Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija

Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Žalgirio Gatvė 108, Vilnius.

Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija siekia lygiavertės tėvystės ir kovoja su tėvų atstūmimu ir kviečia visus, kuriems aktualios šios problemos - tiek šeimos narius, ties specialistus - vienytis bendram tikslui.

Ar Ūlos Dusevičienės “ Taikos raktai” - reali pagalba, ar tik pelnymasis iš ryšį su vaikais praradusių tėvų?Laidoje gerb...
11/04/2026

Ar Ūlos Dusevičienės “ Taikos raktai” - reali pagalba, ar tik pelnymasis iš ryšį su vaikais praradusių tėvų?

Laidoje gerb. Dusevičienė pasakoja apie savo paslaugas esant vaikų nuteikinėjimui (tėvų atstūmimui) - neva teikiama pagalba, dirbama pagal algoritmus (kaip ji sako - net “užpatentuotus”) ir panašiai.

Lengvo nuteikinėjimo atvejais - gal ir padeda. Tačiau gerb. Dusevičienės metodai tikrai nepadeda, greičiau pakenkia, sunkaus tėvų atstūmimo atvejais. Štai kodėl:

1. Dusevičienė, kalbėdama apie ryšio atstatymą kai tėvas eilę metų nematė vaiko, sakosi atliekanti kažkokį “vaiko parengimą”: dirbama su vaiku ir tėvais kartą per savaitę, apie 13 susitikimų (savaičių), o toliau, cituoju - “kaip Dievas duos” [apie 1:06:30].
Toks “pagalbos algoritmas” yra vaikų žalojimas, kadangi tik užvilkina laiką, o rezultatas iš anksto aiškus - jokio. Be to, skurdinami tėvai finansiškai, o pelnosi tik Dusevičienė ir jos kontora.
2. Dusevičienė sunkų nuteikinėjimą priskiria sunkiam konfliktui ir tik retkarčiais jai laidoje, sau pačiai prieštaraujant, išsprūsta, kad kartais yra kaltas tik vienas iš tėvų.
Skirtumas tarp a) konflikto tarp tėvų ir b) vaiko nuteikinėjimo, t. y. vieno iš tėvų smurto tuo pačiu prieš vaiką ir kitą iš tėvų (nutraukiant jų ryšius) yra fundamentalus.
Šis skirtumas nuolat akcentuojamas realią pagalbą teikiančių specialistų vakarų šalyse. Šio skirtumo nesuprantantis specialistas nuteikinėjimo atvejais ne padės vaikams, o pakenks, nes dalį kaltės bus linkęs permesti ant nukentėjusio - atstumto iš tėvų. Panašiai, kaip išprievartautoms moterims prikišinėti, kad gal sijonas buvo per trumpas, ir įsivaizduoti suteikus “pagalbą”.
3. Ausį rėžia ir Dusevičienės teiginiai, neva jei vaikas jau virš 9 metų, tada “geriau jau nebelysti”, suprask - nesiekti ryšio atstatymo [1:03:40].
Žymiausiais ryšio atstatymo specialistas pasaulyje R. Warshak ir jo programa “Family Bridges” sėkmingai ryšį atstatė keliais šimtais atvejų, su 95 proc. ir didesniu veiksmingumu, ir sėkmė nepriklausė nuo vaikų amžiaus - paaugliams buvo vienodai efektyvi. Dusevičienei vertėtų bent jau susipažinti su Warshako metodikomis ir rezultatais, ir įvardinti ko Lietuvoje trūksta, o ne nuvilti paauglių atstumtus tėvus.
4. Dusevičienės kone giriasi gaudavusi iš teismų nutartis ir per savo klaidas, eksperimentuodama (su vaikais), ilgainiui atradusi tinkamiausias metodikas, kurios, kaip vėliau sužinojo, beveik atitiko tai, kas rekomenduojama moksle [9:20].
Gal geriau buvo pirma pasiskaityti, o tada iš karto teikti tinkamą pagalbą, galbūt su kažkiek klaidų, bet tikrai mažiau, nei išradinėti dviratį eksperimentuojant su vaikais?
5. Pradžioje pristačiusi savo darbo metodikas kaip “užpatentuotą algoritmą” [01:54], vėliau Dusevičienė pati sau prištarauja, sakydama, kad kiekvienas atvejis yra unikalus [47:15], o įvykdžius 13 pirmo etapo susitikimų (be abejo, jie mokami), bendravimo etapas net nepradedamas, nebent teismas pakartotinai įpareigotų, ir net tada viskas priklausytų nuo nuteikinėtojo geranoriškumo.

