All divorces have these three components: legal, emotional, and financial. (Couples with children obviously have an additional challenge, co-parenting with a former spouse.) A recent conversation with a talented and experienced family law attorney has prompted me to address a common frustration for family law attorneys, whether the divorce is litigated or collaborative: how to get the client to recognize the "big picture" of the reality of the family's financial situation and make decisions that will serve the LONG TERM best interest of the client.
As a litigation consultant specializing in divorce for 25 years, and a former director of a church-sponsored divorce recovery program for many years, I have had a ring side seat to the drama of the emotional journey of hundreds of people as they navigate their way through their own divorces. I have also been a consumer of the research on divorce, economic, sociological, and psychological, and used it to help me understand the process and varied outcomes of divorce and to apply the lessons to help my clients and their lawyers. I have identified a few common myths which I think are widespread in our culture and which are barriers to good decision making in divorcing people, both men and women. Here are my top 3 myths:
Myth Number 1: Family court is the forum for me to get justice for all the "wrongs" committed by my spouse during marriage--legal, emotional, and financial.
Even before "LA Law" appeared on TV with it's fictionalized depiction of divorce litigation, Myth Number 1was widely believed and firmly held. Unfortunately, as those of us to actually practice in the family law arena know, this is NOT true. I personally have witnessed a large number of divorces prolonged for months or even longer because one of the spouses refused to believe that a trial in their divorce would NOT provide a forum where the judge would punish their spouse for leaving them or treating them badly during marriage. The cost to both parties was not only thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees and a reduction in the value of the estate, but additional emotional scars for both parties (and their children).
Myth Number 2: Since my spouse was unfaithful (or maybe just a narcissistic jerk), I will get nearly all of the marital estate (especially since I was a faithful wife and stay at home mom) and my financial situation and lifestyle will be just like it was before the divorce.
While this totally mistaken belief is easier to understand, it is no less UNTRUE. The economic research on life after divorce is very clear: nearly all women are less well off after divorce. (The only exception to this rule occurs in couples with marital estates of $10M or more, in my experience.) Consequently, every dollar spent litigating directly and negatively impacts the economic well being of the wife after divorce. Sometimes the litigation is necessary to uncover assets hidden by a selfish and vindictive spouse, but this is the exception, not the rule. Usually, in my experience, unnecessary litigation is driven by the traumatized spouses desires to punish the spouse who leaves and files for divorce, and by a misguided emotional attempt to remain married as a way to avoid feeling abandoned and alone.
Myth Number 3: My lawyer's job is help me with the emotional as well as the legal and financial challenges of my divorce.
TV and movies have perpetuated this myth but didn't start it. The sign on my many lawyers' doors says "attorney and counselor" and many clients take that to mean "mental health and divorce counseling", it appears. As a graduate of top flight professional mental health graduate program and a top law school, I can tell you for certain that only one person in my law school class thought their professional role as a lawyer would include dealing with the emotional challenges of their clients--me. People who want to become lawyers (even family lawyers) are fundamentally different that people who want to be shrinks--lawyers want to help their clients by being an advocate for them; "shrinks" want to help their patients by helping them feel better, and their professional training and ethics are consistent with those roles (and frequently at odds with the law and expectations of the legal system in divorces). Lawyers are legally obligated to be "zealous" advocates for their client's LEGAL positions, so they are. Few lawyers have the inclination or the training to effectively help their clients with their emotional challenges. Consequently, clients with this mistaken expectation (Myth Number 3) find their lawyers to be either insensitive or uncaring. Only in rare cases is either of these impressions accurate.
Given the prevalence of these myths about divorce, what can be done to improve the quality of decision making by clients in the midst of world-shaking emotional distress? Here are my suggestions to lawyers and their clients:
1. Lawyers should confront these three divorce myths in the first meeting with their client to productively manage client expectations and reduce the chances for misunderstandings later. Most likely, this message will have to be delivered again, repeatedly, since stress interferes with learning, especially with UN-learning. Women need to understand that their lifestyle is going to change, and NOT for the better.
2. Clients need to avoid seeking legal advice from friends and especially from mental health professionals, and their lawyers should remind them of this early and often. Well meaning friends and well intended therapists are nearly always wrong about what the law is and what can or should happen, and for some reason, mental health professionals are the worst source of divorce-related legal advice. Don't ask; don't listen. Ask your lawyer.
3. Clients need to facilitate their own emotional divorce and recovery. Find a good divorce recovery program and complete it. If this isn't enough support, seek counseling or therapy. Don't expect your lawyer to be your emotional support--let them do their job and handle your LEGAL divorce.
4. Clients vary widely in their information processing preferences and abilities, especially under stress. When possible, the lawyer should outline the client's legal and financial options BOTH on paper and verbally along with the short and long term consequences of each option spelled out in detail. Then, the client should have an opportunity to go home, consider the options in a familiar and relaxed setting, and sleep on the decision (and discuss the options with friends and family if they wish) before the next meeting with lawyer to finalize the decision and execute it. Few strategic decisions in the divorce process require instant decisions. This is especially true of the "litigate or settle" decision which has such significant long-term financial implications for most women.
