The Alienation of Supportance: The RelationField of High-Conflict Divorce (HCD)
A Case Study Based on the Supportance-RelationField Framework
June 19, 2026
by Oliver Ding
In my previous article, Supportances in Intimate Relationships: A Theoretical Framework (Ding, 2026), I applied Supportance Theory and the RelationField framework to the domain of intimate relationships for the first time. Drawing on theoretical resources from Heinz Kohut's self psychology and family sociology, I developed a systematic typology of Supportances specific to intimate relationship contexts—distinguishing psychological Supportances (Mirroring, Idealizing, Twinship) from functional Supportances (Economic, Parenting, Social Capital, Informational, Domestic, Companionship).
The present article continues this line of inquiry, but shifts focus to a highly distinctive and extreme condition: High-Conflict Divorce (HCD) . HCD is not merely an aggravated form of divorce; it is a qualitatively different relational configuration—one in which the very systems designed to provide support become the primary instruments of attack. In this article, I conceptualize HCD as a special type of RelationField—an HCD RelationField—whose internal logic and operational dynamics depart radically from those of ordinary intimate relation fields.
Drawing on empirical data from a doctoral dissertation that documented the clinical experiences of nine court-involved therapists working with HCD cases (Soal, 2025), this case study employs the RelationField v3.0 framework to analyze the structure and transformation of the HCD RelationField across its complete life cycle. The analysis traces how the R-S-N-C (Relation-Support-Narrative-Curation) dimensions shift from sustaining relational bonds to enabling systematic adversarialism. Through this examination, the study identifies a central theoretical phenomenon: the alienation of Supportance—the systematic transformation of Supportance from positive to negative. This phenomenon, while latent in ordinary relational contexts, becomes starkly visible under the extreme conditions of HCD, thereby testing and confirming Supportance Theory's presupposition of Supportance's dual character.
This case study thus serves a dual purpose: it extends the application of the Supportance-RelationField framework into a new and challenging domain, and it uses an extreme case as a stress test of the theory's core assumptions, revealing both the framework's explanatory power and the directions for further theoretical development.
Contents
Introduction
Part One: Background and Theoretical Foundations
1.1 High-Conflict Divorce (HCD): A Formal Definition
1.2 Core Participants in the HCD RelationField
1.3 Court-Involved Psychotherapy vs. Ordinary Psychotherapy
1.4 Supportance Theory and Intimate Relationships
1.5 The RelationField v3.0 Framework
Part Two: The Soal (2025) Study and Its Aggregated Case
2.1 Data Source: The Soal (2025) Study
2.2 Method of Aggregated Case Construction
2.3 Case Timeline Overview
Part Three: Emergence and Reconfiguration of the RelationField
3.1 Phase One: Internal Fracture of the Intimate Relation Field
3.2 Phase Two: Institutional Intervention and RelationField Reconfiguration
Part Four: Comprehensive Alienation of R-S-N-C
4.1 R (Relation): The Polarization of Parental Relations
4.2 S (Supportance): The Systematic Alienation of Supportance—Transformation from Positive to Negative
4.3 N (Narrative): Mutually Conflicting Narratives
4.4 C (Curation): From "Transmitting Meaning" to "Constructing Legal Evidence"
Part Five: Structural Pathologies and Termination of the Relation Field
5.1 Triangulation
5.2 Therapist Countertransference
5.3 The Termination of the Relation Field
Part Six: Theoretical Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Structural Characteristics of the HCD RelationField
6.2 Contributions to the Supportance-RelationField Framework
6.3 Methodological Significance of the Case Analysis
Conclusion
References
Introduction
This case study examines a highly distinctive life situation: the RelationField of High-Conflict Divorce (HCD) —the relational space constituted around high-conflict divorce cases. Within this field, institutional systems originally designed to provide support and services—psychological counseling, court procedures, financial arrangements, parenting coordination—are all drawn into a systematic logic of adversarial confrontation. Their function reverses from "sustaining" to "destroying," from "supporting" to "attacking."
This is precisely the core meaning of "alienation" in the title of this article.
Here, "alienation" is not used in a broad philosophical or sociological sense. Rather, it designates a specific process within the framework of Supportance Theory: the systematic transformation of Supportance from positive to negative.
- By "positive Supportance," I refer to the action possibilities that the social environment offers for individual development, relational maintenance, and self-realization—such as mirroring, idealizing, economic sharing, and co-parenting.
- By "negative Supportance," I refer to the capture and re-coding of these same types of action possibilities by individuals or institutions as tools for attacking the other, manufacturing insecurity, and destroying trust.
The nature of Supportance itself does not change—it remains "potential supportive action opportunities offered by the environment"—but its functional character undergoes a fundamental reversal: from enabling constructive engagement to enabling destructive opposition.
The HCD RelationField case selected for this study is a paradigmatic presentation of this alienation process.
To this end, this article traces the complete life cycle of an HCD RelationField—from emergence to dissolution—based on an aggregated case, employing the Supportance Theory and RelationField v3.0 frameworks to examine, dimension by dimension, the transformations in R (Relation), S (Support), N (Narrative), and C (Curation).
The study has three core objectives: first, to describe the structural characteristics and generative conditions of the HCD RelationField; second, to reveal how Supportance within it transforms from positive to negative; and third, to use this extreme case as a test of Supportance Theory's theoretical presuppositions—particularly its postulate of the dual character of Supportance—and to explore the implications for the design of support systems.
Part One: Background and Theoretical Foundations
This case study focuses on a highly distinctive life situation: the relational space formed around high-conflict divorce cases. Before proceeding with the analysis, it is necessary to establish the basic operational logic of this life situation, the core social phenomenon that defines it (high-conflict divorce itself), and the theoretical tools we will use to dissect it (Supportance Theory and RelationField v3.0).
This background will help readers understand why this life situation is not merely "two people in litigation," but a highly structured, multi-actor institutional space in which the support system undergoes comprehensive alienation—a space that I will formally conceptualize as the RelationField of High-Conflict Divorce (HCD) in the sections that follow.
1.1 High-Conflict Divorce (HCD): A Formal Definition
Not all divorces evolve into the HCD RelationField. The vast majority of divorces are resolved through negotiation or routine legal procedures, allowing the parties to transition to new life circumstances within a reasonable timeframe. However, approximately 10% to 20% of divorce cases enter a distinctive, extreme trajectory, defined in the literature as High-Conflict Divorce (HCD) .
According to Johnston's (1994) classic definition, HCD comprises three critical dimensions:
- Temporal dimension: Conflict persisting beyond 2 years, far exceeding the normal duration of divorce proceedings;
- Behavioral dimension: Sustained hostile interactions, including verbal aggression, threats, obstruction, and contempt;
- Institutional dimension: Heavy reliance on court involvement, with repeated litigation, multiple hearings, and frequent modifications of custody or visitation orders.
