Recent Posts in Understanding-Based Approaches Category

Website Design, Development and Optimization for

Divorce and Family Law Mediation

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.

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.

One reason why people become "stuck" is that they develop patterns of dealing with conflict, over time, with their spouses, domestic partners, employers, children, inlaws, and just about everybody else. We respond in repetitive types of ways. These can be likened to unconscious "strategies" in the sense that we rarely make a decision to employ one pattern or another. The patterns can become conditioned over time, and may become a part of how we have structured our personalities. They may or may not be the same pattern in dealing with every person, or the same pattern that will arise every time, but patterns do develop. Very often the conflict patterns of other people trigger our own in specific and even predictable ways.

If you are considering mediating your family law matter, it may be helpful for you to reflect on your conflict interaction patterns. One important reason why is that conflict patterns provide a strong argument in favor of using mediation instead of some other dispute resolution method like the Courts, violence as an extreme example, or just plain arguing or disruptive conduct (yes, each of those can be a strategy for overcoming conflict). 

At DFMS we suggest that some form of peacemaking is the only approach that resolves disputes - the others just impose outcomes and call it a "result" or perhaps a "consequence."

In general terms there are three primary patterns that persons in conflict employ or express as a coping mechanism: Accommodation, Avoidance, and Control. They manifest in behaviors and speech, or the seeming absence thereof. They tend to look like this. Do any seem to fit your style of dealing with conflict more than others?

Accommodation

• Giving in
• Playing the victim
• Attempting to pacify the other
• Deference to the law
• Deference to the mediator
• Emphasis on sense of personal inadequacy
• Wanting peace at any price
• Failing to assert one's own needs

Avoidance

• Refusing to participate in mediation, litigation, or even conflict itself
• Avoidance of differences
• Indecision
• Withdrawing behaviors (refusing to engage and isolation)
• Going off on tangents
• Being overwhelmed by complexity
• Difficulties processing information
• Wanting it over at any cost

Control

• Dominating the other party or the process
• Seeing only one's own interest
• Rigid positions and outlooks
• Blaming behaviors
• Shaming behaviors
• Threatening behaviors
• Inability/unwillingness to view situations in different ways
• Acting in ingratiating ways towards the other party or the mediator

• The avoider avoids, and his or her interests are not protected
• The accommodator accommodates, and so sacrifices his or her interests
• The controller controls, tramples the interests of others, and their own as well

Mediation holds the promise that these patterns, including the triggers that the cause them, can be understood and real choices can be restored that are much healthier for all concerned.

• How much stuff is there and how long were you married? If you are dividing pots and pans and a small apartment full of furniture, without more, then chances are you don't need a mediation. 

• If there are no issues of spousal support or child support, or if what you propose to agree on is indeed perfectly adequate and fair to each of you (and you both know that to be so), then mediation might be an unnecessary cost for you.

• If there are no issues over repayments of loans to parents, no residence to divide or sell, and if the two of you really have no ongoing ties that will bind you together in the future in terms of finances or other people, mediation might not provide an added value to the quality of your divorce.

• If each partner has been and remains able to talk respectfully towards the other, and to behave with fairness and dignity, mediation might be superfluous.

• So long as there really are no imbalances of power, such as for instance one party who has decided there is nothing to disagree over and then sets about convincing the other that this is so, then mediation may not be necessary to protect the interests of either party.

But it is our experience that there are usually issues and agendas that lay beneath the surface of what each party voices. Many times the parties have assumed conditioned roles or "conflict patterns" (for instance "accommodation" or "withdrawal" from conflict, something I will separately blog because it is so unconscious and yet so important to understand) that mask or shortcircuit a full and fair resolution of the matters that must be settled in divorce or partnership dissolutions. If those patterns are not honestly looked at and addressed, then someone's interests will likely be damaged no matter how "friendly" or "amicable" the separating is expressed as being.

Mediation is the parties' process, not the mediator's. Just as both partners must be on board to attempt mediation, we believe that both partners ought be on board in believing that it will not assist them assuming they are otherwise willing to consider it. Sometimes one person has not really expressed that they would like to discuss in a safe setting what the agreement that has been reached really means, or inquire whether it is fair or whether there might be a better alternative. 

We are available to assist you whenever you feel that exploring mediation might benefit one or both of you! This is a topic that is appropriately raised at the Orientation meeting, or at any time once the mediation commences.

Thurman W. Arnold III 

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?