5. For a small group of clients who are emotionally fragile, frequently overwhelmed, black and white in their thinking, and usually very angry and resentful, none of these suggestions will be of much use. Continued therapy, including antidepressants, may eventually lead to a period of relative stability when clear and rational thinking and good judgment emerges--when it does, encourage the client to decide and sign off on the offer, recognizing that when the client's mood shifts again, the moment will be lost indefinitely. Seek assistance from a divorce-savvy mental health consultant.
What are some of the other divorce myths that you encounter?
What strategies have you found useful in promoting good decision making in divorcing people?
I look forward to your comments.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Research shows that witness training improves the accuracy of testimony
Traditionally, both judges and lawyers looked on witness "coaching" with considerable suspicion. Judges were concerned about lawyers subverting the judicial process by using their witnesses as a "mouthpiece" for the lawyer to improve their cases. Lawyers were suspicious of other lawyers for the same reason. No one considered the plight of the witness very much.
Fear of speaking in public is the single phobia endorsed by more than 2/3 of all respondents in surveys of the US public--no other fear comes close to these numbers. Testifying in court is not only "speaking in public", it is also accompanied by the very common fear that testifying falsely will lead to a jail sentence (I know of no research detailing the prevalence of this myth, but my guesstimate is that nearly 2 out of 3 witnesses believe it.) Lawyers who live their professional lives in the courtroom frequently don't appreciate how intimidating the setting and the jargon can be to someone experiencing it for the first time. And, when the witness believes that their children are on the line, the fear and pressure rise exponentially.
The research cited below nicely highlights the primary value of witness training: IMPROVED accuracy of the testimony! What Ellison and Wheatcroft found was that training witnesses about the rules and tactics of cross examination led to a REDUCTION in errors in responding accurately by more than 66% to complex questions on cross examination. Accuracy of answers to simple cross examination questions improved by 52%. Just as importantly, witnesses reported having the confidence to ask the cross examiner to clarify questions.
More than 25 years of teaching people how to testify effectively has convinced me that witness training, done right, not only helps the witness but significantly aids the administration of justice. This research confirms that belief. Of the hundreds of people whom I have trained, NOT ONE has ever said the training about how to testify effectively, especially how to handle cross examination, was a waste of time. Not one.
Now that the advantages of witness training to the system as a whole have been documented, there is no reason not spend the time to provide witnesses with the tools they need to testify accurately. Justice would seem to require it.
Ellison, L. & Wheatcroft, J. (2010). "Could you ask me that in a different way please?" Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarization on adult witness accuracy. Criminal Law Review, 11, pp. 823-839.
Fear of speaking in public is the single phobia endorsed by more than 2/3 of all respondents in surveys of the US public--no other fear comes close to these numbers. Testifying in court is not only "speaking in public", it is also accompanied by the very common fear that testifying falsely will lead to a jail sentence (I know of no research detailing the prevalence of this myth, but my guesstimate is that nearly 2 out of 3 witnesses believe it.) Lawyers who live their professional lives in the courtroom frequently don't appreciate how intimidating the setting and the jargon can be to someone experiencing it for the first time. And, when the witness believes that their children are on the line, the fear and pressure rise exponentially.
The research cited below nicely highlights the primary value of witness training: IMPROVED accuracy of the testimony! What Ellison and Wheatcroft found was that training witnesses about the rules and tactics of cross examination led to a REDUCTION in errors in responding accurately by more than 66% to complex questions on cross examination. Accuracy of answers to simple cross examination questions improved by 52%. Just as importantly, witnesses reported having the confidence to ask the cross examiner to clarify questions.
More than 25 years of teaching people how to testify effectively has convinced me that witness training, done right, not only helps the witness but significantly aids the administration of justice. This research confirms that belief. Of the hundreds of people whom I have trained, NOT ONE has ever said the training about how to testify effectively, especially how to handle cross examination, was a waste of time. Not one.
Now that the advantages of witness training to the system as a whole have been documented, there is no reason not spend the time to provide witnesses with the tools they need to testify accurately. Justice would seem to require it.
Ellison, L. & Wheatcroft, J. (2010). "Could you ask me that in a different way please?" Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarization on adult witness accuracy. Criminal Law Review, 11, pp. 823-839.
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Undeniable Advantage of Juror Questionnaires over Voir Dire
For more than 25 years, it has been apparent to many litigation consultants that a questionnaire is a more effective, efficient, and valid vehicle for eliciting TRUTHFUL responses to issues of concern to attorneys during jury selection. Now a recently published research report confirms what we have believed, and adds some additional detail to the comparative advantages of jury questionnaires over verbal voir dire in jury selection.
This latest research reported here [(Flores, D.M. (2011). Methods of expanded voir dire and written questionnaires: Experimental results on juror self-disclosure and implications for trial practice. Court Call, Summer, 2011, pp. 1-6.)] is notable for comparing answers on a jury questionnaire to 3 different kinds of voir dire: group voir dire (the most common practice in the US), individual questions to jurors seated with the panel in court, individual questioning of prospective jurors with only judge and attorneys present in court, and finally, individual interviews of prospective jurors in a separate room with judge and attorneys present.
Compared to information provided by prospective jurors on a jury questionnaire, jurors FAILED to provide candid answers to group voir dire 67% of the time, to individual questions from a judge 50% of the time, to individual questions from attorneys 33% of the time, and to private voir dire questions away from other panel members, 20% of the time. Most importantly, jurors were willing to (and did) provide the information withheld during voir dire on juror questionnaires.