In high-conflict divorce, parental interaction patterns have fundamentally shifted from "cooperative parenting" to "adversarial confrontation." Conflict is no longer "about arrangements for the children" but "about attacking the other parent through the children." This renders HCD profoundly and enduringly damaging to the mental health of family members, particularly children—comparable in its destructiveness to physical abuse or emotional neglect (Joyce, 2016).
The Link Between HCD and Personality Issues: Extensive research indicates that in HCD cases, at least one parent typically exhibits significant personality disorders or personality features, most commonly Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) . The characteristics of these parents—lack of empathy, black-and-white thinking, emotion dysregulation, extreme sensitivity to rejection—not only contributed to the breakdown of the marriage but also make the divorce process itself a sustained psychological battleground (Polak & Saini, 2019; Rosenfeld et al., 2019).
The data for this case study are drawn from Soal's (2025) doctoral dissertation, which systematically documented, through semi-structured interviews with nine court-involved therapists, their clinical experiences in HCD cases, with particular attention to the profound impact of parental personality issues on the therapeutic process.
1.2 Core Participants in the HCD RelationField
The RelationField of High-Conflict Divorce comprises five categories of core participants, each occupying a distinct structural role. Understanding these roles and their positions within the field is a prerequisite for the subsequent analysis of the R-S-N-C four-dimensional structure.
| Role | Structural Position in the Field | Core Driver/Interest |
|---|---|---|
| Husband (Father) | One initiating party; often identified as exhibiting narcissistic/borderline personality traits | Maintain control over children; preserve the social image of a "good father"; defeat the mother in court |
| Wife (Mother) | One responding party; often identified as exhibiting anxious/reactive traits | Protect children from the father's influence; obtain legal and psychological Supportance; be "heard" by the court |
| Child | The core object of contestation; dual identity as both "contested object" and "subject with voice" | Survive parental conflict; maintain emotional connection to both parents (or be forced to sever one) |
| Psychotherapist | Court-appointed treatment provider; "clinical-forensic" hybrid role | Provide a safe therapeutic space for the child; maintain professional neutrality; defend against triangulation and professional risks |
| Judge and Legal Personnel | Institutional authority; rule-setter and final arbiter of the field | "Close" the case within the legal framework; make decisions under the definition of "the best interests of the child" |
1.3 Court-Involved Psychotherapy vs. Ordinary Psychotherapy
In ordinary clinical contexts, the relationship between psychotherapist and client is based on a relatively clear premise: the client voluntarily seeks help, treatment goals are mutually negotiated, and confidentiality is strictly protected by law and ethics.
In the HCD RelationField, however, this premise is fundamentally rewritten. The table below summarizes the core differences:
| Dimension | Ordinary Psychotherapy | Court-Involved Psychotherapy in the HCD RelationField |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Participation | Voluntary, client-initiated | Mandatory/court-ordered; parties are often not voluntary |
| Service Recipient | The client (individual, couple, or family) | Typically the child, but parents and the court system are major influences on the treatment process |
| Treatment Goal | Client-defined mental health goals | Court-defined or parent-defined goals (e.g., "make the child willing to see one parent") |
| Confidentiality | Strongly protected by law, limited exceptions | Severely restricted—therapist may be subpoenaed; treatment records may be accessed |
| Therapist Role | Purely clinical therapist | "Clinical-Forensic Hybrid Role" , requiring simultaneous attention to treatment and court requirements |
| Relationship with Third Parties | Limited, generally only referral or necessary communication | Deeply entangled—ongoing engagement with judges, attorneys, Guardians ad Litem (GAL), and others |
| Payment | Insurance, self-pay | Typically self-pay by parents, allocated by court order; higher fees than ordinary therapy |
The "Safe Harbor" Agreement: To protect the therapeutic relationship within the extreme environment of the HCD RelationField, court-involved therapists have developed a distinctive institutional tool—the Safe Harbor Agreement. This agreement, signed by the judge, both parents, and the therapist, stipulates that the therapist will not be subpoenaed to testify and that treatment records will not be used as court evidence. Its purpose is to demarcate a "demilitarized zone" within the "war zone," allowing the child to receive treatment in a relatively safe space. However, as Soal (2025) reveals, this agreement is frequently challenged or ignored by parents in high-conflict situations, and its effectiveness depends heavily on the judge's enforcement and the cooperation of both parents.
1.4 Supportance Theory and Intimate Relationships
Supportance Theory, as developed by Oliver Ding, offers the following core definition:
Supportance: A potential supportive action possibility offered by the social environment. It exists neither solely in the environment nor solely in the individual, but in the ecological encounter between a subject and the structured social world.
The concept was first developed in October 2020, emerging from an effort to extend James Gibson's ecological psychology from the domain of natural environments into the domain of social life. Gibson defined affordance as what the environment offers the animal—what it provides or furnishes, for good or ill. The concept implies complementarity: an affordance exists neither in the environment alone nor in the organism alone, but in the relational encounter between them.
Like affordance, Supportance is relational and ecological: it exists neither in the environment alone nor in the person alone, but in the encounter between a subject and the structured social world. Unlike affordance, it specifically concerns human-to-human interaction, and therefore introduces the intentional/non-intentional distinction that arises when both parties have agency.
This distinction is what separates Supportance from the existing concept of social support. Social support, as typically theorized, is something one person provides to another—it is dispensed by the provider and received by the recipient. Supportance, by contrast, is something perceived and actualized by the receiver. Person A may not intend to support Person B, yet Person B can nevertheless perceive and actualize a Supportance that Person A's presence, knowledge, or activity indirectly offers. This asymmetry is fundamental to the ecological character of the concept: it locates the decisive act in the receiver's perception and actualization, not in the provider's intention. Without this distinction, Supportance collapses into a mere synonym for social support; with it, the concept opens a genuinely different analytical space.
