Recent Posts in Mediation Experiences Category

DFMS Is Now (Almost) 18 Months Old!

As is to be expected, people in the midst of relationship transition are experiencing a deep range of emotions that include varying levels of personal distress. For some these are manageable when mediation commences, but they may become inflamed by something that is said or felt during the process. For others anger or hurt is always evident as an 'elephant in the room'. Given sufficient provocation and intensity these dynamics can surface and threaten to derail the mediation.

This is particularly true when participants engage in persistent back and forth accusations and recrimination during the sessions. We encounter this with many families to greater or lesser extents, and we hear of it as back stories that erupt as arguments that the parties later report. This is all quite natural - family law cases are underpinned by powerful feelings about any number of subjects, each containing sharp hooks where people can find themselves caught and polarized in an instant.

Similarly, when strong emotions are used to justify and link to self-serving concepts of 'fairness entitlements' or to purely 'legal rights', threads that might lead to potential mutual interests and joint benefit win-win situations seem to fray or become knotted. Parties may begin to lose hope.

The impulse can be to end mediation, believing that Family Court is now the only way to end the dance. This may or may not be true for your matter. Mediation does require that both parties be willing to work together at pivotal junctures, and one party alone cannot do all the heavy lifting. But we hope that you not resort to litigation just because passions repeatedly challenge you (and the mediator) - after all, this tension may have been one reason you decided to mediate in the first place and is not news. Years working with families within the adversary system have demonstrated for us that people suffer immensely by adopting that course. Moreover, we have found that stubborn patience pays dividends and that cases that seemed impossible have ended well. When confronted during mediation by the other person's deep anger or you own, we urge you to stay the course.

By looking at what underlies intense negative feelings we all can be helped to better understand how resentment ripens into judgments that interrupt or render impossible the openness required for crafting workable resolutions. It is possible to "out" these judgments in ways that help to diminish the otherwise co-optive power they can assume over wise and sensitive decision-making.

We acknowledge that this can be a daunting task. The idea of investigating the reasons why we feel and what (pain?) we feel can be really frightening. It can sound like a replay of what is bringing the relationship to an end, of which you've had enough. It could also become another place to swirl and twist, and so it requires that the subject be approached with earnestness and integrity. For this is the rub: If parties to mediation remain fixed within an overriding anger, or the hurt that underwrites it, they are not likely to move on with their lives (or to achieve a settlement) in any satisfactory or healthy way. Each party's willingness to investigate what is transpiring a little more deeply may be a key that unlocks the door to an improved level of freedom for both. Together we can try to work through to it.

Partly because of these recognitions, DFMS mediators Thurman Arnold and Retired Judge Gretchen Taylor spent the past six days training with a small and passionate group of professional mediators under the supervision of Gary F. Friedman, Jack Himmelstein, and Norman Fischer. These gentlemen comprise the "The Center for Understanding in Conflict & The Center for Mediation in Law", based in Mill Valley and New York City. Gary is a peacemaking trainer, lawyer, and mediator based in Northern California. Jack is a conflict theorist and former law professor at the Columbia University Law School and lives in New York. Norman is an author and former Zen abbot who teaches mindfulness practices. This group is developing useful techniques for becoming unstuck when strong emotions threaten to overwhelm the parties' mediation.

Of particular focus was the high conflict divorce, and how it challenges mediators too. The parties' emotions can strike chords within us, and so our goal in undertaking this training is to better connect in an authentic way with our mediation participants and their experiences, and ourselves. We aim to improve our skillfulness in moving parties forward to successful outcomes even when cases become quite bitter, and found the workshop offered useful tools for helping maintain focus and for investigating how feelings can become destructive to the process. The parties' options and choices can be expanded and redirected in positive ways if we can sit and be present with what is distracting us.

Emotions need not be directly addressed in every mediation. Very strong negative feelings are rarely fatal to the endeavor. But if either party's experience includes dynamics that cause blockages to resolving their dispute, if permitted to do so mediators can guide the participants to better recognize what is occurring inside and between them, and so keep the process on track.

If this topic applies to your relationship transition, the three of us might benefit by openly discussing and exploring it early on.

While we wouldn't say that co-mediating your dissolution or custody matter is necessarily superior to engaging a sole mediator, we find that there are benefits to co-mediation that particularly assist some parties. Could a team of two oppositely gendered professionals be more effective than the more traditional practice of using only one?

The reality is that men and women experience the breakup of marriages or non-marital relationships differently, and this assertion is supported by research in the mental health sciences. We suspect this comes as no surprise since many of the couples we meet complain how the other failed to understand differences in emotional views and experiences as the relationship unraveled - indeed, it is always one of the contributing causes. This tension accompanies people into the mediation room and without guidance it continues to block a dialogue that is necessary to sensitively address the needs and concerns of each partner; it is sometimes a source of immense frustration that actively inhibits a solutions based conversation that tends to swing some people into at least mild fits of outrage. Such moments are exactly what fuels the litigation alternative as one or both parties shuts down and gives up, ready to engage in an adversarial arm's race "no matter what it costs" or "to the last penny" that no calm person would want for themselves, much less for their children. The essence of conflict, and the best way to perpetuate it, is to wrap one's fist tightly around a core value seen only from the point of view of the observer and refuse to budge. Gender differences can take control of the dispute and yet be entirely unnoticed.