The implications of these findings are profound for Texas family law attorneys (Texas is one of two states with jury trials in divorce and custody cases.). As Texas courts have become more crowded with the increase in population over the last 20 years, judges are increasingly limiting voir dire in jury selection to group and individual questions of the panel in court, with time limits of one hour per side becoming a common practice. Many judges are reluctant to allow the use of jury questionnaires, while some are adamantly opposed and refuse to allow their use.
This new research may lead to a new avenue of appeal in family law jury cases. When 2/3 of jurors are withholding relevant information from attorneys during group voir dire, the judge's failure to allow more valid and reliable ways of learning about the attitudes of prospective jurors (when juror questionnaires have been requested and denied by the court) raises the question of whether parties have been denied the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution.
Jury consultants have been teaching attorneys about the barriers (physical, emotional, social, and psychological) to complete and honest self-disclosure by prospective jurors during voir dire in the courtroom for many years, and suggesting strategies to overcome those barriers and make it possible for panel members to be completely honest. We (litigation consultants) have long recognized that questionnaires were the best solution to this problem, and the new experimental research confirms what trial practice has demonstrated many times: Jury questionnaires have no equal in the search for the 'truth' about juror attitudes.
This latest research reported here [(Flores, D.M. (2011). Methods of expanded voir dire and written questionnaires: Experimental results on juror self-disclosure and implications for trial practice. Court Call, Summer, 2011, pp. 1-6.)] is notable for comparing answers on a jury questionnaire to 3 different kinds of voir dire: group voir dire (the most common practice in the US), individual questions to jurors seated with the panel in court, individual questioning of prospective jurors with only judge and attorneys present in court, and finally, individual interviews of prospective jurors in a separate room with judge and attorneys present.
Compared to information provided by prospective jurors on a jury questionnaire, jurors FAILED to provide candid answers to group voir dire 67% of the time, to individual questions from a judge 50% of the time, to individual questions from attorneys 33% of the time, and to private voir dire questions away from other panel members, 20% of the time. Most importantly, jurors were willing to (and did) provide the information withheld during voir dire on juror questionnaires.
The implications of these findings are profound for Texas family law attorneys (Texas is one of two states with jury trials in divorce and custody cases.). As Texas courts have become more crowded with the increase in population over the last 20 years, judges are increasingly limiting voir dire in jury selection to group and individual questions of the panel in court, with time limits of one hour per side becoming a common practice. Many judges are reluctant to allow the use of jury questionnaires, while some are adamantly opposed and refuse to allow their use.
This new research may lead to a new avenue of appeal in family law jury cases. When 2/3 of jurors are withholding relevant information from attorneys during group voir dire, the judge's failure to allow more valid and reliable ways of learning about the attitudes of prospective jurors (when juror questionnaires have been requested and denied by the court) raises the question of whether parties have been denied the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution.
Jury consultants have been teaching attorneys about the barriers (physical, emotional, social, and psychological) to complete and honest self-disclosure by prospective jurors during voir dire in the courtroom for many years, and suggesting strategies to overcome those barriers and make it possible for panel members to be completely honest. We (litigation consultants) have long recognized that questionnaires were the best solution to this problem, and the new experimental research confirms what trial practice has demonstrated many times: Jury questionnaires have no equal in the search for the 'truth' about juror attitudes.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Mediation Strategies--Making the First Offer--Don't Try to "Sell" It!
There's an opportune time to do things, a right time for everything on the earth: ... A right time to shut up and another to speak up...
Eccleciastes 3 from "The Message" by Eugene Peterson
A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology strongly suggests that making too strong a case in presenting an opening offer in a negotiation is counter-productive. The study looked at negotiations where the parties made an opening offer with no explanation or persuasive argument and compared those negotiations to situations where the opening offer was accompanied by a persuasive argument in support of the terms being offered.
The study found that parties who made an opening offer without "selling" it ended the negotiations with results that were CLOSER to their opening offer than parties who made an offer and then tried to "sell it" to the other side. The explanation appears to be that "selling" the opening offer provokes counter-arguments by the other party and leads to counter-offers that are farther away from the opening offer than when the offer is presented without a sales pitch.
This study has significant implications in family law litigation and settlement negotiations. Both clients and attorneys would be well-served to leave the advocacy for another day when making an opening settlement offer. However difficult it might be to make the offer without a 'pitch', it is clear that restraint is going to save the client some money and get them more of what they want.
Bottom line: There is an opportune time for advocating, and opening negotiations is NOT it. When making an offer--leave the arguments for the courtroom and help your client get more of what they want.
Here's the reference for the research:
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Aug;101(2):245-55.
Negotiation as a form of persuasion: Arguments in first offers.
Maaravi Y, Ganzach Y, Pazy A.
Source
Faculty of Management, Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University.
PMID: 21500924 [PubMed - in process]
Eccleciastes 3 from "The Message" by Eugene Peterson
A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology strongly suggests that making too strong a case in presenting an opening offer in a negotiation is counter-productive. The study looked at negotiations where the parties made an opening offer with no explanation or persuasive argument and compared those negotiations to situations where the opening offer was accompanied by a persuasive argument in support of the terms being offered.
