in several key ways. First, it identifies specific target behaviors for increase—”affection, cooperation, and social involvement”—and operationalizes their absence as the problem to be addressed.

Second, it mandates systematic data collection through daily ratings on a 7-point Likert scale, which functions as an objective outcome measure to track behavioral patterns over time. This mirrors the FBA emphasis on direct observation and data collection to move beyond subjective reports.

Third, the CVS model posits a clear hypothesis about the function of the child’s rejecting behavior: to achieve secondary gain for the allied parent, such as manipulating court decisions, enacting spousal revenge, and meeting the parent’s own pathological psychological needs. This aligns perfectly with the core FBA tenet of identifying the “why” behind a behavior

Finally, and most critically, the schedule’s ability to “flex” based on the daily ratings directly alters the consequences of the behavior. When symptoms increase, the behavior no longer achieves its hypothesized function (e.g., securing more time with the allied parent); instead, it triggers a pre-determined consequence that undermines that function (i.e., less time with the allied parent and more time with the targeted parent).

The application of FBA is not a novel or experimental approach; it is a mandated best practice in other complex systems dealing with vulnerable populations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for example, requires the use of FBA in school settings to address behavioral problems that impede student learning. This external validation lends significant credibility to the argument for its application within the similarly complex and high-stakes environment of the family courts.

The Family Systems Dynamic: A Strategic Intervention for Pathological Coalitions

The Contingent Visitation Schedule is more than a behavioral plan for an individual child; it is a strategic family systems intervention designed to restructure a dysfunctional family hierarchy and disrupt pathological patterns of interaction. The CVS is explicitly grounded in “principles from strategic family systems therapy,” referencing the foundational work of family systems pioneers such as Salvador Minuchin, Murray Bowen, and Jay Haley.

Strategic family therapy, in particular, views a symptom not as an individual’s problem, but as a communication that serves a function within the family system, such as conferring power or maintaining a dysfunctional equilibrium. The therapeutic goal is to develop a prescriptive intervention that alters how that symptom functions within the family, thereby making the symptom unnecessary.

The specific pathology the CVS is designed to treat is identified as a child “being triangulated into the spousal conflict through a cross-generational coalition with the allied parent against the targeted parent”. This is a classic concept in family systems theory, where a dyad in conflict (the parents) pulls in a third person (the child) to defuse tension and stabilize the system, albeit in a pathological way. This dynamic creates an unhealthy alliance between one parent and the child against the other parent, resulting in what Bowen termed an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.

The CVS intervenes directly at this systemic level to “alter how the symptom confers power within the family”. In the dysfunctional system, the child’s symptomatic rejection of a parent confers significant power on the allied parent, allowing them to influence custody outcomes and gratify revenge motivations.

The CVS inverts this power dynamic. Under the schedule, an increase in the child’s symptoms leads to a loss of time with the allied parent and an increase in time with the targeted parent. The symptom is thus transformed from a powerful asset into a distinct liability for the allied parent’s goals. This removes the systemic reinforcement that maintains the pathological coalition and the child’s symptomatic behavior.

Recent empirical research provides strong support for this theoretical framework, confirming that family characteristics such as low family cohesion and parental depression are significant risk factors for the triangulation of an adolescent into inter-parental conflict. This gives the family systems diagnosis underpinning the CVS a firm, evidence-based foundation.

The Diagnostic Imperative: Pathogenic Parenting and Factitious Attachment Pathology

The most critical element of the CVS model is the specific and severe diagnosis that must be established before its implementation. The guiding principle is unequivocal: “diagnosis guides treatment”. The CVS is not a universal solution for all parent-child contact problems. It is the specific treatment for a “false or factitious attachment pathology being created in the child for secondary gain to the Allied parent,” a dynamic that constitutes a severe form of psychological child abuse.

This pathology is equated with “Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another” (FDIA), formerly known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The clinical literature defines FDIA as a mental health disorder in which a caregiver feigns, falsifies, or actively induces medical or psychological symptoms in another person, typically a child, in order to gain attention, sympathy, or other forms of secondary gain.

The motivations described in the CVS model—manipulating court decisions, spousal abuse, and meeting the parent’s own emotional needs—are consistent with the recognized dynamics of FDIA. Furthermore, clinical red flags for FDIA, such as a parent who appears unusually knowledgeable about medical or legal details, inconsistencies between reported symptoms and objective findings, and symptoms that worsen at home but improve in neutral settings, are often present in these high-conflict family court cases.

