For the Love of Fluffy: Respecting, Protecting, and Empowering Transitional Objects in the Context of High-Conflict Divorce

ABSTRACT

Transitional objects are those idiosyncratically determined, beloved blankies and stuffed animals that communicate an absent parent’s affection. As such, transitional objects serve the short-term need to cope with separation, and the long-term need to move toward autonomy. This article discusses the value, use, and misuse of transitional objects in the context of coparental conflict. The concept of alienation-by-proxy is introduced. Specific recommendations are provided, including the therapeutic creation and empowerment of transitional objects to assist children experiencing separation anxiety, consideration of the role of transitional objects in child custody evaluations, and the court’s responsibility to encourage litigating parents to respect the child’s needs for transitional objects.

KEYWORDS:

• Alienation
• attachment
• child development
• child therapy
• coparenting
• custody evaluation
• divorce
• enmeshment
• infantilization
• parenting
• parenting plan
• separation anxiety
• transitional object
• virtual visitation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ I am grateful to Dr. Barbara Fidler for bringing this case to my attention.

² Throughout this article, gender references and the terms mother and father are arbitrary conveniences and are not intended to communicate qualities specific to either gender.

³ It is intriguing to note that Canadian case law has pointedly decided that pacifiers are not toys. They are formally and officially recognized as “a transitional object that helps children adjust to new situations and relieves stress” See Philips Electronics Ltd v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, 2014 CanLII 22,328 (CA CITT; retrieved on July 1, 2018).

⁴ “Toddlers’ soft-object attachments were found to be predicted by the maternal variables of constraint and positive affectivity, the latter in combination with low child activity level” (Steir & Brauch Lehman, 2000, p. 340).

⁵ Although there is no reason that the child could not create an avatar representing an absent parent who comforts the avatar representing self in a proxy-on-proxy digital form of nurturance.

⁶ “Technologies such as telephone, e-mail, instant messaging, and Skype, or other Webcam applications, provide the nonresident parent the opportunity to play a greater role in the child’s day-to-day life. However, virtual parenting is no substitute for regular, physical contact between a parent and child” (Himel et al., 2016, p. 460). In the context of discussing visitation with incarcerated parents, Fasah (2018) observed that, “Virtual visitation is not necessarily the best form of visitation for children below the age of fourteen and is definitely not the best form of visitation for children under the age of seven. … Children do not receive the same connection with parents unless there is physical interaction” (p. 143).

⁷ Like Fluffy, a child’s access to technology-mediated representations is always subject to the proximal parent’s control. Unlike Fluffy, technology-mediated representations are additionally limited by fallible hardware (e.g., cell phones that go uncharged).

⁸ Note, though, Tarasuik, Galligan, and Kaufman’s (2011) intriguing use of a Strange Situation–like paradigm in which reunion occurred via video link: “For young children a video connection can have many of the same effects as a physical presence. This is a significant finding as it is the first such empirical demonstration and indicates considerable promise in video communication as a tool to maintain family relationships when physical presence is not possible” (p. 1).

⁹ The American Academy of Pediatrics advises that transitional objects are valuable and typically should not be removed. See https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/Pages/Transitional-Objects.aspx (accessed July 14, 2018).

¹⁰ “A transitional object can be any tangible and pocketable thing that allows parent and child to feel emotionally connected even while apart. The nature of the transitional object is unique to each dyad, from a shared piece of polar fleece fabric to matching rings or necklaces” (Garber, 2007, p. 591).

¹¹ “For many [autistic spectrum disorder] children, the need for sameness in environment may supersede the need for sameness of routine” (Pickar & Kaufman, 2015, p. 129).