The study found that parties who made an opening offer without "selling" it ended the negotiations with results that were CLOSER to their opening offer than parties who made an offer and then tried to "sell it" to the other side. The explanation appears to be that "selling" the opening offer provokes counter-arguments by the other party and leads to counter-offers that are farther away from the opening offer than when the offer is presented without a sales pitch.
This study has significant implications in family law litigation and settlement negotiations. Both clients and attorneys would be well-served to leave the advocacy for another day when making an opening settlement offer. However difficult it might be to make the offer without a 'pitch', it is clear that restraint is going to save the client some money and get them more of what they want.
Bottom line: There is an opportune time for advocating, and opening negotiations is NOT it. When making an offer--leave the arguments for the courtroom and help your client get more of what they want.
Here's the reference for the research:
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Aug;101(2):245-55.
Negotiation as a form of persuasion: Arguments in first offers.
Maaravi Y, Ganzach Y, Pazy A.
Source
Faculty of Management, Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University.
PMID: 21500924 [PubMed - in process]
Monday, August 08, 2011
Preparing to Mediate vs Preparing to Litigate- How Family Lawyers Can Use Client-Centered Strategies to Provide the Best Legal Representation
The cases are stereotyical: a successful middle aged man decides to divorce his wife of 20 plus years after a long period of acrimony and mutual animosity. Both spouses hire very competent lawyers and while the temporary support and financial issues are settled quickly, visitation for the children cannot be resolved, leading to temporary hearing. Following the hearing, discovery begins in earnest, and because of the custody/visitation issues and an exchange of inflammatory allegations, the parties' depositions are scheduled. Attorneys for both sides are surprised by what they find out during THEIR OWN client's depositions, and scramble to adjust to the "new facts" and prepare for mediation. The first mediation fails, as each side clings to unrealistic expectations and anger-driven rigidity and retaliation. In their candid and off the record discussions, attorneys for both parties agree that the case "needs to settle" but neither one can get the clients to do the right thing. Sound familiar?
The trend in family law litigation continues to move in the direction of fewer trials and more alternative dispute resolution, like mediation and, to some extent, collaborative divorce. This change away from litigation and trial preparation to mediation places family law attorneys under a new set of pressures early in the life of case: to discover both the strength and weaknesses of the client's case, to get the client to perform well in temporary hearings and depositions, and to uncover leverage points in the opposing party's positions prior to mediation in order to be in the strongest possible position at mediation. In other words, mandatory mediation policies have effectively "front-loaded" the case preparation tasks for family law attorneys, and created a greater sense of urgency for getting the "complete picture" sooner rather than later.
There are client-centered strategies available to manage these difficult and challenging cases. Here are a few of the strategies that have worked for my clients and their lawyers:
1. Take the time early in the case to get a complete history of the client, the client's spouse, the marriage, and each of the children. This interview should last 2-3 hours, and the goal is to get the client comfortable and talking, and let them "tell their story". Most clients expect that they will get a chance to "tell their side" in court (they won't, we all know) so this will be their one and only opportunity. Clients don't know what is legally relevant, but they will tell you all kinds of relevant facts, if given the chance. Most importantly, they will reveal the challenges and weaknesses in their own cases and minimize the surprises that can really hurt their cases later.
2. Emotional divorce and legal divorce proceed on entirely different timelines. When their is a conflict between the emotional divorce and the legal divorce--the emotional divorce ALWAYS trumps the legal divorce, and can stop the legal process in its tracks. When clients exhibit any of these characteristics, some kind of professional help is needed for the client ASAP: a hurt and angry wife still stunned by allegations of infidelity, a husband who describes his wife as an addict (food, drugs, shopping, alcohol), a wife who describes her husband as "abusive" and has been physically assaulted or emotionally beaten down, when either spouse is either a borderline personality disorder or narcissistic. Get professional consultation from a consulting expert about how to best support your client. Failure to address the emotional divorce factors is the greatest cause of mediation failures in my experience.
3. Take the time early in the case to explain in detail the litigation process, terms of art (motion, hearing, pleading, mediation, discovery etc.), and the sequence of events and a timeline. A typical divorce in North Texas takes 12-15 months, but most clients think tell me they think it will take about "6 months". This is just the first of the unrealistic expectations that clients have stuck in their heads, and managing and correcting these expectations is critical to maintaining the relationship with the client, and in making the process less stressful for client and attorney.
4. Before any hearing or deposition, take the time to teach your client how to be an effective witness, and the rehearse their testimony and cross examination with them. I have NEVER had a client tell me that rehearsing for their testimony in a temporary hearing or deposition was a waste of time--not one, not ever. Attorneys live in courtrooms and are comfortable there; clients are uniformly terrified, and consequently, without training and practice, are uniformly terrible witnesses. Clients not only willingly pay for time to prepare, they genuinely appreciate learning the rules and developing confidence to perform well.
5. Before mediation, explain the process to the client. Talk about the usual barriers to reaching an agreement, and have the client consider BEFOREHAND, and tell you in explicit detail, their bottom line position on all the custody and property issues. This will create an opportunity to manage the client's expectations, and prevent misunderstandings between attorney and client that can undermine successful mediation.
In summary, family law attorneys can provide the highest quality representation to their clients by recognizing that early, thorough, and considerate consultation which meets the CLIENT'S needs early in the divorce litigation process can make the entire experience less stressful for both attorney and client.
