The central purpose of this article is to examine the potential contribution of an innovative therapeutic approach, forgiveness therapy, to the treatment of children who have been wounded by the experience of parental incarceration. Facilitation of a child’s forgiveness of a previously incarcerated parent may lead to a plethora of positive affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

Another major aim is to help place forgiveness and forgiveness therapy into the contemporary clinical social work dialog. These concepts have received limited attention in the direct practice literature, and essentially none as to how they may pertain to victimized children and adolescents.

The wounds incurred by minor children as a result of the complex trauma of parental incarceration may be understood within the framework of existing literature on childhood separation and loss. The physical and emotional deprivation associated with parental imprisonment appears consistent with Spitz’s anaclitic depression (Reis and Grenyer 2002). The failure of object relations associated with the separation from a love object brought about by parental incarceration, may frequently lead to excessive interpersonal concerns among children including intense feelings of loneliness and dread of total abandonment (Emde 1992; Emde et al. 1965). Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1981) in his classic attachment and loss trilogy described intra and interpersonal dynamics related to mourning and grief that appear very much in keeping with those experienced by minor children who are separated from their parents through imprisonment. Bowlby (1950/1995) underscored the importance of a safe, warm, and continuous parent–child relationship. Events such as incarceration that separate parent and child interfere with attachment bonds, and lead to the kind of emotional starvation that may have long term negative consequences on motional development (Johnson 2008). Bettelheim (1960) echoes the potential of childhood experiences, particularly within the family, to profoundly effect the acquisition of such critical coping resources as optimism, self confidence and self respect (Zelan 1993).

Parental Incarceration

Children whose parents have been in jail or prison are an expanding constituency and comprise one of the largest juvenile at-risk populations (Geller et al. 2009; Hanlon et al. 2007; Mumola 2000). In the United States there has been estimated to be up to 2.5 million children with one or both parents incarcerated in local jails, or federal or state prisons (Arditti et al. 2003; Larosa and Rank 2001; Miller 2006; Springer et al. 2000).

Despite their large numbers these children have historically been under served and under investigated. There are few studies of interventions that address the adverse impacts of parental incarceration. This is despite the pressing need for effective and innovative treatment methods for this vulnerable population (Arditti 2005).

The experience of childhood parental incarceration is considered to be complex in so far as it is relates to the preceding criminal activity, arrest and initial detainment, duration of the imprisonment, as well as prisoner reentry to the family post-discharge. This appears in keeping with the essence of complex trauma which involves the protracted and repetitive exposure to traumatic stimuli that bring about such feelings as entrapment, loss of control and disempowerment. The negative impact of such exposure is commanding and pervasive influencing levels of safety, trust, self worth as well as sense of self (Herman 1992; van deer Kolk et al. 2005).

Parental involvement with the criminal justice system leading to incarceration, even when relatively brief, may cause severe and multifaceted life disruption for the minor child (Fairchild 2009; Harman et al. 2007; Miller 2006; Murray and Farrington 2005, 2006; Petersilia 2001). The experience of parental incarceration may be superimposed upon other risk laden issues such as poverty and domestic violence (Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2003).

The incarceration per se ushers in a forced, potentially traumatic parent–child separation contributing to a deterioration, and in some cases, termination of the relationship (Arditti et al. 2003; Beckerman 1998; Solomon and Zweig 2006). The majority of opportunities for effective parent–child interaction are removed making positive attachment and social control difficult (Fairchild 2009).

Most often, incarcerated parents and their children do not maintain consistent personal contact. Approximately 50% of prisoners do not receive any visits from their minor children (Arditti 2005; Boss 2002; Miller 2006). Phone calls and letters may serve as alternatives to maintaining contact through visitation. However, these forms of contact deprive the child of the immediacy of personal contact (Arditti 2005).

Parental incarceration may have a far reaching destabilizing effect on the structural integrity of the family through resultant role strain and functional fatigue. There may be abrupt modifications in child care arrangements and in some cases, out of home placement (Fairchild 2009; Hanlon et al. 2007).

The empirical research on the impact of parental incarceration on children, has been relatively limited and methodologically lacking (Rodriguez et al. 2009). However, existing data do suggest the complex trauma of parental incarceration may have a fundamentally negative influence on children’s psychological and social development and well being (Seymour 1998; Springer et al. 2000).