Pokalbio pabaigoje Dusevičienė reziumuoja: didžiausia dovana vaikui bus jei kreipsitės į ją.

Mano reziume nebūtų tokia optimistiška. Prieš pasirašant su Dusevičiene paslaugų sutartį siūlyčiau aptarti, kas bus daroma jei vaiko nuteikinėtojas bendradarbiaus švelniai tariant “nenoriai”, o vaikas ir toliau sakys, kad bendrauti nenori (nes tai yra labiausiai tikėtinas scenarijus) ir pagalvoti ar tai, ką tokiu atveju pasiūlytų Dusevičienė, jus tenkintų.

Skyrybų kontekste vis dar per dažnai tikimasi, kad pagrindinius atsakymus pateiks teismas, o konfliktą išspręs formalūs procesai. Tačiau ten, kur kalbame api...

When Your Co-Parent Is a Helicopter Parent: How “Safety” Can Become a Weapon - and What It Does to Your Childby Danica J...
02/01/2026

When Your Co-Parent Is a Helicopter Parent: How “Safety” Can Become a Weapon - and What It Does to Your Child

by Danica Joan Dockery, M.Ed, Mediator/Author/Co-Parenting Educator

There’s a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from trying to co-parent with someone who is always hovering—not just over the child, but over you.
A helicopter co-parent doesn’t simply care deeply. They monitor, micromanage, and intervene. They may genuinely believe they’re protecting the child from disappointment, risk, or neglect. And because their anxiety feels like “evidence,” they often interpret normal parenting differences as danger.
In high-conflict custody situations, that can turn into a dangerous narrative: you become the “unsafe” parent—the one whose time must be limited, monitored, or supervised.
And yes, the impact on you is real. But the deeper harm often lands on the child—who learns that love looks like control, and connection comes with fear.

What “helicopter parenting” looks like in co-parenting

Psychologist Dr. Roseann Capanna-Hodge describes helicopter parents as “well-meaning but overly involved,” hovering to shield a child from discomfort, failure, or risk—often without realizing it can stunt resilience and independence.
In a two-home family system, that can show up as:
Gatekeeping: “I’m the only one who knows what the child needs.”
Over-documenting and over-reporting: constant “updates,” demands, and critiques.
Over-scheduling: the child’s time gets packed so there’s little room for relaxed bonding with the other parent.
Rescuing the child from discomfort: quickly stepping in so the child never learns to cope.
Rewriting history: portraying normal mistakes as proof of “danger,” “neglect,” or “instability.”
When this escalates, it can bleed into litigation behavior: repeated allegations, emergency motions, and pressure for restrictions that “keep the child safe.”

How “concern” becomes court conflict

Family court is built to prioritize child safety. When credible concerns exist, courts may order protective measures (including structured time, supervision, or other safeguards).
The problem is that a helicopter co-parent’s internal alarm system can become the loudest voice in the room—especially if they are skilled at presenting fear as fact.
In high-conflict cases, some professionals have cautioned that when controlling dynamics are misunderstood as “just conflict,” custody outcomes can unintentionally keep children exposed to harmful patterns (including coercive control).
This is where many stable, loving parents get blindsided:
You’re not being evaluated as a whole parent—you’re being compared against someone who has positioned themselves as the only safe option.

The impact on the “painted unsafe” parent

If you’re the parent being cast as risky, your nervous system gets trained into survival mode:
You start parenting defensively instead of naturally.
You avoid normal kid experiences because you’re afraid of how they’ll be interpreted.
You feel like you must constantly “prove” you love your child.
Your child begins to sense that time with you is controversial, stressful, or conditional.
And even if you never say a word against the other parent, the atmosphere still communicates something to the child:
“Loving you is complicated.”
That is a brutal message for a child to carry.

