Identifying the Prime Love Giver can often be the key to diagnosing and resolving a family problem. In this example it not only resolved a very serious mental health problem for a child, but was at the same time highly therapeutic for the PLG!
A family came to see me with their eight-year-old son and five-year-old daughter. The parents were discussing an amicable divorce, and on seeing another therapist recently, had been advised to have a trial separation to test out how they would feel if they lived apart. The father had moved out of the home and into a friend’s basement, and was visiting the children on weekends. However, a crisis developed when the son began to threaten to kill himself by jumping out of the balcony. He had also taken a kitchen knife and told his parents he had researched the internet and found out how to end his life by cutting his wrists.
In keeping with DOLIF Theory, I first sought to diagnose how LOVE is distributed in this family. As explained in another blog, I always separate family members and interview them in small groups. In this way I avoid recreating the same dynamics of ANGER and constant fighting that are taking place at home. In addition to this, the use of my eyes and ears is invaluable to observe the personalities behind their verbal presentation. This is demonstrated in the example below. (As an aside, I consider a family therapy approach can rarely be productive since the only difference is that the therapist is there to act as a referee. I actually dropped out of a very highly regarded family therapy course many years ago at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal under Dr. Herta Guttman when I observed the futility of the method! I found that almost all the control falls into the hands of the therapist and as such, a lot of damage can be done. At the very least, hope is usually shattered for the participants who were counting on improvements in their situation.)
The logic behind the DOLIF method of seeing smaller groupings is that I am well aware that when a family comes to consult, they are not simply looking to carry on the same dynamics in my office as they do at home, but have come to make use of my expertise. My technique is the same when their problem concerns parents fighting, children fighting, parents fighting with a child or just one child who is disrupting the entire family. As explained elsewhere, I see the whole family briefly at the beginning, perhaps for the initial fifteen minutes to investigate the problem. I then split the family into smaller subgroups whom I engage separately while the others wait outside. Accordingly in this case, in the first two sessions I saw this family of four as a unit for about 15 minutes at the beginning. Then at various times and at my discretion, I saw the couple on their own, each parent separately, the two children together themselves, and the eight-year-old boy by himself. At my request the father attended the third session alone, and the total course of treatment was five sessions.
On first meeting the family, both parents appeared concerned about their son, though the father looked unkempt and unhappy, while the mother presented quite a contrast in that she was poised, calm and composed. I noted that their son was very protective of his younger sister, placing his arm around her, leading her by the hand and trying his best to keep the little one entertained with babyish games while the adults spoke. The boy did not smile, but appeared serious for his age and fearful. When I spoke with the parents they told me their marriage had been declining over the past few years, so that currently they were hardly talking to each other. About two months ago they had gone to see a therapist, who suggested a trial separation and they had both agreed to follow this strategy, but at the same time had agreed to make the children their priority and spare them as much stress as they could. They described their son as a very sensitive boy and realized he was already experiencing significant Anxiety, since his teacher had called to say he seemed absent-minded and inattentive in school. They related with some obvious distress that he had begun talking about killing himself in the last two weeks.
When I asked for the children to come in on their own, we talked casually about school and play. I observed the boy’s care for his sister, as well as her reliance on him as her protector and guide. After a few moments I asked the little girl to join her parents in the waiting area while I spoke privately with her brother. Alone, he expressed concern about what would happen to him and his sister if their parents were to continue to be apart. He was subdued and seemed mature for his age, and although he did not cry, he looked sad and despondent. He said he would try to avoid hearing his parents fighting and retreat to his room to avoid them. He affirmed that he loved watching sports with his father, that he missed his father very much, and would like him to come back home. After speaking with him for a few minutes, I thanked him for expressing his concerns. Because of the crisis of the situation, I felt it very important to reassure him that I respected his feelings and wishes, and I told him that “We”– meaning the adults in his life – “will look after this problem for you”. I said this to make him feel secure for the time being and that he didn’t have to step into the shoes of an adult in order to guarantee his future in this world.
Note that I did NOT speak to this boy about his desire or lack of desire to commit suicide, nor the reasons or lack of reasons for his threats, nor his actual actions or lack of actions around killing himself! I did NOT ask WHY or HOW he intended to do the job. This is because DOLIF is NOT concerned with examining any specific behavior that is displayed, be it an obsession, food disorder, rebellion, rivalry or otherwise. DOLIF deals exclusively with THE REASONS BEHIND BEHAVIOR to discern the motivation, or intent that is driving it. Simply, my prior knowledge of his motivation, which through DOLIF would be explained as his critical Emotional yearning for his PLG father to be present in his life, helped him place his trust in me as an adult who understood and respected his feelings. My reassurance helped him hold off the attention-inspired behavior that he felt was his only resource: threatening suicide. In DOLIF, any actual behavior is considered to be a response that is provoked by the need for attention from the PLG, and as such, it can be treated simply as a socially inspired decoy. Therefore, discussing his actual feelings about the suicidal behavior would have been a senseless waste of time. It would merely amount to an empty exchange of comments and questions as to WHY he would or would not do it, or what actual plans he had to commit the act. It is understood by the therapist that the child would be highly unlikely to know or recognize his own motivation for feeling as if he wants to die, and if he knew, he would be highly unlikely to admit to it. Such a discussion would actually be detracting from the real feelings behind his actions, and erode trust in the adults around him. As such, getting him to describe the circumstances around his ideas about self-harm, or the actual suicide attempts would simply be a dead end. Worse yet, the discussion would actually be an irritant to him because it would show our impotence as his adults and protectors in not intuitively understanding WHY he had done it. It would make us look like fools who lack the empathy or the ability to fathom his true message to us. He would lose trust and faith in us as his elders and have to wonder: How can these people protect me if they don’t understand my true intentions?”