They may profoundly experience a range of negative emotions such as anger, shame, and loneliness. Anxiety is prevalent. There is often a loss of self esteem and a delay in the achievement of a solid personal identity. There may be a demonstration of regressive behavior and a decrease in sense of autonomy, initiative and productivity (Braman 2002; Poehlman 2005a, b, c; Solomon and Zweig 2006).

Commonly cited internalizing reactions include depression and self blame (Arditti et al. 2003; Hanlon et al. 2007). Externalizing sequelae may include defiance, aggression, truancy, running away, as well as alcohol and substance abuse. Children of incarcerated parents may often participate in gangs where they may feel more socially accepted. Such involvement frequently facilitates delinquent behavior and disproportionately high involvement in the juvenile justice system (Murray and Farrington 2008; Poehlman 2005a, b, c; Solomon and Zweig 2006; Ziv et al. 2010). Children of incarcerated parents may also exhibit symptoms of post traumatic stress analogous to youngsters who have suffered parental bereavement (Hanlon et al. 2007).

The extent to which a child will be negatively effected by parental incarceration depends on a number of variables (Dowdney 2000, 2005). An important protective factor is the maintenance of a satisfying relationship with the absent parent, best facilitated by means of personal visitation. The negative impact of parental incarceration may also be ameliorated by the provision of treatment by a mental health professional. It appears that often children of incarcerated parents lack adequate opportunity within the family to talk about their experiences and accompanying feelings (Beckerman 1998; Boss 2002).

Forgiveness

Resolving deep hurt from an unfair injury, including when incurred within the family at the hands of a loved one, may often involve forgiveness (Coleman 1998). When wounds do not heal and feelings of hostility, anger and resentment linger physical and mental health, as well as quality of life, may be severely compromised. Personal and interpersonal complications may stubbornly persist for years or decades (Lin et al. 2004; Toussaint and Webb 2005).

Constituting a core construct across the relationship spectrum forgiveness has traditionally been considered, throughout Western societies, as a central element of both individual and interpersonal healing (Allemand et al. 2007; Enright and Oh Park 1997; Fincham 2000; Legaree et al. 2007). Many cultures have recognized forgiveness as an important way to resolve strong negative feelings, in particular anger, and restore hope (Enright and Tina Huang 2000; Kauppila 2006; Sandage and Williamson 2005; Ysseldyk and Matheson 2008). Its value in human life has been emphasized in theological, historical, and philosophical literature where it has been variously deemed as healthy, humanizing, and courageous (Enright and Oh Park 1997; Freedman and Enright 1996; Kaufman 1984). Forgiveness has been empirically demonstrated to facilitate recovery, rehabilitation, quality of life and mental and social functioning and has been associated with a plethora of specific positive outcomes including decreased impulsive behavior, depression, anger, guilt and enhanced relationship functioning and social support, as well as better physical health (Lawler-Row and Reed 2008; Toussaint and Webb 2005; Ysseldyk and Matheson 2008).

Forgiveness has recently gained increased attention in the psychology, counseling and psychotherapeutic literatures (Baskin and Enright 2004; Enright and Freedman 1996). Forgiveness issues are highly relevant to therapy and emerge in the contexts of marriage, parenting, friendship, and workplace. Relationship repair is a major reason for seeking treatment and often the difficulty clients are hoping to resolve relates to feelings of betrayal or victimization. Mental health professionals frequently engage in therapeutic dialogs with clients about forgiveness, about whether to forgive when one has been hurt and betrayed and, if so how and when. Clients may also want to explore how to seek forgiveness when one has offended a significant other (Pingleton 1989; Legaree et al. 2007; Sells and Hargrave 1998).

Forgiveness lacks a consensual definition. However, at the center of various approaches is the idea of a person deeply and unfairly hurt undergoing a transformation in which negative emotions toward the offender are decreased, including anger, hate, hostility, bitterness, and resentment. In addition, motivation to seek revenge and to avoid contact with the individual who caused injury or betrayal is lessened. There appears to be a paradoxical quality to forgiveness. A victim surrenders resentment, to which he has a right, and offers compassion to which the offender has no right. It is perhaps this element that has led to criticism of forgiveness as morally unwarranted and psychologically unhealthy. However, much of the skepticism may stem from a misunderstanding of forgiveness incorrectly equated with pardon, condonation, excusing, and reconciliation. It must be emphasized that for forgiveness to occur the hurt must be stopped and the victim must freely choose to forgive. (Enright and Reed 2006; Legaree et al. 2007; Worthington et al. 2000; Worthington 2005).