For more information or to arrange a consultation, call Dr. Karlson at 972.839.2394 or send email to karlson.kevin@gmail.com.
The trend in family law litigation continues to move in the direction of fewer trials and more alternative dispute resolution, like mediation and, to some extent, collaborative divorce. This change away from litigation and trial preparation to mediation places family law attorneys under a new set of pressures early in the life of case: to discover both the strength and weaknesses of the client's case, to get the client to perform well in temporary hearings and depositions, and to uncover leverage points in the opposing party's positions prior to mediation in order to be in the strongest possible position at mediation. In other words, mandatory mediation policies have effectively "front-loaded" the case preparation tasks for family law attorneys, and created a greater sense of urgency for getting the "complete picture" sooner rather than later.
There are client-centered strategies available to manage these difficult and challenging cases. Here are a few of the strategies that have worked for my clients and their lawyers:
1. Take the time early in the case to get a complete history of the client, the client's spouse, the marriage, and each of the children. This interview should last 2-3 hours, and the goal is to get the client comfortable and talking, and let them "tell their story". Most clients expect that they will get a chance to "tell their side" in court (they won't, we all know) so this will be their one and only opportunity. Clients don't know what is legally relevant, but they will tell you all kinds of relevant facts, if given the chance. Most importantly, they will reveal the challenges and weaknesses in their own cases and minimize the surprises that can really hurt their cases later.
2. Emotional divorce and legal divorce proceed on entirely different timelines. When their is a conflict between the emotional divorce and the legal divorce--the emotional divorce ALWAYS trumps the legal divorce, and can stop the legal process in its tracks. When clients exhibit any of these characteristics, some kind of professional help is needed for the client ASAP: a hurt and angry wife still stunned by allegations of infidelity, a husband who describes his wife as an addict (food, drugs, shopping, alcohol), a wife who describes her husband as "abusive" and has been physically assaulted or emotionally beaten down, when either spouse is either a borderline personality disorder or narcissistic. Get professional consultation from a consulting expert about how to best support your client. Failure to address the emotional divorce factors is the greatest cause of mediation failures in my experience.
3. Take the time early in the case to explain in detail the litigation process, terms of art (motion, hearing, pleading, mediation, discovery etc.), and the sequence of events and a timeline. A typical divorce in North Texas takes 12-15 months, but most clients think tell me they think it will take about "6 months". This is just the first of the unrealistic expectations that clients have stuck in their heads, and managing and correcting these expectations is critical to maintaining the relationship with the client, and in making the process less stressful for client and attorney.
4. Before any hearing or deposition, take the time to teach your client how to be an effective witness, and the rehearse their testimony and cross examination with them. I have NEVER had a client tell me that rehearsing for their testimony in a temporary hearing or deposition was a waste of time--not one, not ever. Attorneys live in courtrooms and are comfortable there; clients are uniformly terrified, and consequently, without training and practice, are uniformly terrible witnesses. Clients not only willingly pay for time to prepare, they genuinely appreciate learning the rules and developing confidence to perform well.
5. Before mediation, explain the process to the client. Talk about the usual barriers to reaching an agreement, and have the client consider BEFOREHAND, and tell you in explicit detail, their bottom line position on all the custody and property issues. This will create an opportunity to manage the client's expectations, and prevent misunderstandings between attorney and client that can undermine successful mediation.
In summary, family law attorneys can provide the highest quality representation to their clients by recognizing that early, thorough, and considerate consultation which meets the CLIENT'S needs early in the divorce litigation process can make the entire experience less stressful for both attorney and client.
For more information or to arrange a consultation, call Dr. Karlson at 972.839.2394 or send email to karlson.kevin@gmail.com.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Divorce-Related Trauma in Children: Exposure to Family Violence Leads to Changes in Brain Function
My last post highlighted the neural structures and processes involved in the development of parental alienation. This note summarizes some recent research about the connection between exposure to family violence and changes in brain functioning in children.
Researchers in the UK had noted that fMRI scans of combat veterans showed increased activation (when compared to veterans with NO combat exposure) in two areas of the brain: the amygdala and the anterior insula. These are two deep brain structures known to be active in the detection of threats, fear, survival responses, (amygdala) and of feelings of disgust or empathy, (anterior insula). These two deep brain structures have mirror neuron connections as well, leading to internal brain representation of external events, just like those noted in the post about parental alienation from last week.
This latest research compared the brains of two groups of children, neither of whom had any symptoms of mental health problems. One group of children came from families with documented histories of family violence; the other group of children had no such history. On a task that involved identifying faces as either male or female while in the fMRI scanner, the children with a history of "exposure to family violence" showed brain activation patterns similar to those of the veterans with combat experience--that is, activation of the two brain areas--the anterior insula and amygdala. The children with NO history of such exposure did NOT show similar activation on their fMRI scans.
This ground breaking research suggests that merely witnessing family violence leads to changes in children's brain function similar to those experienced by combat veterans. It is well known that post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, is characterized by "hyper-vigilance", and the chronic over activation of the neural processes involved in detecting threats and reacting to them. PTSD sufferers experience chronic fear and anxiety as a result of the over-activation of these same two brain structures (and some others).
