Client abandonment scenario

My therapist was all about attachment, and it worked for me...BUT, I will never believe Attachment the way Westerners in the psychological field define it is the only way to heal. I've also read where they are moving away from attachment. I think if the mental health profession gets bogged down into one size fits all, they will fail a lot more people, now and in the future.

As for classes, my ex H took "clowning classes" to fulfill his state licensing requirements in a Lala state I will not name. The bottom line for us was, what was the cheapest and most convenient for us as a family. His clients were not a factor in the equation at all.

And, with handheld media devices, many professionals are plugged into those when they sit through "licensing classes." A few years ago, I enjoyed sneaking or being snuck into their conferences when they had them at big hotels. They are not required to learn anything.

I agree with you that it is not ethical to abandon clients, but ethics are not laws, nor are they black and white, and I guess I would rather be dumped than hold onto something that is not working, and the therapist possibly becoming passive-aggressive in attempt to force me to quit. Them be fighting words for me, and we would probably still be going rounds. Thank goodness I was dumped, IMHO, and was able to nurse my wounds, and heal.

PS: Those therapist were not the originators of those wounds, and became a nonentity once I was enmeshed in the healing process.

Most of the ethics codes I have seen are so vague as to be meaningless. Examples:

"Marriage and family therapists do not abandon or neglect clients in treatment without making reasonable arrangements for the continuation of treatment."

"Counselors provide pretermination counseling and recommend other service providers when necessary."

My T gave referrals and spoke with me on the phone a couple times. Judging by the response from the dozen or so Ts I talked to later, the biz sees nothing much troubling in this, other than a few of the details. I would bet on my case being quickly dismissed. I did write up T on Yelp.

I consulted twice with a T who specializes in ruptures and impasses, thinking perhaps he could advocate for me. He helps both clients and Ts. He was useless. He advocated for my T without even realizing it. He told me what would help me is to "find meaning in my life". I'm sorry, but what an a-hole.

Attachment is part of human development and may play a part in one's pathology if crucial needs weren't met. However, attachment does NOT have to be a part of one's therapy, whether you have attachment issues or not. Ts learn about a myriad of therapies over the course of school and their field experience, but there is no requirement that they have any coursework or in more than one type. And they do not have to have any special training at all in any modality. There is also no formal requirement for Ts to receive therapy of their own. Some counseling masters programs may require it, but licensing boards do not. What is required of all masters level clinicians is supervision, which for some Ts may look like therapy. Much of the time, however, it does not.

Traditional psychoanalysis has fallen out of favor among most Ts, at least where I live, on the east coast. Psychodynamic therapy is the closest type of therapy to analysis and there is no special training or requirements for it- it is simply talk therapy, done with whatever theoretical perspective the T prefers. What that exactly means is very, very muddy, since there are very little in the way of a "standard operating procedure", for lack of a better term. So again, if the appropriate steps were taken - termination and referrals - then technically this would not be considered abandonment. By moral standards it might be, but not by professional or legal standards.

So that's it? The T can set off a bomb in the person's life and then exit because they are in over their head? That is exactly what my T did. No consequences, just adios. Ethics codes are really liability documents intended to protect Ts.

If the client feels abandoned or exploited or used, they were. My T tried to interpret the experience for me, insisting that it was good for me, when clearly it had wrecked me. That itself is abusive and exploitive. If you want to know the real outcome, ask the client not the T.

Or maybe people with attachment/abandonment issues should stay far away from therapy. Forming an uncertain and ambiguous and tenuous attachment to a stranger, fiddling with maternal/paternal deficits from infancy, playing with intense longings in the make-believe world of therapy… it now seems totally nuts to me. It is not that hard to evoke and incite such longings. Then what?

I'm quite curious as to how many people see a therapist recommended to them by a therapist that abandoned them do to a bad fit. I'm willing to venture the percentage is very low, especially for people abandoned on this forum.

I'd love to hear some positive outcomes if people are willing to share, or even if they went and saw any of the recommendations.

