Child Training in Later Years: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I have thought for many years about how and when I would write about this experience. I am very glad to finally do so. About 10 years after I became a training and supervising analyst, I decided to fulfill one last educational goal, that of child analytic training. During my adult training, I was strongly encouraged by two mentors, prominent child analysts Selma Kramer and Judith Kestenberg. But, since it was early in my career, my own children were still young; I could not imagine keeping any longer hours than I already had, especially to treat someone else’s unhappy and neglected children. I, therefore, postponed this plan and was not at all certain it would ever materialize.

About 15 years ago, favorable circumstances presented themselves and I decided to proceed. A number of colleagues were surprised, puzzled, and even concerned that I might change course and subject myself to unnecessary demands at this point in my eminently satisfying career. However, I was already doing play therapy in my work with adults who were severely traumatized in childhood and employed dissociated self-states because their “child selves” often preferred to play and draw instead of talking. It therefore seemed like a logical step to take in order to enhance my attunement to these regressed states of mind and expand my overall abilities. Moreover, my wife was fulfilling her own longstanding goal, that of adult analytic training, so we both became students in parallel programs.

At first, it was quite amusing to find that some of my former students and supervisees in the adult program were now my instructors in the child program. And some of my current students were also my classmates. Roles and identities were reversed and blurred; we all took it with good humor and mutual respect. Things went quite well for the first year or so. Then it got progressively more complicated until a crisis precipitated a disaster, which could have ended in litigation and permanent damage.

When one is actively involved and somewhat high profile in an Institute for many years, political alliances, rivalries, and even

Page 167

grievances become inevitable. What was unknown, however, was what effect any such past issues might have when one becomes a student again, long after he becomes a training analyst, chair of major committees, and even a director of an analytic institute. Should he be treated like any other candidate, or should certain flexibility be considered if, for example, any of his analysands goes into child training or if finding a supervisor is complicated by too close friendships or too much history of conflict between the two? Both of these situations developed in my case, and I was stunned by the rigidity of the child program’s administration, which was a semi-autonomous fiefdom amidst the larger organization as a whole.

Tensions developed as a result of my attitude, and escalated further, I discovered later, when I sought a supervisor for my second case from another institute; he gladly applied for geographical supervisor status. My “advisor” was completely supportive and encouraging of my initiative and determination to graduate. As the only candidate taking classes who had any cases, it therefore came as a hurtful and malicious surprise to learn that when my candidacy was discussed at a meeting of the Progression Committee, two members with whom I had had previous political problems openly doubted my suitability to become a child analyst. Neither had any direct contact with me or knowledge of my clinical work. The way that I had learned such a declaration had been made was that the secretary had, in error, sent her unedited minutes to not only the entire child faculty, but to all the candidates also! To make matters worse, when this mistake was discovered, one of the administrators called all the candidates and had the temerity to instruct all of us to forget about what we had just read!

This scandal spread throughout the entire organization in short order. It incensed and saddened me. It greatly complicated my work with my supervisees and my analysands. It was unclear whether it might also harm my ability to get referrals and therefore adversely affect my livelihood. Discussions took place at the highest levels of the organization of its potential liability and my likelihood of suing for libel or defamation of character. A formal apology and rehabilitation of my reputation was eventually sent out to the entire membership. All the members of the committee personally apologized to me, except for one. Many years before, this particular individual lost a major election to me, shortly after I had just become a training analyst and was the clear underdog in the race. I was given the cold shoulder for at least a year afterward. Was it

Page 168

possible that such an accomplished senior colleague could hold a secret grudge after all this time?

I lost trust in the leadership of the child program; over their objections, I made arrangements on a national level to complete my program through an approved consortium. When I met the criteria, I graduated, officially, from the local program, but a rift remained. In spite of it all, I have found that my training has been most valuable, and it has, indeed, enhanced my clinical work with adults and enabled me to comfortably work with younger patients. I also learned many other things that I had not expected. It was agrowthful, exciting, saddening, sobering, and rewarding experience that was ultimately the capstone of my formal analytic education. There is no doubt that undertaking child analytic training as a senior analyst was a completely different experience than it would have been if I had done it at a more “developmentally expectable” time in my career.

Page 169