Forgiveness Therapy

Hand in hand with highlighting the central role of forgiveness in relationship and healing, during recent decades there has been substantial progress in developing forgiveness therapy (FT). The literature began to note the promise and processes of forgiveness promoting psychotherapy in the late 1980’s and challenged clinical psychology to build therapeutic models (Gartner 1988; Hope 1987). It suggested that forgiveness might be helpful for people who experienced deep emotional pain related to unjust treatment in romantic relationships, parent–child relations, friendships and the workplace (Baskin and Enright 2004; Enright and Reed 2006; Kaufman 1984).

A number of cogent models designed to facilitate forgiveness have been developed. They are relatively structured and detailed in their elaboration of forgiveness processes and dynamics. Most are predicated upon individual treatment where a victim works with a therapist toward forgiving an offender for a wrongdoing committed. Other models involve conjoint therapy with a victim together with an offender who is a family member, and are intended via the achievement of forgiveness to contribute to the rehabilitation of family relations (Malcolm et al. 2005; Wade and Worthington 2005).

Several major models of forgiveness therapy are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Forgiveness therapy: a comparison of treatment models
Full size table

Forgiveness promoting psychotherapy may have an important contribution to make in healing the complex trauma of childhood parental incarceration. FT will be highly relevant in so far as there exists among children of incarcerated parents a sense of having been hurt deeply by parental behavior that is unjust or out of accordance with that normatively expected. Criminal behavior, arrest, adjudication and imprisonment are likely to fall outside the bounds of what is considered to be adequate parenting.

Following is a delineation of DiBlasio’s family based conjoint forgiveness therapy model along with several case illustrations of its application, in the author’s practice, with minor children of incarcerated parents. Each of the cases presented elucidates a distinct and clinically important element of the therapeutic process of forgiveness therapy. The names and some of the details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

The rationale for the utilization of the case study method is based on its capacity to facilitate the kind of relatively in-depth exposure to forgiveness therapy that may be of most use in clinical social work supervision and teaching. Case based teaching has a time honored place in social work education and is seen as valuable in preparing the social worker for an increasingly complex practice landscape (Jones 2003). The case method has been proposed to be a highly effective way of helping bridge the gap between theory and practice and facilitating skill development (Greenwood 1996). Leenders et al. (2001) have pointed out how learning through cases helps students learn to identify problems and issues, develop criteria for decision making, explore alternative solutions, and plan interventions. This is done within the context of practice situations that are real world based and similar to ones that they are likely to encounter in their future work.

DiBlasio’s (1998) family based conjoint forgiveness therapy model was initially developed to assist adult children carrying emotional scars from wounds inflicted during childhood by their parents. It was based upon the work of Bowen and other pioneers of trans-generational family therapy (Wetchler and Piercy 1996). This nine stage therapeutic process was designed to facilitate the exchange of apologies and forgiveness for past hurts inflicted by family members. Clinical case studies and initial research with control and experimental groups suggest this model may have positive treatment effects (Battle and Miller 2005; Gordon et al. 2005).

Prior to beginning, the therapist individually prepares participants. Each is briefed and given the opportunity to raise reservations about the anticipated treatment process, which are immediately addressed by the therapist. A common initial concern is that the forgiveness therapy might stir up overwhelming feelings and upset a reasonably comfortable status quo within the family system. A central focus of the preparation is often on helping the perpetrator recognize and own his personal culpability. If and when the therapist believes family members are ready to start he convenes a joint family meeting and commences the first stage of forgiveness therapy.