In the context of intimate relationships, Supportance Theory integrates insights from Heinz Kohut's self psychology and family sociology to develop a two-group typology of Supportance:
A. Psychological Supportances—Derived from Selfobject Experiences
| Type of Supportance | Definition | Manifestation in Intimate Relationships |
|---|---|---|
| Mirroring | The experience of being seen, recognized, and affirmed | The partner genuinely receives and responds to the other's achievements, joys, sorrows, and ideas |
| Idealizing | The experience of being able to look up to and rely on a calm, strong, trustworthy other | The partner as a stable, reliable anchor in times of stress or uncertainty |
| Twinship | The experience of essential likeness—"we are the same kind" | Deep resonance in values, unspoken attunement, a shared rhythm of life |
B. Functional Supportances—Derived from Family Sociology
| Type of Supportance | Definition | Manifestation in Intimate Relationships |
|---|---|---|
| Economic | Action possibilities arising from shared income, assets, and risks | Financial security, shared stability, or conversely, economic constraint and dependency |
| Parenting | Action possibilities arising from shared caregiving responsibilities | Shared responsibility, developmental partnership, or conversely, absence and antagonism |
| Status & Social Capital | Expansion of one's possibilities through the partner's social networks | Access to networks, professional resources, institutional legitimacy |
| Informational & Cognitive | Sharing of knowledge, perspectives, and skills | Complementary expertise, shared cognitive frameworks, or informational closure |
| Domestic & Practical | Action possibilities arising from household labor, care work, and logistical coordination | Availability of time, energy, and attention—the most material form of Supportance |
| Companionship & Belonging | The experience of not being alone in another's presence | The accumulated texture of shared life, a sense of "home" |
Ding also proposed a fourfold classification of Meta-Supportance, locating the functional orientation of different types of Supportance within the social field:
- Subject-Focused Meta-Supportance: The social environment offers possibilities for the subject to expand its own capabilities (e.g., Mirroring Supportance, Social Capital Supportance);
- Object-Focused Meta-Supportance: The social environment sustains and maintains the object in its own right, not as a mere instrument (e.g., the "for the child's own sake" dimension of Parenting Supportance);
- Mutual Meta-Supportance: Supportance co-evolves and is mutually reinforcing between subjects (e.g., Twinship Supportance, healthy co-parenting);
- Continuous Meta-Supportance: Supportance sustains the coherence and continuity of relationships and life trajectories (e.g., Economic Supportance, Domestic Supportance, Companionship Supportance).
The core theoretical proposition of this case study will be developed progressively in the following sections: in the HCD RelationField, all of the above types of Supportance undergo a fundamental "alienation"—they are reversed from bonds that sustain relationships into weapons used to attack the other.
1.5 The RelationField v3.0 Framework
RelationField v3.0 is a complementary model developed from the analysis of the social environment, answering a fundamental question: "What is the structure of the social environment in which Supportance is embedded?"
The framework's core unit of analysis is:
Subject–Subject (Subject–Object) = RelationField
That is, a relation field consists of a kernel—the relation between a subject and an object (person or thing)—and an outer ring—how that relation is carried, narrated, and transmitted among subjects. Simply put, my relation to the other is not merely a matter of "me and that object," but also a matter of "how I and others understand and transmit this relation."
To dissect the internal structure of a relation field, RelationField v3.0 proposes the R-S-N-C four-dimensional model:
| Dimension | Definition | Analytical Focus |
|---|---|---|
| R (Relation) | What type of connection exists between the subject and the other pole (person or thing) | What is the basis of the relation (affect? power? interest?)? What is its tone (warm/cold? trust/suspicion?)? |
| S (Support) | What Supportances are available for perception and actualization within this field | In what forms do psychological and functional Supportances exist in this field? Are they activated or blocked? |
| N (Narrative) | How does the subject narrate and interpret the relation field | What is the core narrative? "Who am I" in this story? Does the narrative change within the field? |
| C (Curation) | How does the subject select, organize, and transmit experience from this field | What is preserved and what is omitted? How is experience transformed into "thematic objects" usable by others? |
Of these four dimensions, R and S constitute the "structural" level of the relation field—they exist prior to any particular subject's engagement; N and C constitute the "subjective" level—they can only be realized through the subject's active participation and interpretation. Both are co-present, together composing the complete picture of a relation field.
RelationField v3.0 also introduces the concept of "Curation as a linking mechanism between relationfields" : the narrative of one relation field, through curation (e.g., preservation, writing, telling), can be transformed into a thematic object that opens another relation field, extending its meaning across time and space (e.g., Yan Fu's chair, curated as a thematic object of "East-West dialogue," opening subsequent visitors' relation fields).
In this case study, we will trace how the R-S-N-C four-dimensional structure of the HCD RelationField undergoes a fundamental transformation from "sustaining function" to "comprehensive alienation" across its life cycle from emergence to dissolution.
Part Two: The Soal (2025) Study and Its Aggregated Case
2.1 Data Source: The Soal (2025) Study
The analytical material for this report is drawn from Soal, T. A. (2025) 's doctoral dissertation, Therapists' Experiences in Cases of High-Conflict Divorce Among Individuals With Personality Issues. This descriptive qualitative study collected professional narratives from nine court-involved therapists through semi-structured interviews (Zoom video, 45-60 minutes each).
Participant Overview (Soal, 2025, Table 2):
| ID | Gender | Region (US) | Years of Experience | Degree/License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | F | Pacific West | 10 | MSW/LCSW |
| P2 | F | Pacific West | 16 | Doctor of Behavioral Health/LPC |
| P3 | F | Northeast | 28 | MSW/LCSW |
| P4 | F | Pacific West | 18 | MFT |
| P5 | M | Pacific West | 18 | MSW/LCSW |
| P6 | F | West North Central | 10 | PhD/Psychologist |
| P7 | F | Pacific West | 20 | MSW/LCSW |
| P8 | F | Mountain West | 10 | MSW/LCSW |
| P9 | F | East North Central | 8 | Mental Health Counseling/LPCC-S |
Research Ethics and Anonymity: The Soal (2025) study received IRB approval from Walden University; all participants provided informed consent; data have been anonymized. This report preserves the original anonymous identifiers in citations.
2.2 Method of Aggregated Case Construction
It should be clearly stated: this report is not a case narrative of any specific individual from the Soal (2025) study. The original data of Soal (2025) consists of nine therapists' discrete narratives of multiple different HCD cases; no single case is presented in its entirety as a continuous, temporal story.
Soal (2025) organized her findings thematically, extracting four structural themes that recurred across the nine therapists' narratives: triangulation, board complaints, identification of personality issues, and therapist strategies. While thematic aggregation of this kind is useful for identifying structural patterns across cases, it does not directly capture the temporal dimension—how an HCD case unfolds, develops, and transforms over time.
To address this, I employed Activity Analysis as the specific method for constructing the aggregated case. Rather than focusing primarily on what themes appear across cases, I attend to how the therapists narrate HCD as an evolving activity—the sequence of events, the turning points, the shifts in relational dynamics, the changes in what is at stake and who is involved. In other words, I treat the therapists' narratives not merely as sources of thematic content but as descriptions of a process unfolding over time.
In this way, I build a canonical case of HCD with narrative coherence, which serves as the foundation for the HCD RelationField analysis. This methodological choice aligns with established practices in qualitative cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and data aggregation (Weis & Willems, 2016), which aim to identify structural patterns that recur across multiple instances of a phenomenon. This approach aligns with the RelationField framework's analytical preference for "structural relations" rather than "individual biographies," aiming to reveal the general operational logic of this type of RelationField rather than the unique experiences of any specific individual.
2.3 The Life Cycle of an HCD RelationField
Based on the Activity Analysis described above, I identify a shared temporal pattern across the nine therapists' narratives. Despite variations in specific details—the personalities of the parents, the age of the child, the jurisdiction of the court—the accounts converge on a common arc: from marital conflict escalation, through court intervention and relationfield reconfiguration, through sustained litigation and adversarial interactions, to eventual termination through exhaustion rather than repair.