At DFMS we consider such moments to be opportunities to begin to reframe the discussion. Co-mediation can help each party to understand that the different approaches to conflict that seem so divisive (and truly can be) aren't so much 'personal' as they are a function of conditioning. This is not imply that mediators carry some magic wand of understanding that automatically relieves the tension and discord of views in collision, but where disputants are willing to open up just a little and to admit the possibility that differences in perspective are natural and unconscious  - conditioned and possibly even biological - mediators can facilitate movement that is otherwise unexpected. Whole new possibilities arise.

With one mediator and two parties a sort of triangulated interrelationship can seem to begin to develop. The parties' interactions become one side of that triangle with an energetic anxiety moving back and forth between them as difficult subjects relating to the functional consequences of divorce are aired and considered. Each party may be, quite reasonably, fearful that the familiar communication blocks will re-emerge and limit considerations relating to the needs of each side. Indeed that often does occur for a time. If that anxiety is not redirected by the mediator, each party attempts to align the mediator's views with their own in a bid for reassurance. If unchecked this inevitably leads to a sense of bias for the other party who worries that the mediator is being swayed by the first party, regardless whether bias in fact exists. Since with a single mediator for opposite sex parties one person is of the same sex as the mediator, suspicion or worry over bias can even reach panic proportions. Obviously it takes skill for the mediator to de-escalate such concerns, but perhaps you can see that a dual mediator model allows each party to feel equally supported and reassured.

There are many other benefits of co-mediation. Two mediator professionals assisting a couple always creates a synergy and a collective wisdom of what is actually happening in the room between the parties, and even an inspired approach to problem solving. It serves as a regulator on unconscious biases which might be held by the mediators and so enter the process.

At DFMS we believe that "two heads are better than one." We recognize that this can make the process more expensive than many families can afford, or to cost more than the parties want to spend even when their resources are substantial. We do not mean to imply that a successful mediation requires two facilitators. It is simply another tool to assist you these difficult transitions, of greater or lesser value depending upon the dynamics of your relationship. We are passionate about mediation and honestly love what we do. Co-mediation makes the process even more satisfying for us, but our joy derives entirely upon meeting and working with you towards positive outcomes. For this reason we reduce the fees together significantly below what each of us charges individually.

If you believe that some of the tensions that your relationship dispute includes relate to male/female differences in viewpoints, or if co-mediation is a process that has advantages that resonate for your life, please consider it is a worthy option.

Mediation is a difficult and beautiful dance. People arrive with deeply held and heartfelt concerns, and they will continue to hold these core values no matter what occurs. It is not for the mediator or the other party to try to change these core values, and that wouldn't succeed anyway. Mediators can facilitate cooperative insights that benefit both parties mutually, but they do not impose them. Openness is the parties' joint responsibility and a journey that they must undertake together if the process is to succeed.

People also arrive with settlement expectations, and while these may relate to core values, these are not the same thing and ought not be transposed. Expectations are entirely reasonable, but expectations can make people stuck - and mediation is designed to help couples become "unstuck." Fear of some perceived adverse outcome often underlies these expectations.

While mediation is an opportunity belonging to the participants, and the mediator is present to assist in actualizing dialogues that may lead to conflict resolution, mediators have a responsibility to maintain civility, dignity, and boundaries during the process. Mediation is not "anything goes" or "I should be able to say whatever I feel is important" especially if the other party might feel extremely unsettled by such statements. Themes of blame and shame often underlie such statements, and while these must be recognized they cannot be used as cudgels. It is the mediator's goal to assist equanimity.

I attempt to make this clear in our Orientation Session.  For instance, the  Mediation Agreement I ask you to sign contains the following language:

"The mediator will attempt to resolve any outstanding disputes among the parties as long as both parties make a good-faith effort to reach an agreement to both parties. Parties must be willing and able to participate in the process. The mediation agreement requires compromise, and the parties agree to attempt to be flexible and open to new possibilities for a resolution for their disputes. If the mediator, in his or her professional judgment, concludes that agreement is not possible or that continuation of the mediation process would harm or prejudice any of the participants, the mediation shall withdraw and the mediation conclude."

"Harm or prejudice" includes speech, conduct, behavior, threats of litigation, power-plays, or an insistence that the mediation process only validate one party's core beliefs or agendas where one or both parties are unwilling or unable to permit the other to have a different view. Different views are discussed and even to be encouraged, but that is not the same thing as saying "you must accept my views or else." I find that if people hang in with the process (one that they can always leave later since litigation remains available as a final resort), an unspoken attitude of "or else" may soften and dissipate as more information comes to light. The actual divorce or domestic partnership settlement usually ends of looking and feeling different that what was expected or feared.