I agree with this. The most severely hurt people who go to therapy to "heal" often end up even more hurt and damaged.

I've heard many people say that everyone can benefit from therapy, but I don't agree. There are a lot of people who don't benefit from it at all and like we've read about here, can be hurt by it. I think for most people, firm boundaries need to be in place in order for therapy to be safe. In some ways, therapy should be work akin to physical therapy, where people don't always want to go but choose to because it helps them reach a goal. When someone goes for more abstract purposes, the dynamic may only exacerbate an existing problem.

I think most of those guys need to do a much better job of explaining all their myriad of rules rather than springing them on the hapless client willy nilly. Calling their whimisical and capricious rule enforcement boundaries and for the benefit of the client just serves to protect those guys from their erratic responses to clients

My T gave me several referrals. She seemed to be trying to cover her arse, giving me as many as she could. I saw 3 of them. I called some of the others.

One that she recommended strongly was an acquaintance of hers. Imagine telling this new T that her acquaintance/colleague harmed me. Just made things worse. She couldn't go there and simply had to make it about me.

One guy I saw 4 times felt he lacked sufficient attachment background. He was a Harvard educated PsyD. What?

Later, ex T strongly recommended her own therapist. I called her and she was not accepting new clients.

The whole thing became a sort of farce. I tried or interviewed several other Ts that were not referrals. Just didnt work. Even the thought now of speaking to a T fills me with disgust and dread.

She recommended her own therapist? Wow, I would regard that as unprofessional.

And what the heck is "sufficient attachment background"?

I can't believe your T actually referred you to her own T. Slight conflict of interest there, I think.

How does a T think they lack sufficient attachment background? Even if a T doesn't practice "attachment therapy" (which many don't), attachment is something a T should understand conceptually.

I think it is a good thing when a T thinks that they don't have enough background in a particular thing. T training varies quite a bit by discipline and by school and by year(s) T is in school. Professional humility is a good thing IMO; many professionals, T or otherwise, have about as much humility as a grizzly bear. If a T thinks that their background and/or skills won't be helpful o you, it seems to me that they shouldn't try to take your money and not help you, or worse.

I think the danger in any sort of attachment to a T is that the caring can seem so real. But it is always an act. In the isolation of therapy, it's easy to lose perspective and to feel as though this person is in your life.

My T wanted me gone as quickly as possible once I threatened what she really cared about -- her self image and necessary delusions, her practice, her feelings. Suddenly I was reminded that I meant little to her. A mere client.

It's the experience of a personal relationship confounded with that of a business consultation. Betrayal and abandonment are easily rationalized, while still inflicting plenty of harm. Business is business. It is what it is. The customer is always wrong.

This is SOOO true. I wish they would tell clients this from the beginning. I really do.

What client would keep on with therapy if told that?

For me and many others, the caring was/is real, despite the nature of the relationship. There are bad business people in every profession, and I'm sorry you and many others got the short end of the stick. It has been said that therapy is not for everyone. Many through no fault of their own have been failed by the profession. I truly believe that after reading PC for 3 1/2 years, there are other avenues to try, for exampl, being a vocal opponent against the industry, or do nothing, and live life as is. Healing can happen in many forms. I also believe it might not be the right time in one's life to go into therapy. After reading many post about yours and others treacherous experiences, I understand the situation your in. Funny, I never thought I would be in the camp of therapy is not for everyone, but you all have convinced me loud and clear.

Good luck in whatever your willing to try.

The caring often is real, although I think the definition of caring seems to vary a lot from person to person. Regardless, the reality is that every relationship has its limits. That is true with friendships, lovers, family, professionals, mentors, etc.. When/if something doesn't work out everything changes and most people will ultimately do what is in their own best interest (at least partly). Obviously the nature of the relationship will dictate what most people will do, with family and lovers probably being the most self sacrificing and the everyone else less so. I am not saying your T didn't do things wrong, because she did. Still, she ultimately did what she had to do - protect her client from any more harm and protecting herself from ruining her career. She could have done much more bfore getting to that point, but she doesn't sound as if she's very competent. Still, that doesn't mean the care she expressed wasn't genuine. You didn't experience it that way and that is what matters, but other people can't control how someone else will perceive them. And even when someone genuinely cares, it is still human nature to take care of one's own needs first.