Participants begin by sharing perceptions of what it was like to grow up or be parents in their family. Typically, a number of unresolved issues emerge during this exchange and the therapist recommends that a forgiveness time might be useful. In the second FT stage, the utility, benefits and limitations of this therapeutic modality are reviewed. While each person will eventually be given the opportunity to seek forgiveness for a transgression he has committed within the family the therapist establishes that forgiveness is best served when one person seeks forgiveness for one offense at a time. As such, the therapist on the basis of his preparatory work, gives a particular family member an opportunity to explicitly state an offense he has perpetrated against another family member. His statement must reflect a substantial degree of culpability for his actions for the forgiveness therapy to proceed.

In the fourth stage, nascent victim empathy for the offender is cultivated by means of the transgressor explaining his offense and the victim being given ample opportunity to pose questions, in particular related to those factors that accounted for the committing of the wrongdoing. The therapist is careful to emphasize that examination of the reasons for the transgression is in no way intended to excuse or in any way justify the offender’s behavior. Recognizing that possibilities for facilitating victim empathy increase when information is maximized, the therapist may add a few questions of her own that may assist in the ultimate understanding of the offender and his offense.

In the fifth FT stage, disclosure of the hurt and pain, the victim expresses his feelings related to the wrongdoing committed against him, until all important the affective material is exhausted. It is vital that the transgressor directly experiences the victim’s open and full expression of her feelings towards him and his hurtful behavior. Afterwards he must communicate an empathic response to the victim. The wrongdoer’s accurate identification and acceptance of the victim’s feelings helps her not only to feel understood, but also verifies for the victim that the offender realizes the emotional distress his behavior has caused her.

In the following FT stage, a plan is developed by the therapist and transgressor, that is designed to ensure the offense will not reoccur. The wrongdoer’s maximum participation in the development of the plan is important. It will incorporate a measure of symbolic or actual restitution intended to facilitate the rebuilding of victim trust in the offender. In the seventh stage the victim is cautioned that should she decide to grant forgiveness she forfeits the option of using the wrongdoing as a weapon against the offender in the future. This caution is provided by the therapist after he has reiterated to the victim that she may certainly choose not to forgive the offender and his hurtful behavior.

In the eighth stage of the forgiveness therapy, the perpetrator is requested to extend a formal and heartfelt request for forgiveness for the offense. This includes an empathic and sensitive account of what has heretofore transpired the therapeutic process. Should the request for forgiveness be accepted by the victim the forgiveness therapy concludes with a ceremonial act or ritual designed by the transgressor and intended to symbolize the transition that has occurred.

Case Illustration 1. Preparing Family Members for Forgiveness Therapy

Sam, age 35, had recently been discharged after being incarcerated for 3 years for selling illicit drugs. His son Joe, age 11, had been brought to the author for therapy due to his severe acting out behavior since father’s reentry into the family. After 3 months of individual child psychotherapy a course of forgiveness therapy was recommended. Joe had revealed intense anger and a strong desire for revenge towards father. His perception was that father had virtually abandoned him during the course of his imprisonment.

Father, had initially been very unsupportive of son’s therapy but through accompanying Joe to the individual sessions and informally meeting the author, Sam hesitatingly agreed to participate in the family based conjoint forgiveness therapy. To commence the therapeutic process, the author held six individual preparatory meetings with father, until Sam would be ready and able to proceed with the forgiveness therapy.

The author began by investing significant time and effort forging a therapeutic alliance with father (Ackerman 2003). From their informal waiting room conversations the author predicted that it might be difficult for Sam to own culpability for his abandonment of Joe during his incarceration. The initial focus was upon becoming familiar with father’s life story. The author and Sam began by playing together the memory box game, where specially designed discussion cards facilitate general reminiscence. Sam was able to recount his own life story in a relatively unthreatening manner. The author’s disclosure of select elements of his own life narrative appeared to facilitate father’s sharing (Raines 1996). Next, father was requested to complete the color your life exercise, intended to help uncover those emotions accompanying his major life experiences (Raynor and Manderino 1989).

A turning point in father’s readiness to genuinely engage in the FT process had been Sam’s recognition that his longstanding assumption that he was a good enough father was indeed incorrect, and based on a very distorted view of fatherhood that Sam held throughout the years. As a young boy Sam’s father abandoned him and his siblings. This serving as his reference point for fathering, Sam had perceived his own parenting behavior as more than adequate. Though he had shut his son off from him almost completely for 3 years, Sam had until now gained a fraudulent sense of self comfort through focusing on how he had at least resided with his family and financially supported them.

