Problems of Termination in Child Analysis

In his opening remarks, Albert J. Solnit, described the unique idea around which this and a similar panel regarding adult analysis were organized. Samuel Guttman and Peter Neubauer had proposed that an ongoing dialogue with various senior analysts be instituted whereby they could present their experiences as regards the termination of an analysis, the criteria which guide them, and the various related issues and questions they find pertinent. The senior analysts were to be interviewed; statements of their opinions were to be presented (in their presence if possible) at a meeting and thus provide a springboard for discussion and reflection by all present. It was contemplated that this might be the first of a series of panels on the same topic or other topics using the same format. Not only would immediate purposes be served but a historically significant reservoir of knowledge might thus be collected. Solnit then further pointed out how child and adult analysis enrich and refine each other in a continuing manner. Child analysis contributes to the conceptual richness of adult analysis those developmental perspectives and formulations that emphasize and remind the psychoanalyst of the changing, adapting, and developing aspects of the adult personality, as well as the details, economy, and understanding of childhood reactions and attitudes. The analyst thus can be more specific and knowledgeable in his reconstruction of the childhood of his adult patients. Adult analysis, on the other hand, contributes to child analysis a clearer picture of the analytic situation, a dimension that enables the analyst to project and predict more usefully the future developmental alternatives for his child patients.

Regarding termination, Solnit noted that as we focus on problems of