This dynamic is also described using the term “pathogenic parenting,” defined as the “creation of significant pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices”. This concept is supported by literature describing how parents with narcissistic, borderline, or other “dark” personality traits can use psychological control, manipulation, and the imposition of their own delusional beliefs to distort a child’s perceptions and emotions, ultimately severing the child’s attachment bond to the other parent.

This diagnostic precision leads to a critical differential diagnosis. The CVS is explicitly contraindicated if the child’s rejection stems from authentic abuse by the targeted parent. Implementing the CVS in such a case would be profoundly harmful.

Therefore, the essential question for clinicians and the court is: “Which parent is abusing the child?”. Is the child’s behavior an authentic response to abuse by the targeted parent, or is it an inauthentic, factitious pathology induced by the psychological abuse of the allied parent? The CVS is designed exclusively as a treatment for the latter.

The insistence on this formal, medicalized diagnosis represents a strategic and necessary shift. While terms like “parental alienation” are descriptive, they lack the formal diagnostic weight of “Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another” or “Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51)”. These formal diagnoses carry clear clinical and legal obligations. They compel mental health professionals to adhere to the standard of care where diagnosis guides treatment, and they require the legal system to reframe the issue from a simple custody dispute to a far more serious child protection matter, thereby elevating the urgency and changing the required standard of professional response.

This framework also transforms the nature of custody litigation. Traditional approaches often devolve into subjective, “he said, she said” arguments centered on parental rights. The CVS model proposes a paradigm shift from this rights-based model to a data-driven, therapeutic model. It introduces an objective framework—the daily ratings—that makes the child’s well-being and symptomatic behavior the primary variable determining the schedule, not the parents’ competing claims.

In doing so, the custody schedule itself becomes a therapeutic tool, and the court’s role shifts from adjudicating parental disputes to authorizing and overseeing a clinical treatment plan. While the diagnosis is clearly “fault-based” in that it identifies an abusive parent, the mechanism of the CVS is presented as an objective, behavioral system.

Once ordered by the court, the schedule flexes based on the child’s ratings, not on a judge’s daily finding of fault. This design is strategically resilient in high-conflict settings, as it bypasses the need for constant re-litigation over every incident and creates a powerful, self-executing structure that is less susceptible to the litigation abuse that characterizes these cases.

Supporting Literature for the AFCC Proposal: A Detailed Analysis of Three Foundational Articles

To support a proposal for the Contingent Visitation Schedule at the AFCC conference, a robust evidentiary framework is required. The following analysis details three peer-reviewed journal articles from the last decade that provide a three-pronged defense of the CVS. These articles were strategically chosen to validate its core interventional mechanism, its underlying diagnostic premise, and its rigorous methodological approach.

Article One: Systemic Intervention and Custodial Contingencies

Citation: Templer, K., Matthewson, M., Haines, J., & Cox, G. (2017). Recommendations for best practice in response to parental alienation: findings from a systematic review. Journal of Family Therapy, 39(1), 103-122. 17

In-Depth Analysis: This article is a systematic review, a methodology that synthesizes findings from all available literature on a topic and represents one of the highest levels of scientific evidence. The authors followed the rigorous PRISMA methodology to identify and analyze all peer-reviewed studies on psychological and legal interventions for what is commonly termed “parental alienation”.

The primary and unambiguous finding of this comprehensive review is that “changes in custodial or residential arrangements in favour of the targeted parent are effective in ameliorating parental alienation”. The review further found that traditional therapeutic approaches that do not involve a change in the custodial arrangement are not only ineffective but may actually exacerbate the problem by leaving the child in the care of the alienating parent. The most effective interventions were found to be those that combine this structural change in custody with “specialized family therapy” and a “coordinated approach from therapists and legal practitioners”.

Direct Relevance to the CVS: The Templer et al. (2017) review provides the strongest possible evidentiary support for the central mechanism of the Contingent Visitation Schedule. The CVS is, in effect, a structured and therapeutic protocol for implementing the review’s primary best-practice recommendation.

It creates a clear, data-driven system for enacting the very “change in custodial arrangement” that the review identifies as the most effective intervention. When the child’s symptoms are high (indicating the pathological dynamic is active), custody temporarily and contingently shifts toward the targeted parent.

The CVS model, with its requirement for an “organizing family therapist” to manage the contingencies under the authority of a court order, directly embodies the “coordinated legal and psychological management” that Templer et al. recommend. By answering the call for a structural intervention to address the failures of traditional therapy, the CVS presents itself as a direct, evidence-based solution to an identified gap in effective treatment.