According to father, “It’s nearly impossible to realize your faults and mistakes as a father when your point of comparison is zero fatherhood. I always assumed I was better at being a dad than I really was because I couldn’t ever see myself objectively. Only when we played the game of childhood memories I realized that I was always just comparing myself to my father. Of course I was better at being a father to Joe than my dad, but I see now that doesn’t mean too much.”

On the heels of father’s increased treatment engagement, the author was able to orchestrate a series of role plays where Sam was directed to play his son. Father was given a number of scenes to act out such as—’I see my dad selling drugs in the living room,’ ‘the police are arresting my father,’ ‘I am embarrassed of my father in front of my friends,’ ‘I want to visit my dad in jail but he won’t let me come,’ and ‘whenever I have any contact with my father he only talks about himself.’ Sam responded well to this therapeutic tool and during the third role-play came to realize on his own that his criminal activity and incarceration, and in particular his disengagement from son while in prison, had seriously hurt Joe, who was in effect an innocent family player.

Case Illustration 2. Offender Explanation of the Offense

Isaac, age 38, had been incarcerated 2 years for threatening to cause severe physical harm to a female employee. His son, Tom, age 14, had been brought to the author for therapy 2 months prior to father’s discharge in order to help prepare son for his reentry into the family. Tom had revealed intense anger toward father, in particular for the shame Isaac’s incarceration had caused him amongst his friends and their families. The arrest and adjudication had been widely reported in the local news media and consequently Tom was subjected to much ridicule at school. Upon father’s discharge a course of family based forgiveness therapy was recommended and he willingly agreed to participate. Isaac proved capable of owning culpability for his hurtful behavior towards son, and was also able to recognize the harm his incarceration had caused Tom. Being humiliated in front of his peers had not only increased Tom’s sense of social isolation but in addition had reduced his sense of self worth.

During the preparatory sessions the author worked with father on recognizing the need to directly provide his son with a clear and reasonably detailed, though at the same time age appropriate explanation, for the behavior that resulted in his incarceration. The author proceeded to assist Isaac in formulating such an explanation for Tom, as well as helping father prepare to answer questions son might want to ask his father about the reasons for his criminal behavior.

Father opened by underscoring the difference between explanation and justification, emphasizing that in attempting to explain his hurtful behavior towards son he was in no way trying to justify it. Isaac then proceeded to speak with Tom for the first time in a direct manner, about how he came to threaten a waitress who worked in the restaurant he had once owned, with severe physical harm. Tom expressed disappointment over how father had “kept him in the dark all this time” about why he had committed a felony, and then appreciation that “finally” he would hear an explanation for the act that had so profoundly influenced his life.

Isaac’s explanation highlighted how at the time of committing his offense, he actually believed that by threatening the life of his employee he was protecting his family. He described at length an immense fear that prevented him from taking the “right” steps to safeguard his loved ones.

Tom, back then your mother and me were not getting along at all. I was very lonely, and when I look back on it now, I believe I was even depressed. Bella and I worked together a lot. She would listen to my troubles. I felt like someone really understood what I was going through. That felt great. But what started as a friendship got out way out of hand and we had a brief romantic connection. Now I know what I couldn’t see then. It was giant mistake. Bella threatened to tell your mother about the two of us. I was terrified that by her doing this she would destroy our family. So I threatened Bella’s life. I am full of remorse about my disgusting behavior. Instead of breaking the law I should have immediately gone to your mother and told her the whole story. It would have been hard but the two of us would have gotten through it eventually. But I could only think about one thing, not you or your mom, just my own fear of getting caught.

Tom looked straight into father’s eyes, reached out for his hand and declared,

I needed to hear that from you dad. And I waited a long time for you to get the guts to finally face me. I understand that we all make mistakes, even big ones, me too. I can give you a second chance, but there will be no third chance with me.

The author proceeded to invite Tom to ask father any and all questions he might have about the reasons and circumstances surrounding his criminal offense. Son pulled out a piece of paper with questions for father that he had prepared in his initial preparatory sessions with the author. He fielded them before his father quickly one after the other,

Dad, before you threatened her did you think even for a moment about the harm it would cause us, the family you intended to protect? After your arrest did you ever think about how I, your child, would be effected? Did you think about how hard it would be for me to face my friends when your arrest was all over the internet?

