This portrait of a “typical” American family was ruptured when Danielle told her mother that she is attracted to other teenage girls, and in fact has been dating Ashley for the past three months. Mrs. Davis was completely stunned by this announcement and told Danielle that she was not happy about her choice and some things would need to change in the house. Highly upset, Mrs. Davis told her husband and her best friend about Danielle’s revelation. Both were surprised as well about Danielle’s announcement. Danielle said she would not stay in a house with an unsupportive mother and would seek out her “real” father and go live with him if the Davises did not get their act together and accept her relationship with Ashley. Mrs. Davis’s friend suggested that the family might benefit from family counseling and referred her to a therapist she had used herself for a different matter. After two days of composing herself, Mrs. Davis gave the therapist a call and hired her to help the family “sort out this mess.” The following shows how a practitioner would apply the structural family therapy model in practice with the Davis/ Leonard family. For the practitioner working with the Davis family, the first phase was to join and accommodate with the family. The therapist took time to talk not just with Mrs. Davis but also with Mr. Davis and Danielle. (Danielle’s biological father was not part of the sessions.) Mrs. Davis was happy that the practitioner came to the home and expected her to side with her and her husband, both of whom were quite unhappy with Danielle’s “choice.” The therapist did indeed offer empathy and support to the couple and yet also empathized with Danielle, who stated that there was nothing wrong with being lesbian and that her parents were the ones with the problem, namely, being homophobic. Once the therapist established some rapport with the family members, she helped the family members articulate more specifically what they would like to have happen in their family therapy. Danielle was able to say that she would like her mom and stepfather to be less judgmental, and the therapist suggested that perhaps the parents would like to better understand how Danielle had come to understand herself as a lesbian. Enactment was the next step to occur. In the second session, the therapist asked Mrs. Davis why she was so angry over Danielle’s announcement. Mrs. Davis responded that she did not want Mr. Davis to be upset. Mr. Davis thanked his wife for looking out for him. Danielle shared how “stupid” her mother was for putting her husband’s happiness over her (Danielle’s) welfare. This natural enactment provided assessment information to the therapist that Mrs. Davis seemed to defend her husband over her daughter’s mental health and that Mrs. Davis seems to interrupt Danielle. Moving on to structural mapping, the therapist remembered that Danielle’s coming out as lesbian was not the “sole” problem in the family; in fact, the therapist formulated a hypothesis that the Davis couple subsystem was actually somewhat disengaged in that Mrs. Davis appeared to be afraid to talk to her husband about Danielle’s coming out (or other matters) because Mrs. Davis feared that Mr. Davis would leave her. The consequence of this was that Mrs. Davis had an enmeshed relationship with Danielle and wanted to control Danielle’s life because Mrs. Davis was actually afraid of confronting her husband. This information was gained through a variety of sessions with each family member privately as well as with different combinations of the family subsystems (e.g., Danielle and her mother, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, Danielle and Mr. Davis, and Danielle alone) and the family as a whole.
Turning to Step 4, highlighting and modifying interactions, the practitioner suggested (drawing on knowledge of LGB development as well as structural family theory) that if the family wanted to understand Danielle’s experience they had to accept that she had the right to live her own life. Furthermore, the therapist told the family that as a lesbian teen Danielle would need their help and guidance to manage the prejudice and discrimination she would likely face. If they hoped to be this support and to have continued influence on her life, they had to respect her life experience. The Davises were surprised by the therapist’s directness. Additionally, the practitioner reminded Danielle that she had known about her sexual identity a lot longer than her mom and stepfather had. While she had become used to the idea, the information was new to her parents. The therapist told Danielle that she needed to figure out how to respect her mother and stepfather while she was continuing to explore her identity and new romantic relationship. The practitioner used a combination of “intensity” and “empathy” to do this. As the therapist and the family entered Step 5, boundary making, the therapist suggested that two subsystems in the family – the couple subsystem and the parents/child subsystem – could benefit from clearer boundaries. Danielle and her stepfather tended not to speak much (having a rigid boundary), while Danielle and her mother were fairly enmeshed. Additionally, the couple’s boundary with each other was somewhat rigid. The therapist suggested to Mrs. Davis that she might want to concentrate on talking with her husband more and being less concerned about the “problem” of Danielle’s coming out. Indeed, the therapist hypothesized that Mrs. Davis communicating with her husband more and trying to control her daughter less could be healthier for the family. Using empathy, the therapist could communicate this in a way that Mrs. Davis could hear. Moving to Step 6, the therapist shifted to unbalancing, in which Mrs. Davis and Danielle shared some of the pain that predated Danielle’s coming out; Mrs. Davis had wanted to control Danielle because Mrs. Davis felt guilty about divorcing Danielle’s father. Danielle was unaware of this but knew she didn’t like being controlled and interrupted by her mother. Separately, the therapist worked with Danielle’s and her stepfather’s relationship, as well as the couple’s relationship with each other. The goal of this work was to create clearer boundaries. The culmination of this stage was that Danielle’s coming out served as a catalyst for an intervention, the outcome of which was that Danielle felt empowered to become more independent and assertive in her continuing coming out process and new romantic relationship. She did so in a manner that was more respectful to her mother and stepfather. Mrs. Davis, in turn, apologized to her daughter for trying to control her for years; Mr. Davis stated he recognized ways in which Mrs. Davis was controlling of Danielle. Further, he regretted that he had benefited from Mrs. Davis controlling Danielle. He may have even encouraged it since it got him out of having tense discussions. Rather, in the future, he could just stay out of it and let Danielle and Mrs. Davis handle any conflicts that arose. The couple was inspired to begin healthier communication with one another. As the family began to experience clearer boundaries, increased communication, and independence, Mr. and Mrs. Davis were asked by the therapist to look at some of their assumptions about the meaning of Danielle’s lesbian identity. Mrs. Davis realized that she was proud of her daughter no matter what, and while it would still take some adjustment, she wanted to support her daughter. Both Danielle and Mrs. Davis listened more to Mr. Davis’s honest concern with loving his stepdaughter and his wife and yet still needing to reconcile this with his religion. The therapist suggested that the family seek spiritual support through consultation
EliteLearning.com/Psychology
Book Code: PYCA1423
Page 10
Powered by FlippingBook