The caring for many of us was very real and not an act. I think the difference may be in various people's perspective of what is real in the context of the function of the relationship. Every relationship has a context and it is important to understand that context and keep that in perspective. But I know without a doubt that the care and relationship with my therapists was genuine and real and not just an act for the therapy hour.

I am so sorry your therapist handled things so badly and that you were so badly harmed. I realize your experience and perspective is just as real as my own and as every individual's here. I hope you can understand that we each have our own experience and no one perspective is universal for all therapy relationships.

Is it her job to protect me? I think part of the problem is that she took on the role of rescuer. I didn't need protection or rescuing, but she needed me to need it. What I wanted and needed was to have a real relationship, with two way vulnerability and authenticity, and without the artificiality and muddle of therapy. A real connection, not a contrived pay-for-hire version that gave me a glimpse of all unmet needs with no way to gratify them.

When I said I wanted more contact in order to work through more stuff, and she refused on the basis of protecting me from further harm, what she did was infantilize and humiliate me further. More harm not less.

I do think she cared. My point about caring is that it is ambiguous and conditional in a way that is not found elsewhere. She truly cares about her husband, for example, compared to that I am nothing.

With regard to protecting herself, cant blame her entirely, but then the whole thing sorta falls apart. The client pays to have his/her needs come first, but if things get dicey, all bets are off and it's everyone for themselves.

Do I sound bitter?

You are bitter. As am I. Both of us were not "privy" to their internal processes that eventually led them to decisions/behaviors that shut us definitively out of their lives. Collateral damage for their indiscretions.

For me there is value in looking at the aspects of therapy that are universal, and the only way to make sense of it.

For me making sense of betrayal and abandonment in therapy, plus the sudden appearance of my T's previously hidden narcissism, defensiveness, neediness requires that I examine the structure of therapy and its underlying assumptions. Everyone says my T handled things badly. But I would argue the outcome has more to do with the training and indoctrination she received, as well as the roles that the biz and society assign to therapist and client.

I'm reluctant to comment. Not sure what I've said has been taken in or understood because I just am not that familiar with all of it yet.

I do want to say that there are "universals" in a sense for therapy. Once again, look at the common factors and see that most of change happens due to client factors (what the client brings in, has going on, and random things). Second is the relationship, the very issue here that is being scrutinized or denied. The relationship has a powerful effect. The method is small and almost not important. There are other factors, social, economic, racial, ethnic, cultural, spiritual, etc. Then there is placebo, random and so on.

So there are what the field at least considers universals: the client and the relationship. The 2 together about 70% of what makes for change.

Think about it. If the therapy is centered on the relationship, say as its method or orientation then the extra 10-15% that is attributed to theory, orientation, method is then added to the 70% to account for most of the therapeutic effects.

I don't want to pick individual fights, but I do disagree with many posts in this thread. I see a relational analyst. I know about how that works, how it is different from traditional psychoanalysis, and relational means both relationship with the T and attachment, which I will say again is scientifically proven, part of all T's understandings. You can be the homework problem solving logical no feelings type of T and still cannot ignore attachment. Not possible, did not happen in the founding of those schools of therapy, and doesn't happen in practice.

So I guess another universal is attachment. I'm tired of posting about it. I don't understand how it works here and am feeling frustrated. I think it is time for me to quit.

Good luck. I am very sorry to hear of how you were treated, have tried to suggest things to do or what are the codes, but feel that I'm not understood so need to just leave it.

I wish you luck. Nothing that you wrote here makes any sense to me whatsoever. Hopefully you will find a forum that is as evolved as you are.

Some of us understand what she is saying. No need to be dismissive. Hopefully we can all coexist right here

Coexisting is great. But telling others off just because one's pontification was not adored or considered to be brilliant by all, is not a great way to coexist either.