The HCD RelationField thus follows a four-phase developmental trajectory:
| Phase | Core Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Phase One: Internal Fracture of the Intimate RelationField | Marital conflict escalates from everyday discord to systematic opposition; child is drawn into parental conflict; Supportance begins to transform from sustaining bonds into instruments of attack. This phase precedes court involvement and is described retrospectively by therapists. |
| Phase Two: Institutional Intervention and RelationField Reconfiguration | Court filing initiates legal proceedings; judge appoints a psychotherapist; a legal code overlays the intimate relation code. The RelationField splits from a single intersubjective space into two adversarial legal camps. The therapist enters the RelationField as a neutral party but is immediately perceived by both parents as a potential ally or adversary. |
| Phase Three: Comprehensive Alienation of R-S-N-C | The most intensive phase of the life cycle. Relation polarizes into adversarial opposition. Supportance is systematically turned from positive to negative. Mutually conflicting narratives solidify into deadlock. Curation shifts from transmitting meaning to constructing legal evidence. Triangulation intensifies. Therapist countertransference emerges. |
| Phase Four: Termination—Exhaustion Rather than Repair | The case concludes not through reconciliation or resolution, but through exhaustion of resources. A final court ruling is issued, or a party withdraws from litigation, or the therapist terminates the therapeutic relationship. The RelationField dissolves, but its effects persist as traumatic aftereffects. |
The following should be noted about this four-phase structure:
- It is an analytical reconstruction, not an empirical stage model. The phases are derived from temporal patterns embedded in the therapists' narratives, not from a longitudinal study tracking individual cases over time.
- The phases are not strictly sequential in all cases. Some overlap may occur; some cases may not fully complete all four phases. The model captures a typical trajectory, not a universal one.
- The structure has four phases, not more or fewer, because the therapists' narratives consistently describe four structurally distinct periods. No therapist described a "reconciliation phase" following the adversarial period. What they described, repeatedly, was a trajectory that moves from a pre-existing conflict, through institutional entry, through sustained adversarialism, to termination through exhaustion.
For readers interested in the detailed activity analysis and the specific therapist quotations that support each phase, please refer to Appendix A, where the original temporal markers from Soal (2025) are presented and analyzed phase by phase.
Part Three: Emergence and Reconfiguration of the RelationField
Having established the four-phase developmental trajectory of the HCD RelationField (Section 2.3), this Part focuses on Phase One and Phase Two.
3.1 Phase One: Internal Fracture of the Intimate RelationField
Prior to court intervention, the RelationField was structured as an intimate relation field—the couple constituted the kernel of the RelationField as "spouses," with the child present as a product and extension of the relationship. In this phase, the R-S-N-C functioned to sustain relational continuity:
- R (Relation): Bound by emotional attachment, economic interdependence, and shared parenting commitments;
- S (Support): Mirroring (mutual recognition, being seen), Idealizing (mutual reliance, trustworthiness), economic sharing, daily companionship, shared parenting;
- N (Narrative): Shared narratives of "we are a family," "we are co-parents";
- C (Curation): Joint future planning, preservation of family memories, presentation of the "good family" image to outsiders.
As conflict escalated beyond resolution, a critical structural turning point occurred: Supportance began to transform from sustaining bonds into tools of attack. The husband dismissed the wife's emotional expressions as "irrational"; the wife interpreted the husband's financial control as "emotional abuse"; the child ceased to provide shared meaning ("we do this for the child") and instead became a battleground for "who wins the child."
Theoretical Mark: At this point, the RelationField was in transition—the shift from "intimate" to "adversarial" mode was incomplete, but R-S-N-C had developed serious fissures. The court system's intervention found its legitimacy in precisely this structural gap.
3.2 Phase Two: Institutional Intervention and RelationField Reconfiguration
When the mother filed for divorce and petitioned for temporary custody, the court overlaid a legal code onto the former intimate relation code. This "recoding" operation consisted of:
- Naming: Redefining "marital conflict" as "custody dispute" and "parental responsibility allocation";
- Introducing new subjects: Appointing a psychotherapist as "court-involved therapist," and engaging attorneys for both parents;
- Setting rules: Specifying visitation times, child support amounts, and communication protocols (typically written or through third parties);
- Temporal framing: Containing the unbounded family conflict within a legal procedure with a terminal point (though often far exceeding initial expectations).
The most critical consequence of this intervention was: the RelationField split from a single intersubjective space into two adversarial legal camps. Husband and wife ceased to be "spouses" to each other and became "adversarial parties" to each other. The therapist, introduced by the court to provide neutral support for the child, was perceived by both parents as a potential ally or potential adversary. At this point, a complete HCD RelationField had formally taken shape.
Soal (2025) citation (P9) :
"The father wanted to control the entire narrative. Anything that was not 'you should have custody of your daughter' was unwelcome. He loved to get me on the phone—it was very berating. But then when we did face-to-face, he always brought his wife, so there was someone who had his side and not mine."
This citation reveals a micro-mechanism: one parent not only opposes the other but also attempts to recruit the therapist into their camp. The therapist's "neutrality" is interpreted as "disloyalty."
3.3 The Alienation of Intimate Supportances in Phase Two
While the court's recoding operation is the formal characteristic of Phase Two, it simultaneously triggers a deeper transformation: the systematic alienation of the Supportances inherent in the intimate relationship itself.
The Supportances at issue here are not external supports inserted into the relationship from outside—they are the very fabric of the intimate relationship: the mutual recognition that enables each partner to feel seen and valued (Mirroring); the mutual reliance that provides a stable ground in times of uncertainty (Idealizing); the deep sense of essential likeness that makes one feel at home in the other's presence (Twinship); the economic interdependence that sustains a shared life; the co-parenting partnership that raises children together; the daily companionship that gives texture to life; the shared knowledge and perspective that makes sense of the world together.
When the intimate RelationField is recoded into adversarial legal camps, these same Supportances do not disappear. They are turned around. They become instruments of attack.
| Type of Supportance | Positive Supportance (in intimate phase) | Negative Alienation (in Phase Two and beyond) |
|---|---|---|
| Mirroring | Being seen, being recognized | Devaluing the other's reality (Gaslighting) |
| Idealizing | Relying on a stable, trustworthy other | Presenting the other as fundamentally untrustworthy and dangerous |
| Twinship | Deep resonance of shared values and rhythm | Emphasizing fundamental difference and incompatibility; framing the other as "not like me" |
| Economic | Resource sharing, mutual stability | Hiding assets; refusing to pay shared expenses; treating child support as "giving the other an advantage" |
| Parenting | Co-parenting children | Obstructing visitation; implanting negative images of the other in the child; using the child as a messenger of retaliation |
| Social Capital & Networks | Shared social networks, mutual friends | Mobilizing family, friends, and professionals into "tribal warfare" (Roseby & Johnston, 1997) |
| Informational & Cognitive | Knowledge sharing, complementary perspectives | Selective disclosure; using intimate knowledge as leverage |
| Companionship & Belonging | The experience of not being alone in another's presence | Weaponizing shared history; using intimate knowledge to inflict emotional damage; rewriting the shared past as a narrative of betrayal |
This table demonstrates that the alienation of Supportance begins here, as the intimate RelationField is recoded into adversarial camps. The Supportances that once sustained the relationship—its very fabric—are systematically inverted. Each becomes a resource for the ongoing conflict rather than a bond that holds the relationship together.