Father thanked son for his important and thoughtful questions and proceeded to respond,

There were a few times I thought about the harm I caused both of you, but I never did much about my thoughts. I kept them to myself and ate myself up. But I have to admit I never got around to thinking about how you would deal with your friends. I regret now very much that I didn’t speak to you, man to man, right from the time the whole situation blew up. I needed to tell you myself, and right away, about what happened, why it happened, and what was going to happen to me.

Tom, visibly moved, replied, “What you said takes a big load off of my back. You can’t answer all of my questions, but for once, at least I feel you are trying.”

Case Illustration 3. Victim Expression of Hurt and Pain

Oz., age 41, had been released 6 months earlier after being imprisoned for 4 years for income tax fraud. His daughter Sheli, age 13, had been brought for therapy due to her eating disordered behavior that had emerged concurrent to his discharge. Initially Sheli was resistant to therapy, conspicuously constrained and also self deprecating. However, she gradually revealed her suppressed anger at father as well as a strong sense that in committing his crime he had acted greedily and selfishly, without any regard whatsoever for the well being of herself, her siblings or her mother. Daughter viewed father’s tax evasion as utterly “senseless” in light of the family’s adequate standard of living. In light of the clinical findings accumulated over 6 months of individual treatment the author recommended family based forgiveness therapy.

The course of FT had progressed successfully through to father’s ownership of culpability for his hurtful behavior toward Sheli and recognition of the instrumental and emotional injuries the committing of his crime and subsequent arrest, adjudication and incarceration, had caused daughter. Subsequently, Oz was able to explain his crime, focusing on how he had been “intoxicated” by the “rat race”, failing to exercise any independent thinking and judgment of his own whatsoever. Father then answered Sheli’s questions about the reasons for the criminal behavior, which focused primarily on the relative importance of money and material goods, as opposed to family relationships, for her father. The stage was now set for daughter to fully express her feelings in regard to father’s hurtful behavior towards her.

The author began by providing Sheli with a comprehensive list of emotions and requesting that she complete the color your life exercise (Raynor and Manderino 1989). However, Sheli was reticent to begin. She expressed her apprehension that should she “open up” all her feelings about how father hurt her it would be difficult for her “just go on” with her daily life. After listening intently to her concern the author explained, in distinctively age appropriate language, some of the main principles of the neurobiology of emotions and how the “letting go” of emotion can be highly beneficial to one’s health (Roberts and Koval 2002; Worthington and Scherer 2004). He then showed her pictures from a journal article that portrayed actual positive changes in the shape and size of the human heart upon articulation of negative emotions (Waltman et al. 2008). Upon completion of the author’s explanation of the importance of affective expression Sheli agreed to complete the color your life exercise. She began to draw on the page laid in front of her, in colors that represented the various emotions she had about father’s tax fraud. The size of each sector would represent the perceived scope and intensity of the affect.

This appeared to be a turning point in the forgiveness therapy for Sheli. For the first time she was able to expose emotions in addition to the anger she had revealed in the individual therapy sessions. Prominent in daughter’s pictorial account of her inner emotional world there appeared very substantial disappointment and shame. Each emotion was denoted by a large circle, one black and one brown. After staring down at the drawing for a couple minutes Sheli took two containers of paint, one black and one dark brown, and began to vigorously empty them onto the page, until both of the circles were filled to the very brim. After a conspicuous few moments of silence Sheli began to cry and shortly following, her father as well. When the two regained their composure the author suggested to them that although seemingly fatiguing, their new found emotional expression would be very beneficial to their mental and physical health in the long medium and long run. The author immediately proceeded to request that father validate Sheli by offering a clear and direct verbal response to her pictorial representation of her inner emotional world.

Today for first time I really feel you Sheli. It must be terrible to wake up one day and feel ashamed of someone who you have been proud of all your life. Disappointment in someone who is supposed to take care of you and put you first before anyone and everything else – this must be a giant shock. I failed you once, and I didn’t understand how hard you took what I did. That was my second giant mistake. Everything you felt and still feel about me is completely justified.