What is not currently known is how much "exposure" is needed to result in these neural changes, nor why some children seem to avoid the long term consequences of anxiety and hypervigilance and distrust that other children experience from their exposure to family violence.
What is clear, even at this early stage, is that children are highly susceptible to measurable changes in brain function from exposure to family violence. The implications for family lawyers and courts would seem to include:
1. Children don't have to be physically injured by family violence to be adversely affected--just witnessing family violence is sufficient to cause adverse brain effects.
2. Intervention in escalating family violence at the early stages and removing potential for children being exposed to such scenes can prevent the emergence of those changes in brain function that increase the risks of development of anxiety and other maladies.
3. Leaving divorcing spouses together in the same house raises these risks for children since other divorce research has documented that nearly 100% of divorces involve at least one episode of physical violence between spouses. It is in the best interests of the children that their exposure to family violence be prevented.
Researchers in the UK had noted that fMRI scans of combat veterans showed increased activation (when compared to veterans with NO combat exposure) in two areas of the brain: the amygdala and the anterior insula. These are two deep brain structures known to be active in the detection of threats, fear, survival responses, (amygdala) and of feelings of disgust or empathy, (anterior insula). These two deep brain structures have mirror neuron connections as well, leading to internal brain representation of external events, just like those noted in the post about parental alienation from last week.
This latest research compared the brains of two groups of children, neither of whom had any symptoms of mental health problems. One group of children came from families with documented histories of family violence; the other group of children had no such history. On a task that involved identifying faces as either male or female while in the fMRI scanner, the children with a history of "exposure to family violence" showed brain activation patterns similar to those of the veterans with combat experience--that is, activation of the two brain areas--the anterior insula and amygdala. The children with NO history of such exposure did NOT show similar activation on their fMRI scans.
This ground breaking research suggests that merely witnessing family violence leads to changes in children's brain function similar to those experienced by combat veterans. It is well known that post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, is characterized by "hyper-vigilance", and the chronic over activation of the neural processes involved in detecting threats and reacting to them. PTSD sufferers experience chronic fear and anxiety as a result of the over-activation of these same two brain structures (and some others).
What is not currently known is how much "exposure" is needed to result in these neural changes, nor why some children seem to avoid the long term consequences of anxiety and hypervigilance and distrust that other children experience from their exposure to family violence.
What is clear, even at this early stage, is that children are highly susceptible to measurable changes in brain function from exposure to family violence. The implications for family lawyers and courts would seem to include:
1. Children don't have to be physically injured by family violence to be adversely affected--just witnessing family violence is sufficient to cause adverse brain effects.
2. Intervention in escalating family violence at the early stages and removing potential for children being exposed to such scenes can prevent the emergence of those changes in brain function that increase the risks of development of anxiety and other maladies.
3. Leaving divorcing spouses together in the same house raises these risks for children since other divorce research has documented that nearly 100% of divorces involve at least one episode of physical violence between spouses. It is in the best interests of the children that their exposure to family violence be prevented.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Some thoughts about the value of attorneys
Background:
I am a member of the Collaborative Law Institute of Texas and on an email discussion group of collaborative practitioners discussing issues in collaborative divorce. The moderator posed a question to the group in a recent post, and I was inspired to respond to his question
"How do we explain to the clients what they do? Are they necessary? Is it "really even" CP if there isn't a team?.....'
Those questions never seem to get asked about the attorneys. It seems to be simply a given that the parties in dispute MUST HAVE attorneys. But what do the attorneys do?
Here's my response addressed to Carl Michael Rossi, the moderator:
cMr,
your post has provoked me to stop lurking and respond.
First, some disclaimers—though degreed in both law and psychology, and collaboratively trained, I have not made a single dollar in legal practice (I work as a consultant to divorce attorneys and make my living when divorces are litigious, NOT collaborative).
Couples who have the ability to resolve difficulties productively do NOT divorce-so we never see them in our professional roles. Those without those critical skills (and some others) do divorce, but cannot do what is necessary to clear even meager legal hurdles TOGETHER well enough to get divorced. They need help to do that. Many clients literally are unable to speak for themselves in a way that will lead to a resolution and need an advocate who can speak for them in the midst of a conflict. (Admittedly, blindly partisan, traditional litigious advocacy can make the dispute less likely to be resolved, but I am talking about a kinder, collaboratively informed advocacy here.)
We all have a vested interest, reflected well/poorly in public policy and the law that puts boundaries around the terms under which we will let people divorce, particularly when kids are involved. No lay person I know has a clue about what those boundaries are, even after they read the Family Code in their jurisdiction. An “agreement” that gives all the property in the estate to one party leaving the other party destitute is clearly NOT inside the boundary, to make an extreme example.
In this arena, lawyers not only have no peer, there is no viable alternative in the vast majority of cases (some small number people are capable of DIY divorces). Nonetheless, it continues to be my considered opinion, as a former law student/grad student and former law professor/psychology professor, that law school curricula do NOT provide the kind of skill building opportunities for that equip lawyers nor psychologists for the legal realities of professional practice, particularly in the collaborative arena. At the same time, MHPs have an incredibly naïve and paranoid view of the law, for the most part, and many lawyers have few of the interpersonal and facilitative skills needed for collaborative practice and a disdain for the “fuzzy” expertise of MHPs, for the most part. Self selection in both professions, and the professional training in both professions, as currently practiced, will continue these unfortunate trends.