This sets the stage for Phase Three, where court-related Supportances (court-appointed therapy, safe harbor agreements, forensic assessments) enter the field and undergo their own alienation, adding a new institutional layer to the dynamics already underway.
Part Four: High-Conflict Adversarial Interactions
Having examined how the intimate RelationField fractures and reconfigures through court involvement (Phases One and Two), this Part now turns to Phase Three—the most intensive and sustained period of the HCD RelationField life cycle.
A note on scope: The alienation of Supportance is a phenomenon that runs throughout the entire trajectory. It begins in Phase One—when the husband dismisses the wife's emotional expressions as “irrational” and the wife interprets the husband's financial control as “emotional abuse”—and continues through all subsequent phases. The intimate Supportances inherent in the relationship—mirroring, idealizing, economic sharing, parenting, companionship—undergo systematic inversion during Phase Two, as discussed in Section 3.2.
What distinguishes Phase Three is the emergence of a new layer of Supportance: the institutionally designed mechanisms introduced by the court system—court-appointed therapy, safe harbor agreements, forensic assessments, and legal procedures for custody and visitation. These Supportances did not exist in the intimate RelationField prior to court involvement. When they enter the HCD RelationField during Phase Two and become fully operational in Phase Three, they are drawn into the same adversarial logic that has already transformed the intimate Supportances. Their alienation takes specific, institutionally visible forms—such as filing licensing board complaints against the therapist, using court procedures to manufacture chronic insecurity, and forcing therapists into triangulated positions.
This Part examines Phase Three through the R-S-N-C framework. Each dimension is analyzed in its phase-specific manifestation, with particular attention to how Phase Three's institutional overlay introduces new dynamics that accelerate the comprehensive alienation of the RelationField.
4.1 R (Relation): The Polarization of Parental Relations
Entering Phase Three, the core relational form of the HCD RelationField underwent a qualitative transformation. The parents' relationship—which in the intimate phase was characterized by emotional attachment, economic interdependence, and shared parenting commitments—became defined by adversarial opposition. Each parent came to perceive the other not as a partner but as an adversary, and the goal of interaction shifted from communication and problem-solving to exposure, attack, and defeating the other in court.
The father in one of the cases described by P9 illustrates this polarization in its most extreme form:
"He loved to get me on the phone. It was very berating when it was just a phone call. But then when we did have face-to-face, he always brought his wife, so there was someone who had his side and not mine. He wanted to control the narrative. Anything that was not 'you should have custody of your daughter' was unwelcome." (P9)
In this case, the father refused written communication (to avoid creating evidence), only engaged in conversation when a witness (the new wife) was present, and made repeated calls to the professional office for hours at a time to exert pressure. He no longer regarded the therapist as a helper, but as an object on the battlefield to be controlled and subjugated.
Soal (2025) citation (P9) :
"He kept trying to triangulate me into the court process. I was feeling crazy, right? Like 'you never said this, I never said that'—God, I have notes."
The case described by P9 is not an isolated example. Similar patterns appeared across multiple therapists' accounts: parents who treated the therapist as an extension of the legal battlefield, who interpreted neutrality as disloyalty, and who attempted to control the therapeutic process in service of their adversarial goals. This relational polarization—in which the other parent becomes an enemy, and anyone who does not take sides becomes a target—is the defining relational feature of Phase Three.
4.2 S (Supportance): The Alienation of Court-Related Supportances
While the intimate Supportances underwent their transformation in Phase Two, Phase Three introduces a distinct layer of Supportance: the institutionally designed mechanisms brought into the RelationField by the court system.
These court-related Supportances include:
- Court-appointed therapy for the child
- Safe harbor agreements designed to protect therapeutic confidentiality
- Forensic assessments and custody evaluations
- Legal procedures governing visitation, parenting time, and child support
- The therapist's role as a “clinical-forensic hybrid”
In Phase Three, these mechanisms—designed to provide structure, protection, and support—are drawn into the adversarial logic that has already consumed the intimate relationship. They become instruments in the ongoing conflict rather than resources for its resolution.
| Court-Related Supportance | Intended Positive Function | Negative Alienation in Phase Three |
|---|---|---|
| Court-appointed therapy | Provide neutral therapeutic support for the child | Therapist is triangulated; perceived as an ally or adversary by each parent |
| Safe harbor agreements | Protect therapeutic confidentiality and prevent subpoena | Parents challenge or ignore the agreement; demand access to therapy records |
| Forensic assessments | Provide objective evaluation for custody decisions | Assessments are weaponized; findings are selectively used to attack the other parent |
| Legal procedures (custody, visitation, support) | Establish fair and stable arrangements | Procedures are used to manufacture delay, expense, and chronic insecurity |
| Licensing board complaints | (Not intended as a Supportance—but the board complaint process is a feature of the professional regulatory system) | Parents use complaints against therapists as a weapon to punish neutrality or unfavorable outcomes |
Therapist as the focal point of court-related alienation:
The therapist occupies a unique position in Phase Three. They are simultaneously a Supportance provider (to the child) and a recipient of court-related Supportances (such as safe harbor agreements). This dual position makes them vulnerable to alienation from both directions.
Soal (2025) citation (P1) :
“It's pretty clear in the complaint narrative that this is a person who's unhappy with not necessarily any actions the therapist took but with the outcome over which we have no control. ... I knock on wood, pray to whatever God you pray to, that I have never received that letter. I have colleagues that have. But that's also why I'm very, very careful and have very, very extensive boundaries—because it minimizes my chances of having a complaint founded.”
This citation illustrates a key mechanism of court-related Supportance alienation: the licensing board complaint process—which exists to regulate professional conduct—is repurposed as a weapon against therapists who are perceived as not supporting one parent's position. The complaint is not about what the therapist did; it is about the outcome of the case.
Soal (2025) citation (P6) :
“Unfortunately, we get caught in the crossfire. Therapists involved with high conflict courts get more complaints to the board, more lawsuits, more bad reviews. It's very common.”
4.3 N (Narrative): Mutually Conflicting Narratives
In Phase Three, the HCD RelationField contains several mutually conflicting narratives, each rooted in the structural position of its speaker:
The Father's Narrative (Camp A) :
"I am a good father, deprived of my relationship with my daughter by a psychologically unstable mother and an unjust court. The therapist has been manipulated by the mother."