The impact on the child caught in the middle

Helicopter parenting is often rooted in love—and anxiety. But when anxiety drives the system, children don’t learn independence. They learn hypervigilance.
Research on helicopter parenting consistently links it to outcomes like lower self-efficacy (confidence in one’s ability to handle life), higher distress, and more difficulty functioning independently.
Dr. Capanna-Hodge’s list of common adult traits (low stress tolerance, difficulty making decisions, fear of failure, low self-confidence, people-pleasing, trouble problem-solving, dependence on validation, delayed independence, and low risk tolerance) reads like a map of what happens when a child’s growth edge is repeatedly “rescued.”
And even mainstream parenting educators warn that over-functioning for children can increase anxiety and reduce confidence over time.
In co-parenting specifically, kids may develop:
Split loyalty: “If I enjoy Dad/Mom’s house, will I be betraying the other parent?”
Learned helplessness: “I can’t do hard things unless an adult takes over.”
People-pleasing: “Approval equals safety.”
Fear-based identity: “The world is dangerous; I’m not capable.”
Black-and-white thinking: “One parent is safe, one is unsafe.”
And here’s the tragedy: a child can love both parents and still feel emotionally unsafe—because the relationship system is unsafe.

The Gen X contrast: “freedom” wasn’t neglect—it was training

Many Gen X kids grew up with a level of freedom that would trigger a thousand group texts today.
We walked to friends’ houses. We solved boredom with imagination. We negotiated conflict without adults running interference. We learned to regulate disappointment by living through it.
That wasn’t perfect—and it wasn’t always safe—but it produced something valuable: competence.
Modern research and commentary increasingly point to the “adult takeover of childhood”—more supervision, less free play, and fewer chances for kids to build independence.
And surveys show a major decline in kids playing outside compared with older generations.
Even parents themselves often say they want to promote independence but struggle with how to do it in today’s culture.
Independence isn’t a personality trait. It’s a skill built through reps: choice, consequence, repair, retry.
So when a helicopter co-parent blocks those reps, the child doesn’t just lose freedom. They lose practice becoming capable.

What helps when you’re co-parenting with a helicopter parent

This isn’t legal advice—every case is different—but these are stability strategies that protect children in high-control dynamics.

1) Stop arguing the story. Start documenting reality

A helicopter co-parent often lives inside a narrative: “If I don’t control this, something bad will happen.”
Arguing with that narrative usually feeds it.
Instead:
Keep communication brief, factual, and child-focused.
Track schedules, exchanges, school involvement, medical compliance—calmly and consistently.
Let your reliability be your loudest evidence.

2) Shift from “co-parenting” to “parallel parenting” when needed

When collaboration becomes a battlefield, parallel parenting can reduce conflict by limiting unnecessary contact and clarifying boundaries (communication rules, decision domains, and logistics).
The goal isn’t emotional closeness between adults. The goal is lower conflict exposure for the child.

3) Give your child something helicopter parenting can’t: calm competence

In your home, become the place where:
mistakes are safe to admit,
emotions are allowed,
repair is normal,
and capability is expected.
You don’t have to “out-parent” the other parent. You have to model adulthood.

4) Teach the child identity language

Kids in controlling systems often internalize: “I can’t.”
Gently build a new script:
“You can try.”
“You can figure it out.”
“You can ask for help without giving up your power.”
“It’s okay to love both homes.”

5) Understand the hidden driver: anxiety

This is where compassion can coexist with boundaries.
A helicopter parent often isn’t trying to be abusive. They’re trying to regulate their own fear through control.
But your child should not have to carry an adult’s anxiety as their life curriculum.

A message to the helicopter co-parent (if you recognize yourself)

If you’re reading this and you feel defensive—pause. That defensiveness may be grief in disguise.
Many helicopter parents are doing their very best… with a nervous system that doesn’t trust life.
But a child’s long-term safety isn’t built by preventing every fall. It’s built by teaching recovery.
The win isn’t: “My child never struggles.”
The win is: “My child knows they can handle struggle.”
Closing: The child doesn’t need a “perfect” parent. They need a free mind.
When safety becomes control, children don’t become safer—they become smaller.
And when one parent is painted as “unsafe” simply because they parent differently, a child loses something precious: the freedom to fully belong in both homes.
If you’re in this dynamic, your job isn’t to become louder than the helicopter parent.
Your job is to become steadier than the chaos—so your child has at least one place where love feels like peace.

Pietų Korėjos vaikų, atimtų ir įvaikintų Europoje ir JAV, istorijose stebėtinai daug analogijos su tėvų atstūmimu:
02/08/2025

Pietų Korėjos vaikų, atimtų ir įvaikintų Europoje ir JAV, istorijose stebėtinai daug analogijos su tėvų atstūmimu:

Marianne Ok Nielsen never wanted children, or a family of her own. She used to tell friends she didn’t feel worthy of that kind of life.

Address

Žalgirio Gatvė 108
Vilnius
LT-09300

Telephone

+37060050271

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Lygiavertės tėvystės asociacija:

Share