I have found through about 10 years of teaching future lawyers and MHPs together, in one cross-disciplinary graduate level course in the same classroom, that these prejudices in both professional groups can be overcome through education and personal experience, and that both groups can acquire both skills and a new appreciation for the value of the other. I know that collaborative practice experience has the same beneficial effect.
Collaborative practice is the nexus of this challenge. Both legal and interpersonal skill sets are needed but both must be valued and taught, and professional prejudices must be overcome. It can be done. Both lawyers and MHPs will always have a contribution to make in divorces and collaborative practice is a dramatic improvement in the way that both professions can help.
My two cents…
I am a member of the Collaborative Law Institute of Texas and on an email discussion group of collaborative practitioners discussing issues in collaborative divorce. The moderator posed a question to the group in a recent post, and I was inspired to respond to his question
"How do we explain to the clients what they do? Are they necessary? Is it "really even" CP if there isn't a team?.....'
Those questions never seem to get asked about the attorneys. It seems to be simply a given that the parties in dispute MUST HAVE attorneys. But what do the attorneys do?
Here's my response addressed to Carl Michael Rossi, the moderator:
cMr,
your post has provoked me to stop lurking and respond.
First, some disclaimers—though degreed in both law and psychology, and collaboratively trained, I have not made a single dollar in legal practice (I work as a consultant to divorce attorneys and make my living when divorces are litigious, NOT collaborative).
Couples who have the ability to resolve difficulties productively do NOT divorce-so we never see them in our professional roles. Those without those critical skills (and some others) do divorce, but cannot do what is necessary to clear even meager legal hurdles TOGETHER well enough to get divorced. They need help to do that. Many clients literally are unable to speak for themselves in a way that will lead to a resolution and need an advocate who can speak for them in the midst of a conflict. (Admittedly, blindly partisan, traditional litigious advocacy can make the dispute less likely to be resolved, but I am talking about a kinder, collaboratively informed advocacy here.)
We all have a vested interest, reflected well/poorly in public policy and the law that puts boundaries around the terms under which we will let people divorce, particularly when kids are involved. No lay person I know has a clue about what those boundaries are, even after they read the Family Code in their jurisdiction. An “agreement” that gives all the property in the estate to one party leaving the other party destitute is clearly NOT inside the boundary, to make an extreme example.
In this arena, lawyers not only have no peer, there is no viable alternative in the vast majority of cases (some small number people are capable of DIY divorces). Nonetheless, it continues to be my considered opinion, as a former law student/grad student and former law professor/psychology professor, that law school curricula do NOT provide the kind of skill building opportunities for that equip lawyers nor psychologists for the legal realities of professional practice, particularly in the collaborative arena. At the same time, MHPs have an incredibly naïve and paranoid view of the law, for the most part, and many lawyers have few of the interpersonal and facilitative skills needed for collaborative practice and a disdain for the “fuzzy” expertise of MHPs, for the most part. Self selection in both professions, and the professional training in both professions, as currently practiced, will continue these unfortunate trends.
I have found through about 10 years of teaching future lawyers and MHPs together, in one cross-disciplinary graduate level course in the same classroom, that these prejudices in both professional groups can be overcome through education and personal experience, and that both groups can acquire both skills and a new appreciation for the value of the other. I know that collaborative practice experience has the same beneficial effect.
Collaborative practice is the nexus of this challenge. Both legal and interpersonal skill sets are needed but both must be valued and taught, and professional prejudices must be overcome. It can be done. Both lawyers and MHPs will always have a contribution to make in divorces and collaborative practice is a dramatic improvement in the way that both professions can help.
My two cents…
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Helping Kids Cope with Separation from the Other Parent (or someone else)
Children of divorced parents must learn to cope with separations from people they love more quickly than children from intact families. Visitation schedules, no matter how thoughtfully or cooperatively constructed, just are not the same as being in the same house with both parents. Young children in these situations may need to be taught how to cope with these separations since they may have missed the opportunity that children from intact families usually have to ease into extended separations as they become emotionally mature enough to handle them.
As Dr. Mary Ann Little and I wrote in our book "Loving Your Children Better", there are strategies for helping children manage the sadness that can surprise both children and parents when kids feel the impact of a separation from someone they love (parent, friend, or grandparent). The strategies include things that a parent can do before, during, and after the separation occurs to help a child soothe themselves and develop the ability to feel sad, express the sadness appropriately, and then develop the ability to make themselves feel better.
Before the separation occurs:
When the child is NOT stressed, like at bedtime, talk with your child about the value of memories. Ask them to think about the person they love and to create a vivid and detailed picture of that person in their heads. If they have trouble getting a clear mental picture, show the child a recent photo of the person (preferably one with the child in the picture too) to help. Talk to the child about how they can always create this picture in their heads any time they want to, and even when the person can't be there, they will always have their mental picture (memory) of the person with them. Prompt the child to remember a fun experience from their last visit, and point out how that memory helps the child to feel better. Teach the child that looking at a photo or remembering the mental picture is a way to cope with sadness when the person can't be there. Give the child a photo of you to put in their backpack on visits to look at if they miss you (if the other parent doesn't have photo of you next the child's bed in their home). Make sure you have photos of the other parent in the child's room.