The Mother's Narrative (Camp B) :
(Although not directly interviewed in Soal (2025), inferable from therapists' indirect descriptions:)
"I am protecting my child from a narcissistic, controlling father. The court system does not understand the victim's predicament; the therapist's neutrality amounts to condoning abuse."
The Therapist's Narrative (Attempting Transcendence) :
"I must treat the child while maintaining a professional relationship with the court. I need clinical neutrality, which means non-alignment. But I must defend against manipulation by parents, complaints, and being dragged into their conflict. My core strategy is clear, documented, legally defensible boundaries."
The Child's Narrative (Translated Silence) :
Multiple therapists in Soal (2025) described the typical presentation of "resist/refuse" children: refusing to be with one parent, missing school on transition days, exhibiting intense emotional alignment with the "favored" parent.
Soal (2025) citation (P4) :
"I have cases where kids refuse to be in the same room with a parent. They'll sit in the car and not get out. I've had horrible cases where kids run down the hallway and slam the door and refuse to be in the room with the parents."
The Formation of "Narrative Deadlock" : The four narrative positions are not merely mutually conflicting; each refuses to be falsified by the others. The father's narrative interprets the mother's concerns as "manipulation"; the mother's narrative interprets the father's behavior as "abuse"; both interpret the therapist's narrative as "bias"; the child's narrative is interpreted by the court as "unreliable" (due to age or potential contamination). Within this RelationField, no narrative can serve as a basis for shared understanding.
4.4 C (Curation): From "Transmitting Meaning" to "Constructing Legal Evidence"
Within the HCD RelationField in Phase Three, Curation undergoes a fundamental mutation. What was once the selection, organization, and transmission of meaningful experience becomes the strategic construction of legally admissible evidence.
| Dimension | Ordinary Curation | Curation in the HCD RelationField |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Transmitting meaning, preserving experience, inspiring others | Winning the legal battle |
| Object | Stories, memories, themes | Evidence—emails, recordings, notes, reports |
| Mode of Operation | Selecting, organizing, telling | Selecting, recording, archiving, submitting to court |
The Therapist's "Defensive Curation" :
Soal (2025) citation (P1) :
"I set a new boundary. First of all, I will only work with you if you're in co-parenting. Second of all, here is my new contract—'Safe Harbor.' You are not to ask me about the therapy [with the child]. I will let you know if your child is safe or unsafe. That is where the line stops. I won't testify. I won't be triangulated in."
This "Safe Harbor" contract perfectly exemplifies the therapist's curation practice: it actively delimits the scope of narrative (speaking only of "safety"), defines the boundaries of responsibility (not providing therapy content), and constructs legal defense (signed by both parties and the judge). Curation is no longer "connecting past and future through story," but "defending against present and future attack through legal texts."
Part Five: Structural Pathologies and Termination of the RelationField
Having examined how Phase Three brings high-conflict adversarial interactions across the R-S-N-C dimensions, this Part turns to two structural pathologies that intensify during this period—triangulation and therapist countertransference—and then traces the RelationField's trajectory into its final stage: Phase Four, termination through exhaustion rather than repair.
Triangulation operates as the core mechanism through which intimate Supportances are turned negative: it channels what were once sustaining bonds into adversarial tools. Therapist countertransference, in turn, reveals how the professional support system itself becomes eroded from within as therapists absorb the emotional toll of sustained litigation and adversarial interactions. These two pathologies are not incidental features of the HCD RelationField; they are structurally embedded in its logic and contribute directly to its eventual dissolution.
5.1 Triangulation
Within the RelationField framework, triangulation can be understood as the conduit mechanism through which Supportance is alienated. In a healthy family field, the parent-child relationship takes a binary, open structure. But within the HCD RelationField, it is forcibly transformed into a triangular, closed structure：
Father ←——→ Mother
↖ ↗
Child
- The father's strategy: Transmitting messages to the mother indirectly through the child; monitoring the mother's activities; forcing the child to take sides;
- The mother's strategy: Obtaining information about the father through the child; restricting the child's contact with the father in the name of "protection";
- The child's predicament: Caught in the middle; any choice betrays one parent; choosing neither is interpreted as "disloyal" by both.
Soal (2025) citation (P9) :
"The father would call for wellness checks at 4 am when the daughter was at the mother's house. The police would show up multiple times and ask if she was ok. The daughter bought a pen that recorded him scolding her, goading her into communicating with him. It was painful to listen to. The father had every other week because the mother had full custody."
The therapist is also drawn into triangulation, becoming a fourth point. The therapist cannot fully withdraw (court order requires engagement), but once engaged, is immersed in both parents' projections and manipulations.
Soal (2025) citation (P6) :
"Unfortunately, we get caught in the crossfire. Therapists involved with high conflict courts get more complaints to the board, more lawsuits, more bad reviews. It's very common."
Core Theoretical Proposition: Within the HCD RelationField, neutrality itself is a position—and one that both sides regard as insufficient.
5.2 Therapist Countertransference
Another key finding of Soal (2025) is that therapists in the HCD RelationField experience intense countertransference reactions—triggered by the parents' pathological personalities activating the therapist's own unresolved psychological conflicts.
| Type of Countertransference | Manifestation | Consequence for Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Idealization/Rescue | Over-identification with the "hurt" party, attempting to "save" the child | Loss of neutrality; accused of bias by the other party |
| Anger/Rejection | Intense anger at being manipulated and threatened | Withdrawal or termination of treatment; child loses Supportance |
| Anxiety/Paralysis | Fear of complaints, court, being drawn into conflict | Over-defensiveness; therapeutic relationship becomes rigid |
| Over-involvement | Excessive effort to "prove neutrality" | Professional burnout; personal life suffers |
Soal (2025) citation (P8) :
"I've been divorced twice. I was in a domestic violence relationship. So over the years, I have had moments where I have had to catch myself and be in my reactivity. ... So yes, I can be reactive, but I have been very good at catching myself and redirecting myself. Taking my personal feelings and reactions out of the situation."
Institutional strategies for managing countertransference (recurring in Soal, 2025):
- Peer consultation groups
- Personal therapy (multiple therapists were themselves in therapy)
- Legal consultation through professional liability insurance
- Deliberate caseload management
- Professional organization training (e.g., AFCC)
5.3 The Termination of the RelationField
The termination of the HCD RelationField is typically not reparative but exhaustive—participants (particularly the party with fewer economic or emotional resources) have exhausted the capital to continue fighting.