Sheli started crying again what she coined, “tears of joy” and asked Oz if he would join her for supper at a restaurant that was a family favorite before father’s incarceration.

Case Illustration 4: Formal Apology and Forgiveness Request

Shmuel, age 45 had been released from prison 3 years prior, after completing a 10 year sentence for attempted murder, when he presented with his son Ron age 16, for therapy. During the first two sessions very substantial conflict between father and son became evident, and in particular Ron’s persistent and intense verbal deprecation of father. Consequently, the author suggested a course of conjoint forgiveness therapy and proceeded to outline what this therapeutic modality entails. While father readily expressed willingness to participate son was somewhat less enthusiastic. Ron had hinted a couple of times of his uncertainty about being able to eventually forgive father, who had “completely ruined” his life. He was however, willing to give forgiveness therapy “a chance” and to “see how it goes.”

In light of Ron’s initial skepticism regarding his readiness, the author’s preparation of son for the conjoint forgiveness therapy lasted 2 months and consisted of the following (a) reviewing the advantages and limitations of FT as a therapeutic modality intended to bring physical and mental health benefits to the victims of the interpersonal hurtful behavior; (b) examining the current influence of the state of unforgiveness on Ron’s life and consideration of its possible future negative effects; and (c) exploring the ways in which forgiveness might have a positive benefit on Ron’s intra-psychic and interpersonal functioning. Considering son’s initial reluctance to participate in FT, the author waited for Ron himself to clearly declare his readiness to continue. When he did so, the author convened conjoint therapy sessions with father.

Shmuel was able to explicitly identify before Ron the manner in which his incarceration had hurt him, and as well own culpability for his harmful behavior.

I, Shmuel son of Abraham, was unavailable to be a father to you during all of your childhood. Because of my impulsiveness and irresponsibility I committed a serious criminal offense, which resulted in me completely disappointing you as a father. Because of me you grew up as half an orphan. I know today that my absence in your life caused you tremendous pain and suffering and that for you to heal from my hurtful behavior will take much effort and time, which you will have to invest, all because of my mistake and that is totally unfair

Following father’s explanation of his serious criminal act and resultant failure to satisfactorily fulfill his paternal role Ron was encouraged to ask any questions he might have for father. Son began by asking whether father felt deep remorse for the harm he caused to the person he had attempted to murder. “Dad, I believe you feel remorse for how your behavior harmed me but what about the person you almost murdered? How do you feel about him?” Father blurted out, “he deserved it!” Immediately and with no hesitation the author, sensing Ron’s great discomfort, closed the conjoint session and met with alone with son. Ron was horribly disappointed with father’s answer, feeling that his father had not really changed in a fundamental way. Ron declared that he did not want to continue with the conjoint forgiveness therapy. The author readily accepted Ron’s decision, and discussed with him the possibility of he and Ron continuing with forgiveness therapy using an alternate model that did not necessitate father’s active involvement (Walton 2005). Ron agreed and met with the author for an three additional months, until Ron reached a point in his therapeutic process where he could unilaterally forgive his father for his lengthy incarceration and accompanying neglectful behavior towards him. Father was referred for individual therapy at a community program serving ex-prisoners and according to father’s self reports he eventually succeeded in genuinely owning full culpability for his serious criminal offense.

Concluding Remarks: Implications for Practice

Forgiveness therapy is not necessarily intended as a substitute for therapeutic modalities traditionally used to help individuals heal the intra psychic wounds of interpersonal injury and harm. Rather it may be preferably conceived as an adjunct approach that may help those who have been victimized further liberate themselves from feelings of anger and hostility that may hinder their long term growth and functioning. Nor is the goal of forgiveness therapy to minimize the magnitude of hurt that has been inflicted or to free those who have committed offensive behaviors from responsibility for their actions. To the contrary, a major objective of FT is to provide an explicit and satisfactory venue for the expression of victim hurt and offender ownership of culpability.