Mediation unfolds in real time. It requires skill to manage the mediation exchange between the parties, but artistry or the passion of any mediator towards resolution won't guarantee that mediation between some conflicted spouses will succeed. At DFMS, we believe that our responsibility includes anticipating and reframing what is said in the mediation room. We may sometimes inquire as to what point is intended to be expressed. This is not to be disrespectful, but instead to protect the integrity and safety of the process itself, for each party.

Mediation disputants have to be willing to permit and even help the mediator to help them, understanding that the mediator provides no magic wand and relies upon the parties' own desire for resolution. Without a joint and separate commitment to the goals of mediation, when core values, expectations and fear collide with resolution possibilities the mediation may fail. We cannot give you guarantees. We do offer unconditional commitment to you and your family, nonetheless.

The dialogue between the parties must be one that they are both comfortable in engaging in. This is because mediation is a voluntary process.  Mediation cannot occur or continue without the other's consent. It certainly doesn't force agreement.

In contrast litigation allows either party to say whatever they wish to say, at least in declaration form if not when the process is occurring in open court and Judges are sustaining objections. Mediation requires more, and patience. This is because although in litigation while one side might have a say limited by Evidence Code rules of relevancy, in mediation there are two sides that must be supported at the same instant - equally if the process is to have integrity for both. Otherwise it becomes argument. 

There are times in mediation when one or both parties can't say what they might want to say, and we honor your frustration if this occurs. But mediation is not a platform for either party to launch into their unresolved sense of the relationship difficulties - that discussion is what brings you to us, and it probably hasn't worked thus far. Mediation is not therapy. The mediator's role is not to debate questions or issues with either party, but to try to provide the best environment for positive and respectful dialogue and problem solving, as well as legal expertise about family law issues. Some parties are more appropriately placed with litigating attorneys who can serve as their warriors, or in representing themselves, if that is their desire. 

Adversary litigation is not our wish for you, but sometimes it is the only open course. Mediation is not for every one.

The conflict that is inherent in divorce and custody contests is frequently related to distrust over how to cooperatively co-parent children.Challenges such as finance and asset division are also often topics of angry contention. Suspicions that parties aren't being transparent or forthcoming often underlie them. When this occurs, negotiations can become problematic and heated because they become imbued with meaning and feelings beyond the scope of the topic, particularly where a person’s feelings become too big and intense for them to be able to manage and express productively. In the mental health field we refer to this as “affect regulation,” which means that the difficulty in moderating emotions and their expressions in what is said and done can be a primary factor in impeding the resolution of high conflict disputes.  

Historically, emotionally conflicted cases were managed through the court’s inherent authoritative power.Yet, solving the dispute of tangible assets without resolving the underlying negative emotions and animosity among the participants is often a half-measure that invites the perpetuation of this conflict. Increasingly, the courts and child advocates have come to realize the costs and dangers in letting these emotional conflicts persist. Prolonged and antagonistic legal battles may provide a form of settlement or judgment that defines people's economic relationships (often coercively), but with the consequence of emotionally damaged parents and children. That does not offer finality, but the reverse and it tends to be short-lived.

This is one of the many destructive attributes of our adversarial legal system:It treats people by reordering the external parts of their experience, and ignores what is happening inside of them.

When emotions become charged, the parts of our brain that we rely upon for clear judgment and thinking shut down and go offline. We call this the “reptile” brain.   Naturally, then, we react aggressively and intensely and with little ability to filter our thoughts, speech and behaviors. 

The role of a licensed psychotherapist as a therapeutic co-mediator is to educate and support parties to learn or reclaim the ability to interact constructively – and certainly without a continuing cycle of distrust and abuse. As long as one partner behaves provocatively the other finds it hard not to respond in kind. By focusing on emotional reactivity and a spouse’s perception of threat, loss, and hurt, we re-establish empathy to the “aggrieved” partner(s), helping each to regulate their emotions back to more manageable levels. What a relief this can be for people who are suffering huge relational anxiety! The meanings beneath the tangible issues being negotiated are heard and incorporated into the dialogue as we model a productive way to communicate differently about difficult earlier situations. We map out strategies for how to handle similar situations when they unavoidably arise again in the future. The benefits of such a model are felt and seen in a reduction in traumatic experience for children as well as the parents. Anxiety diminishes. Trust and sanity returns. New opportunities arise.

Likewise, undue court time and unfortunate legal expense can be reduced.  Indeed, court can be avoided almost altogether. This means you are directing your life, not some stranger to your family.

Elizabeth, the fact that you are asking these questions tells me you are on the right track. Who knows where it might lead? Perhaps in a direction of wellness, however things sort out?