Typical paths to termination:
| Termination Path | Trigger | Impact on the RelationField |
|---|---|---|
| Final court ruling | Judge issues final custody/visitation order | At least one party dissatisfied; may appeal or engage in passive non-compliance |
| Economic exhaustion | One or both parties cannot continue paying legal/therapy fees | Voluntarily or forcibly withdraws from litigation; accepts unfavorable ruling |
| Therapist withdrawal | Therapist terminates due to stress, complaints, or ethical dilemmas | Child loses Supportance; transferred to another therapist (increased uncertainty) |
| Child aging out | Child reaches legal age of majority | Custody issues automatically cease, but parent-child relationship may be permanently fractured |
| Exhaustive settlement | Both parties exhausted; accept a "not good enough but acceptable" arrangement | RelationField transitions to "low-conflict coexistence," but scars remain |
The therapist's "traumatic imprint" after termination :
Soal (2025) citation (P2) :
"This one is the case that haunts me. I've worked with so many other families but this one—I was with them for like 2 1/2 years. It was very draining. But there was one day I forgot what I had done to perceivably upset him. He called our phone line nonstop for three hours. Three hours. We could not get any other calls out."
This narrative reveals a specific "traumatic imprint" event—three hours of non-stop calls—still vivid years later, demonstrating the profound emotional impact of the HCD RelationField on professional helpers.
Aftereffects:
- On the child: May develop emotion regulation difficulties, trust issues, fundamental suspicion of intimate relationships;
- On the parents: Traumatic legal experiences may crystallize extreme beliefs about "injustice," to be repeated in new relationships;
- On the therapist: May develop vicarious trauma, but may also develop stronger professional resilience and clearer boundaries.
Part Six: Theoretical Conclusions
This case study has examined the HCD RelationField through the lens of Supportance-RelationField v3.0 framework, drawing on empirical material from Soal's (2025) doctoral dissertation—a qualitative study based on interviews with nine court-involved therapists. As discussed in Section 2.2, the present analysis is not a case narrative of any specific individual from Soal's study, but an aggregated case construction derived from the therapists' accounts of how HCD cases typically unfold. Through Activity Analysis, I have reconstructed the temporal arc of the HCD RelationField and examined how its R-S-N-C dimensions shift across four developmental phases.
This Part distills the theoretical conclusions from the analysis. It summarizes the structural characteristics of the HCD RelationField as a distinct type of RelationField, identifies contributions to the Supportance-RelationField framework, reflects on the methodological significance of using an extreme case as a test of theory, and outlines limitations and future research directions.
6.1 Summary of Structural Characteristics of the HCD RelationField
The preceding analysis has traced the complete life cycle of the HCD RelationField across its four phases. The following table summarizes the structural characteristics that define this type of RelationField:
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Nestedness | The intimate RelationField is nested within the legal RelationField; the latter builds upon the former but ultimately subsumes and replaces it as the dominant organizational logic |
| Adversarial foundation | The RelationField operates not on cooperation or reciprocity, but on zero-sum adversarial interactions |
| Alienation of Supportance | All types of Supportance—both intimate and court-related—are systematically turned from positive to negative |
| Multiple Supportance sources | The HCD RelationField contains two distinct layers of Supportance: intimate Supportances (inherent in the relationship) and court-related Supportances (institutionally designed mechanisms). Both undergo alienation |
| Narrative deadlock | Multiple mutually conflicting narratives coexist, each refusing falsification by the others |
| Mutation of Curation | Curation transforms from "transmitting meaning" to "constructing legal evidence" |
| Structural pathologies | Triangulation and therapist countertransference intensify as the RelationField reaches its adversarial peak |
| Institutional exhaustion | The RelationField terminates not through repair but through exhaustion—dissolution when participants' resources are depleted |
| Traumatic aftereffects | After the RelationField dissolves, its effects persist as psychological trauma across all participants |
6.2 Contributions to the Supportance-RelationField Framework
The empirical analysis of this case study contributes to the Supportance-RelationField framework in the following respects:
- Empirical confirmation of Supportance's dual character: Supportance Theory posits that Supportance can be either positive or negative. This case study, under the extreme conditions of the HCD RelationField, provides systematic empirical evidence of the operational mechanisms of negative Supportance, thereby confirming the theory's core presupposition.
- "Transformation" as an analytical object: This case study reveals the conditions (institutionalization of hostility, personality pathology, collapse of mutual recognition) and mechanisms through which Supportance transforms from positive to negative. This process of "transformation" warrants further conceptualization within the theoretical framework.
- The therapist as a dual-positioned subject: The case study reveals that Supportance providers can simultaneously be Supportance recipients. The court-involved therapist is both a provider of Supportance to the child and a recipient of Supportance from the professional system. This dual position makes them vulnerable to a unique form of alienation—their own Supportance system becomes eroded from within through countertransference, even as they attempt to provide Supportance to others. This suggests that Supportance analysis must attend to the full positionality of actors within the RelationField, not merely their role as providers or recipients.
- Context-dependence of Curation: The form of Curation is highly dependent on the logic of the RelationField—in the judicial field, its legitimacy depends on the narrative form being "admissible in court," rather than "comprehensible to others."
- "Safe Harbor" as a novel Supportance mechanism: In certain high-conflict environments, "restricting Supportance" is itself a form of Supportance—preventing Supportance from becoming negative is more important than providing more of it. This expands our understanding of the forms Supportance provision can take.
- Neutrality as a structural position: The RelationField framework should acknowledge that, in certain fields, "maintaining neutrality" is itself a structural position with specific risks and costs, not merely a personal attitude.
6.3 Methodological Significance of the Case Analysis
The distinctive theoretical value of this case study lies precisely in its extremity.
The HCD RelationField is not the norm for intimate relationship dissolution—the vast majority of divorces are resolved through negotiation or routine legal procedures and do not escalate into such a systematically adversarial institutional space. Yet it is precisely this extremity that renders it a nearly "laboratory-like" testing ground for theory.
Supportance Theory has from the outset posited that Supportance can be either positive or negative: the action possibilities offered by the social environment can be either constructive or destructive. In ordinary intimate relation fields, positive Supportance predominates, while negative Supportance tends to exist in implicit, marginal forms—difficult to observe, difficult to analyze systematically. However, under the extreme conditions of the HCD RelationField, negative Supportance is presented in amplified, accelerated, and systematic form:
- From implicit to explicit: Negative Supportance that is concealed in ordinary fields becomes the central operational logic here;
- From sporadic to systematic: The alienation of support is no longer incidental but systematically engendered by the institutional adversarial structure;
- From diffuse to discrete: The conditions, mechanisms, and consequences of Supportance's transformation from positive to negative acquire a clarity approximating a "pathological specimen."
It is precisely this extremity that makes this case study more than just another empirical case—it is a stress test of the theory's presuppositions: it tests whether Supportance Theory can account for social phenomena under extreme conditions, whether it omits theoretically important dimensions that remain invisible in ordinary contexts.
The test results are positive: the theoretical framework withstood examination under extreme conditions; its core presuppositions received empirical confirmation. At the same time, the test also revealed directions requiring further development—mechanisms of "transformation," the concept of how to keep Supportance positive, the influence of field logic on whether Supportance is positive or negative—theoretical issues that might go unnoticed in ordinary cases but are highlighted by the extreme case.