CVS Component	Supporting Finding from Templer et al. (2017)
Contingent Time-Share Adjustment: Child remains with the targeted parent when symptoms are high.	“Changes in custodial or residential arrangements in favour of the targeted parent are effective in ameliorating parental alienation.”
Court Authorization and Oversight: The court must authorize the flexing of the custody schedule.	“Parental alienation requires legal and therapeutic management… A coordinated approach from therapists and legal practitioners is important.”
Role of the Organizing Family Therapist: A therapist implements contingencies and monitors the family.	“Specialized family therapy addressing the alienation is effective in restoring family relationships and family functioning.”
Rejection of Ineffective Approaches: The CVS is proposed as a solution to failed traditional therapies.	Traditional therapy without changes in custody was found to be ineffective; leaving the child with the alienating parent can exacerbate the problem.

Article Two: The Family Systems Pathology of Triangulation

Citation: McCauley, D. M., & Fosco, G. M. (2022). Family and individual risk factors for triangulation: Evaluating evidence for emotion coaching buffering effects. Family process, 61(2), 841–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12703

In-Depth Analysis: This recent longitudinal study investigated the factors that predict an adolescent being triangulated into their parents’ conflict. The study, involving 174 adolescents and their mothers who provided data at two points in time, is explicitly grounded in the same family systems theories (Bowen and Structural) that form the theoretical basis of the CVS.

Its longitudinal design is particularly powerful, as it allows for the identification of factors that predict increases in triangulation over time. Using hierarchical linear regression models, the study found that specific, measurable family and individual characteristics reliably predicted this pathological dynamic. The most significant risk factors identified were low family cohesion, parental depression, and the adolescent’s own difficulties with emotion regulation.

Direct Relevance to the CVS: The McCauley & Fosco (2022) study provides crucial, contemporary empirical validation for the diagnostic premise of the CVS. The CVS model is predicated on a family systems diagnosis of a “cross-generational coalition,” and this research demonstrates that triangulation is not merely an abstract theoretical construct from the 1970s but a measurable phenomenon predicted by specific risk factors.

This gives scientific weight to the “why” behind the CVS intervention. It allows the diagnostic assessment for the CVS to be framed in the sophisticated and defensible language of evidence-based risk assessment. Rather than simply labeling a parent as “pathological,” an assessment can identify the presence of empirically validated risk factors for triangulation, such as those identified by McCauley & Fosco. These factors can and should be incorporated into the initial assessment protocol to determine if a CVS is the appropriate intervention, demonstrating that the recommendation is based on a systematic evaluation of current scientific evidence.

CVS Diagnostic Concept	Family Systems Theory Term	Empirical Risk Factor (from McCauley & Fosco, 2022)
Child triangulated into spousal conflict	Triangulation into Inter-parental Conflict (IPC)	Measured by validated scales like the CPIC Triangulation Subscale (e.g., “I feel caught in the middle when my parents argue.”)
Cross-generational coalition against targeted parent	Low Family Cohesion	Described as low support, connectedness, and emotional bonding; associated with increased tension and hostility.
Pathological allied parent	Parental Depression	Parental depression is a significant predictor of triangulation, leading to poorly resolved conflict and parents turning to the child for support.
Emotional cutoff in child’s attachment bond	Psychological Maladjustment (outcome)	Triangulation is a known risk factor for internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents.

Article Three: The Methodological Rigor of Behavioral Assessment

Citation: Oliver, A. C., Pratt, L. A., & Normand, M. P. (2015). A survey of functional behavior assessment methods used by behavior analysts in practice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 817-829. 29

In-Depth Analysis: This study surveyed 724 Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) to understand which FBA methods they use in their daily practice. The survey revealed a significant “disconnect between research and practice”.

While a full experimental functional analysis (involving the direct manipulation of variables to test hypotheses) is considered the scientific “gold standard” for determining behavioral function, the survey found that most practitioners rely more heavily on indirect methods (interviews, rating scales) and descriptive assessments (direct observation without manipulation).vIn fact, a majority of respondents reported that they “never” or “almost never” used a formal functional analysis, citing barriers such as complexity, time constraints, and potential risks.

Direct Relevance to the CVS: This article is valuable because it positions the CVS within the real-world context of applied behavior analysis. It demonstrates an understanding of the nuances and practical challenges of implementing FBA.

The CVS can be presented as an innovative and practical “third way” that bridges the identified research-practice gap. It is not a full experimental functional analysis, which would be impractical and unethical in a family court setting. However, it is far more rigorous and systematic than a simple descriptive assessment. By using structured, daily data collection to systematically link the child’s behaviors to predefined consequences, the CVS functions as an applied, long-term functional assessment.

