Top Reasons why Couple Counselling Fails… (sometimes!)

When Counselling Doesn’t Work

15 Reasons for Counselling Going Wrong

So what are the top reasons and situations that contribute to relationship counselling becoming unsuccessful?

The following scenarios demonstrate when relationship counselling may fail, even before it becomes ineffective:

1. The relationship struggles to make use of counselling: Partners repeatedly asking “so how do we fix this?” or “so what do we do, then?”. To quote Virginia Goldner (Clinical Advisor to Orna Guralnik in the TV show “Couples Therapy’ [S1E1]) : “Our job is to deepen [a couple’s] understanding of their dilemma… and nothing more”. Counselling is a non-directive, therapeutically facilitated process that a couple can learn to use effectively – though some may struggle a little at the start, sometimes leaving them feeling a little stuck.
2. A Hidden Agenda: One or more partners has a hidden agenda (e.g. wants to leave the relationship, is having an affair, is making notes in preparation for legal action, etc.) but does not reveal this during counselling sessions. Such secrets can neutralise the counselling process, leaving everyone else in the room wondering why progress is not being made.
3. The relationship has all-but-been destroyed: … or the partners have little regard for one another and are unwilling to work at reparation. Counselling does not save a couple’s relationship on their behalf; therefore, with so little investment from the couple into the process, the best outcome from counselling may be the couple feeling supported in coming to terms with the end of their relationship together.
4. When one (or both) partner(s) believe(s) they have no responsibility for the problems: e.g. they hold the position of being “faultless” in the relationship. They may argue that their partner is solely to blame for all wrongs. This would possibly be a defensive position (i.e. the individual has an investment in this belief, such as fear). In refusing to consider the possibility that they, too, may contribute to relationship behaviour, they deny themselves the possibility of change through their own autonomy.
5. An angry partner will not / cannot forgive the other partner: believing—at some deep, maybe instinctive level—that it is the other partner’s sole responsibility to make the anger that they are feeling go away. But the anger remains. Both partners lose sight of the fact that only the angry partner is capable of letting go of their rage and finding a way to forgive (perhaps, with the other’s partner’s help and support). Holding onto the idea that anger can only be made to go away by someone else may communicate something about the helplessness of the angry partner. 
6. The partners are unable, or unwilling, to entertain others’ points of view: e.g. holding onto a position of blame: “everything going wrong is your fault”, leaving both partners helpless.
7. The partners spend the majority—or all—of the session unable to move out of arguments: They become fixed in a kind of fight-or-flight process. They decline or ignore the counsellor’s invitations. They are unable or unwilling to listen and hear their partner’s point of view (hence the partner feels unheard and continues to push the points they want acknowledged). If some learning or new information could come from curiosity around this behaviour, the partners might be able to move forward from it. Yet, at least one partner maintains provocative behaviour.
8. The partners request that the counsellor fix their behaviour: asking that the counsellor fix their problems for them. They show little interest in solving the problems themselves. The counsellor will invite and assist the couple out of this position because counselling is purposefully non-directive; think: “teach a man to fish”, but the partners decline this (possibly for reasons that seem a good idea to them).
9. One partner wants the counsellor to change their other partner: e.g. to suit their beliefs, relieve their frustration, etc. This partner has little interest in taking part in the counsellor process to, perhaps, try to understand their partner’s position, or their partner’s point of view as a way to cooperatively transform their relationship’s behaviour.
10. Domestic Abuse / Violence: very difficult and sensitive processes to work with and resolve. Partners can learn to work together to neutralise abusive behaviour; however, other subjects on this page (eg blaming) can sabotage resolution and progress.
11. The partners have opposing agendas: e.g. one partner wants to rescue the relationship, and the other wishes to leave the relationship. Opposing agendas rarely works unless the couple can entertain the ideas of negotiation and compromise; discovering common goals. Counselling cannot easily sustain opposing agendas when they neutralise each other.  Without common goals, or honesty about having different agendas, a relationship remains unlikely to find couple counselling useful.
12. “I’m only here to help my partner”: One partner comes into counselling “to help the other” but will not / cannot recognise their position as having a contribution to the relationship or to their partner’s issues. Relationship counselling involves all partners.
13. When one partner has their own individual difficulties: Individual counselling may be a more effective starting point before relationship counselling commences.
14. When one partner isn’t interested in counselling: e.g. the partner turns up to the session, but doesn’t really have any idea why they’re there (or claims not to know, perhaps for good reasons). They act uninterested in the process, neutralising any benefits counselling might offer. Counselling requires the informed and active participation of everyone taking part.
15. When the counselling sessions are ‘weaponized’: “weaponizing”: using the session as a tool to manipulate or gain an advantage over the other partner(s). This can occur in throuple/group therapy as it can occur in couple counselling. Examples:
    • Manipulative behavior: One partner may use therapy sessions to manipulate the therapist or their partner. They might twist the facts, may present themselves as “the” victim, may introduce hearsay (eg what other people “say” is happening in the relationship). This may be to gain sympathy or support from the therapist, and may be about the partner’s own unacknowledged fears of uncertainties.
    • Blaming behaviour: Instead of taking responsibility for their own actions or issues within the relationship, one partner might consistently blame the other during sessions. They may exaggerate or fabricate problems in order to make their partner look bad or to deflect attention away from their own behaviour.
    • Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a form of manipulation where one person tries to make the other doubt their own perceptions and reality. In session, a partner might use gaslighting techniques to undermine the validity of the other’s feelings or experiences, making it difficult for them to address legitimate concerns together.
    • Selective disclosure: One partner might selectively disclose information during session to portray themselves in a more favorable light or to make their partner look bad. They may withhold crucial details or manipulate the narrative to suit their agenda, which can hinder the counsellor’s ability to accurately assess the situation.
    • Refusal to participate: In some cases, a partner may refuse to engage or participate in sessions altogether. This can be a form of passive-aggressive behavior aimed at sabotaging the counselling process and preventing any meaningful progress from being made.
    • Counselling as leverage: One partner may use the threat of discontinuing therapy or refusing to cooperate as a means of exerting control over the other partner(s). They may use sessions as a bargaining chip or leverage to get what they want in the relationship.

    The weaponizing-partner may act uninterested in the counselling process, undermining the process and neutralising any potential benefits counselling might offer the partners. Counselling requires the informed and active participation of everyone taking part.

Don’t be put off, though! These scenarios are real, yet they serve as a cautionary note rather than a death sentence. Any one of these situations can occur in couple counselling, and it’s the duty of the counsellor to assist the couple (a) recognising the behaviour, (b) supporting their curiosity finding a way out of behaviour that they find unacceptable.

However, autonomy is paramount: if the couple accepts the counsellor’s intervention and offer of assistance, matters like these may be mitigated and transformed. Otherwise, the counsellor will have limited options available, and the counselling relationship may well fail.