In this sense, the HCD RelationField case study is an "extreme case validation" of Supportance Theory—it does not revise the theory, but confirms its presuppositions under extreme conditions, and in doing so, reveals directions for further theoretical development.
v1.0 - June 19, 2026 - 9,915 words
Appendix A: Activity Analysis — Phase-by-Phase Evidence from Soal (2025)
This appendix presents the detailed activity analysis that supports the four-phase analytical timeline described in Section 2.3. The following material is drawn from the nine therapists' interview transcripts in Soal (2025). The quotations are organized by phase to show how the temporal pattern emerged from the therapists' own descriptions of how HCD cases typically unfold.
Phase One: Internal Fracture of the Intimate RelationField
Characteristics: escalating marital conflict, breakdown of co-parenting, child drawn into parental conflict. This phase precedes court involvement and is described retrospectively by therapists.
Temporal markers in therapists' narratives:
The therapists in Soal's study did not directly observe this phase—they were typically brought in after court involvement had already begun. However, their accounts consistently reconstruct this phase as the necessary precondition for everything that follows. The marriage had already become adversarial before the legal system entered.
"The conflict started long before I met them... the parents had been fighting for years." (P3, describing case background)
"They were already in a destructive relationship. Being in a destructive relationship, I think, is even easier than getting out of it." (Cited in Soal's literature review, reflecting participant perspective on the divorce decision)
One therapist noted how the "narrative" was already entrenched before they arrived:
"The father wanted to control the entire narrative. Anything that was not 'you should have custody of your daughter' was unwelcome." (P9)
Phase Two: Institutional Intervention and RelationField Reconfiguration
Characteristics: court filing, therapist appointment, legal code overlays intimate relation code. The relationfield is split into adversarial legal camps.
Temporal markers in therapists' narratives:
Therapists describe their own entry point into the case as a moment of transition—the moment when the legal system began to reshape the relational dynamics.
"I was subpoenaed for the first time... and I had no training." (P2, describing her first experience being drawn into court)
"He kept trying to triangulate me into the court process. I was feeling crazy, right? Like 'you never said this, I never said that'—God, I have notes." (P9)
Therapists consistently describe this phase as one in which the court system redefines the relationship between the parties:
"If the kids go to the Children's Advocacy Center, which means they only will work with the parent who is the one who identified them as being a victim and polarized them against another parent. So, you only have one side of the narrative that's happening and our role as clinicians, we have so much power in shaping that narrative for these kids." (P2)
"Therapists do not have enough training outside the court system and a lack of guidelines for practice that are better known. Judges lack training in family law and the attorney is not your friend and in court therapists get blindsided. Therapists go into court not knowing what they are doing." (P9)
Phase Three: Comprehensive Alienation of R-S-N-C
Characteristics: sustained adversarial period—triangulation, support turned negative, narrative deadlock, therapist countertransference. This is the longest and most intensively documented phase in Soal's study.
Temporal markers in therapists' narratives:
Therapists describe this phase in terms of its duration, intensity, and repetitive patterns. The sustained nature of the adversarial dynamics is a recurring theme.
"I was with them for like 2 1/2 years. It was very draining." (P2, on the sustained nature of the adversarial period)
"He called our phone line nonstop for three hours. Three hours. We could not get any other calls out." (P2, describing a peak moment of adversarial behavior)
"He loved to get me on the phone. It was very berating when it was just a phone call. But then when we did have face-to-face, he always brought his wife so there was someone who had his side and not mine. He wanted to control the narrative. Anything that was not you should have custody of your daughter was unwelcome." (P9)
"I had cases where kids refuse to be in the same room with a parent. They'll sit in the car and not get out. I've had horrible cases where kids run down the hallway and slam the door and refuse to be in the room with the parents." (P4)
"Unfortunately, we get caught in the crossfire. Therapists involved with high conflict courts get more complaints to the board, more lawsuits, more bad reviews. It's very common." (P6)
"It's pretty clear in the complaint narrative that this is a person who's unhappy with not necessarily any actions the therapist took but with the outcome over which we have no control." (P1, on board complaints)
What is notable across these citations is the sustained, repetitive nature of the adversarial patterns. Therapists describe not isolated incidents but ongoing dynamics—constant triangulation, repeated threats, relentless pressure. The phrase "2 1/2 years" recurs as a marker of how long a therapist might be involved in a single HCD case. The "three hours" of non-stop calls is presented as a single day within a much longer trajectory.
Countertransference as a feature of Phase Three:
"I've been divorced twice. I was in a domestic violence relationship. So over the years, I have had moments where I have had to catch myself and be in my reactivity. ... So yes, I can be reactive, but I have been very good at catching myself and redirecting myself. Taking my personal feelings and reactions out of the situation." (P8)
Phase Four: Termination—Exhaustion Rather than Repair
Characteristics: final court ruling, therapeutic relationship ends, case closes not through resolution but through exhaustion of resources.
Temporal markers in therapists' narratives:
"I had to get out... it was too much. I terminated." (P8, on therapist withdrawal)
"Then I'm going to have to contact my attorney." (P2, describing what happens when a case reaches a point of legal entanglement that cannot be resolved therapeutically)
Therapists also describe cases that do not terminate but simply dissolve:
"I had a client who reported her dad would call for wellness checks at 4 am when she was at her mom's and the police would show up multiple times... It was painful to listen to." (P9, describing a case that had been going on for years without resolution)
"This one is the case that haunts me. I've worked with so many other families but this one—I was with them for like 2 1/2 years. It was very draining." (P2, in retrospect—the case ended, but the traumatic imprint persists)
Across these citations, a consistent pattern emerges: the termination of an HCD case is not typically experienced as resolution. Cases end when someone withdraws (the therapist terminates), when resources are exhausted (the parents can no longer afford litigation), or when the court imposes a final order that at least one party rejects. The therapists describe the ending as something that happens to the participants rather than something they achieve together.
Summary: The Four Phases in Therapists' Own Words
| Phase | Core Temporal Pattern in Therapists' Narratives |
|---|---|
| Phase One | "The conflict started long before I met them... they had been fighting for years." (P3) |
| Phase Two | "I was subpoenaed for the first time... and I had no training." (P2) |
| Phase Three | "I was with them for like 2 1/2 years. It was very draining." (P2) |
| Phase Four | "It's pretty clear... this is a person who's unhappy with... the outcome." (P1); "I terminated." (P8) |
These citations, drawn from different therapists describing different cases, converge on a common temporal structure. While individual cases vary in duration and detail, the overall arc—from marital conflict, through court intervention, through sustained litigation and adversarial interactions, to termination through exhaustion—is consistently described across the nine interviews. This shared temporal pattern is the basis for the four-phase model presented in Section 2.3.
Note: All quotations are drawn from the interview transcripts in Soal (2025). Participant identifiers (P1–P9) are preserved from the original study. Some quotations have been lightly edited for clarity while preserving meaning and temporal markers.