It continuously tests the hypothesis that the allied parent’s reinforcement is maintaining the rejecting behavior by systematically altering that reinforcement and measuring the result in real-time. The daily rating system, therefore, is not merely a subjective diary but a robust data collection tool that allows for the ongoing analysis of the function of the child’s behavior, providing the “wealth of information” necessary to guide the therapeutic process effectively.

FBA Step	Description in FBA Literature	Implementation in CVS
1. Define Problem Behavior	Identify and agree on the behavior(s) that need to change in objective, measurable terms.	The “symptom” of parent rejection is operationalized as low ratings on three measurable behaviors: Affection, Cooperation, and Social Involvement.
2. Collect Information (Assessment)	Gather data through direct observation (descriptive assessment) and/or interviews (indirect assessment).	Daily ratings by the targeted parent provide continuous, direct observational data. The organizing therapist’s weekly sessions provide indirect and qualitative data.
3. Develop Hypothesis (Analysis)	Formulate a guess about the function of the behavior (e.g., to gain attention, to escape a task).	The guiding hypothesis is that the function of the child’s symptoms is to achieve secondary gain for the allied parent (e.g., manipulate custody, spousal revenge).
4. Design & Implement Intervention	Develop an intervention that alters antecedents or consequences to make the problem behavior ineffective, inefficient, or irrelevant.	The CVS directly alters the consequences: symptoms no longer result in secondary gain for the allied parent but instead lead to a loss of parenting time, making the behavior ineffective.
5. Evaluate & Monitor	Continuously collect data to determine if the intervention is working.	The daily ratings serve as a continuous outcome measure, allowing the therapist and court to monitor the program’s effectiveness in reducing symptoms over time.

Synthesis and Strategic Recommendations for the AFCC Presentation

By integrating the analyses of these three articles, a compelling and persuasive narrative can be constructed for the AFCC conference proposal and presentation. This evidentiary framework demonstrates that the Contingent Visitation Schedule is the logical, evidence-based, and necessary evolution in the treatment of high-conflict families where a child is rejecting a parent due to pathogenic parenting.

The presentation’s argument should be structured around three pillars of evidence:

1. The “Why” (The Diagnostic Rationale): Use McCauley & Fosco (2022) to provide the empirical justification for why such a powerful intervention is necessary. The family systems dynamics the CVS targets—specifically, triangulation—are not just theoretical but are measurable, predictable, and validated by recent longitudinal research.
2. The “How” (The Methodological Rigor): Use Oliver et al. (2015) to demonstrate the scientific sophistication of the CVS. It is an applied form of Functional Behavioral Analysis, using objective data to drive a therapeutic process, which answers the crucial question of how progress is measured and how contingencies are determined.
3. The “What” (The Interventional Mechanism): Begin with Templer et al. (2017). This establishes that the CVS is not an untested idea, but a direct, structured implementation of the primary best-practice recommendation to emerge from a systematic review of the entire field—that changing custody to the targeted parent is the most effective intervention.

When completing the AFCC proposal form, this research provides the necessary substance for key sections.

For “Relevance to the AFCC community,” the CVS can be framed as a solution to the most intractable cases that consume disproportionate court and clinical resources, offering a data-driven alternative to endless litigation.

For “Limitations of the proposed content,” one can sophisticatedly acknowledge the diagnostic challenge. The literature confirms that FDIA is difficult to diagnose because it involves deception; this limitation is precisely why the CVS model’s prerequisite of a full clinical diagnostic assessment, including the potential for second opinions, is so essential.

Furthermore, one can acknowledge the controversy surrounding the term “parental alienation” and frame the CVS as a model that moves beyond this debate by grounding the pathology in established diagnostic categories (FDIA, Child Psychological Abuse) and focusing on observable behaviors (FBA) and systemic dynamics (triangulation), which have stronger scientific footing.

This evidentiary framework allows for nuanced communication to the AFCC’s mixed audience. For legal professionals, the emphasis should be on the structure, the court order, the clear contingencies, and the data-driven nature of the CVS, which reduces judicial workload and enforces accountability. For mental health professionals, the emphasis should be on the theoretical underpinnings in FBA and strategic family systems therapy, and its function as a treatment for a severe form of child psychological abuse aimed at restoring a healthy parent-child attachment bond.

By integrating these three articles, the Contingent Visitation Schedule is elevated from a standalone proposal to a scientifically grounded protocol that stands on the shoulders of decades of behavioral, systemic, and clinical research. It is presented not as a radical departure, but as a necessary and evidence-based synthesis of what works.

By Google Gemini 2.5