From the first session of discussion and observation, my attention was focused on discovering the Prime and Additional Love provider roles, PLG and ALG. I had formed the impression that in this case, the father was the Prime Loving parent, or PLG, to the children, since he appeared to be most connected with the children and seemed to carry the same air of sadness and deep concern as his son. The son too had verbally expressed a warmth and strong bond with his father. I felt that the mother was the Additional Loving parent or ALG because, compared with the father’s apparent distress, she appeared cool, poised, aloof and almost detached from the family’s crisis, considering the dire situation with her son and the child’s young age for that type of behavior. I confirmed these observations in the second session.
Because of his PLG status, I asked the father to attend on his own at the third session. Within the first few minutes, without shedding tears, he readily offered that he was feeling very depressed and was himself suicidal, although he had not made any actual attempts. (N.B. Note that at this point one might easily attribute the young boy’s suicidal actions to heredity, since his father was now expressing the same tendencies. However, in DOLIF these motivations are readily explained by looking at family dynamics and Emotions. The main factor is considered to be the DISTRIBUTION OF LOVE in the family, rather than heredity.) The Father confided that the reason behind his own depression was that he had been struggling with diabetes for the past seven years. He felt emotionally exhausted and was coping poorly with this new ailment in his life. He noted that he had become increasingly discouraged over the years, and now his entire life no longer made sense or seemed to have any purpose.
After some discussion about his sadness, and after allowing him to vent for a short time, with the idea in the back of my mind that he was PLG, I gently began to point out his strong attachment to his children, and reciprocally, their strong attachment to him and dependence on his provision of LOVE to them. As per DOLIF formula, I explained their heartfelt longing for him, his importance to them for their psychological stability, and their need for his continued, active role in their lives. When I emphasized the intensity of their attachment to him and dependence on his LOVE, especially in the case of his son, it apparently came as quite a surprise to him, as he had never been aware that he had such an important role to play in relation to his children. In fact, he had never considered his contribution to the family as a whole to be very crucial, but had believed his wife was the one who was running the household and performing most of the critical functions. He had definitely not viewed himself as providing such an essential Emotional link to his children’s psychological health!
I took some time to explain to this gentleman and to impress on him his children’s vital Emotional connection with him and their reliance on his continuous LOVE and warmth as young children. I made sure he understood that he was the only one in the world who could fill this void for them, and that they would forever feel lost and abandoned in the world without him. Most importantly too, I emphasized that if he were to leave, his wife could not readily replace his role in his children’s lives! I explained that in fact his children’s lives would be grossly disrupted, and perhaps never return to a state of mental equilibrium if he should ever decide to leave, or worse yet, do away with himself! I informed him that, contrary to popular belief, his son’s suicide threats are NOT at all due to hereditary thinking patterns like himself, but rather related to his longing to have his father back in the home, both physically and Emotionally. I added that his children do in fact perceive and experience him as their primary source of Emotional strength, and that he is the anchor in their lives. I said all this without mentioning the concept of a Prime Loving parent as such, or making any direct comparison of his role with that of his wife.
Finally, I tactfully suggested that if he were to return home and invest his Emotional capability back into the family, his son would most likely settle down, not feel so distressed, go back to his main occupation of being a child and acting like an eight-year-old, not worry so much about his sister, and be relieved of his burden of fretting about his home and the adults around him breaking down. I advised him of my firm belief that if he returned home, his son would probably stop the actions he had been taking to kill himself. Though a little surprised by my analysis of the situation, he willingly took my advice because, no doubt, it made Emotional sense to him. The advice reflected how he actually felt inside, and although he had never been fully aware of the depth of his connection with his children before, this intangible feeling seemed to have been clarified for him. Not surprisingly, his role as PLG made Emotional sense and simply FELT correct, which was crucial to his instinctual or ‘gut-inspired’ decision to follow my advice.
Now newly recognizing the psychological importance of his role in the family, this father soon decided to return home after our fourth session, a move that was agreed to by his wife. At that point the immediate crisis about his son was, miraculously it seemed, resolved. The secondary advantage of explaining his children’s attachment to this gentleman was that he had now found his own purpose in life! That is, he began to understand how his presence was contributing vitally to his children’s psychological wellbeing. Discovering his attachment to his children and their attachment to him in return, empowered him Emotionally. It suddenly made his own life seem worthwhile! He no longer felt the urge to end his own life or die by any means, but enrolled in a diabetes education and support program that helped him successfully manage his disease. On an analytical level, in his marital situation he now felt his power and contribution to the family’s life, whereas he had previously believed, or been led to believe, through popular ways of thinking, that he was NOT contributing productively to the family situation and that he was, in fact, quite expendable!