This notwithstanding, the spirit of forgiveness therapy does not seem entirely consistent with a strictly dichotomous view of offender and victim. An underlying assumption of FT, and a sense that many clients appear to share, is that the reality surrounding hurtful behavior can be relatively complex and that the offending individual may be multifaceted. In many cases victims themselves remember previous interactions with the offender in addition to the unjust harmful behavior. The process of forgiveness therapy then, facilitates an examination of the intricacies of human nature and relationships. It embraces a view of the offender who at the same time as having serious problems, is seen as a human being who may possess positive characteristics and pro-social behaviors, as well as the capacity for remorse and personal change.

Forgiveness is conceptualized in the majority of the clinical literature (Legaree et al. 2007) as relatively limited in scope. Its essence is the surrender, by an individual who has been unjustly harmed, of negative emotions and vengeful action tendencies. This occurs subsequent to genuine apology, remorse and compensation on the part of the offending individual, in concert with heightened victim empathy based largely on the assumption of a more complex view of the offender. An individual who has reached a basic measure of forgiveness is seen as having attained some closure on a chapter in his life allowing him to live more vitally and humanely. Forgiveness then is not seen as necessarily extending toward the generation of feelings of generosity and love, or reconciliation. Victim and offender may legitimately choose to have absolutely no contact with each other following the completion of forgiveness therapy.

This notwithstanding, victim-offender relations may also develop in the direction of affection, generosity, or even reinstatement of contact. Not infrequently the process of forgiveness therapy may lead to genuine desire and increased readiness for relationship, both among victim and offender. Thus, FT may in many cases constitute a beginning step in the rehabilitation of relations between victim and offender, particularly when the offense has been committed within the family.

In light of this, forgiveness therapy may play a significant role in facilitating the post-discharge reentry of incarcerated parents back into their families. It is suggested that the forgiving of an incarcerated parent by their children or other family members, and the associated reduction of hostility, may constitute the amelioration of one of the major obstacles to the reinstatement of positive family relations.

Although research studies have begun to demonstrate the substantial benefits of forgiveness therapy for the victimized individual (Baskin and Enright 2004), it is at the same time important to underscore the limitations and contraindications of this promising therapeutic approach. These must be carefully considered prior to proceeding. When conducted inappropriately or incorrectly FT may result in additional harm to the victim, as well as to the offender and other participants.

First and foremost, forgiveness therapy cannot even be considered as long as there is continuation of the offensive behavior and the infliction of pain. That fundamental precondition having been met, forgiveness therapy may be undertaken if and when the individual who has been victimized is willing. Therapists should be cautious about unduly influencing victims into proceeding with forgiveness therapy and should be aware that victims may sometimes agree to forgiveness therapy to please them, which is a less than optimal point of departure for FT. No less critical, the victim must be relatively capable of coping with this typically demanding therapeutic process. The careful consideration of victim readiness is particularly important when the therapist is considering conjoint FT which will involve victim and offender sitting together in the treatment room.

Conjoint forgiveness therapy is predicated upon the successful recruitment and preparation of all participants. Offender preparation may present a special challenge. FT must not proceed unless and until the offending individual is able to take responsibility for committing a clearly defined offense. Therapist facilitation of offender culpability can be painstaking and arduous, especially when offenders possess limited cognitive and emotional capacity for introspection and insight. Those who have been incarcerated may demonstrate particular resistance to offense ownership. They may frequently possess a distorted view about right and wrong based on their own childhood victimization. The therapist must often use creative means to help the offender discover the childhood roots of his difficulty to take responsibility for his own hurtful actions and then to realize his own painful experience, though significant, in no way minimizes his offending behavior nor the consequences of that behavior.

It is the contention of this article that forgiveness promoting psychotherapy has a potentially commanding contribution to make to the entire field of practice of child and adolescent social work, and not only to the treatment of those who have undergone parental incarceration. An overwhelming proportion of the young people social workers serve have experienced substantial unjust hurt, often by those they love. Many of these young victims appear to be stuck for extended periods of time in intense matrixes composed of anger, bitterness, and vengeful ideation that do not appear to contribute either to their healing or development. Forgiveness therapy then, may represent an important adjunct treatment for this seemingly large population of children and youth who in addition to being victims of severe neglect and abuse become secondarily, victims to what has been termed the “state of unforgiveness” (Legaree et al. 2007).

In light of the proliferation of suffering among young people it seems timely for forgiveness and forgiveness promoting psychotherapy to assume its place in the contemporary clinical social work dialog.