During a separation:
For young children between age 3 and 5 (and sometimes up to age 7), an object or experience can trigger overwhelming feelings of sadness for the absent parent or grandparent. When these feelings break through, savvy parents can help the child by following these simple steps:
1. Soothe child by having him or her sit in your lap, and then ask the child to think of their mental picture of mom, grandma, or dad.
2. If the child can't get a mental picture, get the photo of the person and ask the child to remember "that fun time with Grandma that we talked about".
3. If the child is still upset and can't be soothed, then offer to call the person so the child can reconnect (if that is possible and the timing of the call is not likely to be disruptive to Grandma's schedule). If the timing is bad, offer to call at a specific later time ("let's call Grandma today when you get home from school").
4. Remind the child that feeling sad is a signal about how much they love the person, that feeling sad is OK, that talking about feeling sad can help, and that they will always have their memories to help them feel better.
After the separation:
1. When the child has been reunited with the person they missed, prompt them pay attention to the fun things that they did during the visit so that they can build more memories for their "memory bank".
2. Remind the child that each of their fun experiences with mom, or grandma, or whomever, creates another memory for their "memory bank" that they can use to feel better when they miss the person or become sad.
3. Ask the person to talk to child about how they remember the child when the child is not with them, and perhaps even to give the child a small object or gift that is a "special way for you to remember that I love you when you're not here".
4. Take photo of the child with that person and put it in a frame next to the child's bed and tell the child to use the photo if their mental picture needs a boost.
Developing emotional attachments and coping with separations from people we love are the foundations of healthy relationships at every stage in life. Few lessons that parents teach their children have more lasting value.
As Dr. Mary Ann Little and I wrote in our book "Loving Your Children Better", there are strategies for helping children manage the sadness that can surprise both children and parents when kids feel the impact of a separation from someone they love (parent, friend, or grandparent). The strategies include things that a parent can do before, during, and after the separation occurs to help a child soothe themselves and develop the ability to feel sad, express the sadness appropriately, and then develop the ability to make themselves feel better.
Before the separation occurs:
When the child is NOT stressed, like at bedtime, talk with your child about the value of memories. Ask them to think about the person they love and to create a vivid and detailed picture of that person in their heads. If they have trouble getting a clear mental picture, show the child a recent photo of the person (preferably one with the child in the picture too) to help. Talk to the child about how they can always create this picture in their heads any time they want to, and even when the person can't be there, they will always have their mental picture (memory) of the person with them. Prompt the child to remember a fun experience from their last visit, and point out how that memory helps the child to feel better. Teach the child that looking at a photo or remembering the mental picture is a way to cope with sadness when the person can't be there. Give the child a photo of you to put in their backpack on visits to look at if they miss you (if the other parent doesn't have photo of you next the child's bed in their home). Make sure you have photos of the other parent in the child's room.
During a separation:
For young children between age 3 and 5 (and sometimes up to age 7), an object or experience can trigger overwhelming feelings of sadness for the absent parent or grandparent. When these feelings break through, savvy parents can help the child by following these simple steps:
1. Soothe child by having him or her sit in your lap, and then ask the child to think of their mental picture of mom, grandma, or dad.
2. If the child can't get a mental picture, get the photo of the person and ask the child to remember "that fun time with Grandma that we talked about".
3. If the child is still upset and can't be soothed, then offer to call the person so the child can reconnect (if that is possible and the timing of the call is not likely to be disruptive to Grandma's schedule). If the timing is bad, offer to call at a specific later time ("let's call Grandma today when you get home from school").
4. Remind the child that feeling sad is a signal about how much they love the person, that feeling sad is OK, that talking about feeling sad can help, and that they will always have their memories to help them feel better.
After the separation:
1. When the child has been reunited with the person they missed, prompt them pay attention to the fun things that they did during the visit so that they can build more memories for their "memory bank".
2. Remind the child that each of their fun experiences with mom, or grandma, or whomever, creates another memory for their "memory bank" that they can use to feel better when they miss the person or become sad.
3. Ask the person to talk to child about how they remember the child when the child is not with them, and perhaps even to give the child a small object or gift that is a "special way for you to remember that I love you when you're not here".
4. Take photo of the child with that person and put it in a frame next to the child's bed and tell the child to use the photo if their mental picture needs a boost.
Developing emotional attachments and coping with separations from people we love are the foundations of healthy relationships at every stage in life. Few lessons that parents teach their children have more lasting value.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Dallas Man Acquitted of Molestation Conviction based on allegations in Custody Case after 15 years
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently issued a order exonerating a Dallas father accused of molesting two of his young daughters during a heated custody battle and then being wrongly convicted based on testimony of the two girls, then 6 and 4. The dad was convicted, spent 2 1/2 years in prison, and then was released as a convicted sex offender. He had steadfastly maintained his innocence, and after his daughters reached adulthood, they recanted their childhood testimony completely, and admitted that they had decided that the adults weren't going to listen to them so they "just told them what they wanted to hear". The father, once a lawyer, was working as a truck driver at the time of his exoneration, and has been reunited with his daughters.
While this is an extreme example of parental alienation in a custody case, allegations of sexual abuse in too many custody cases. Based on overall occurrence of sexual abuse outside the context of divorce litigation, the incidence of father-daughter incest is very low (less than 1 in 1000 families or less) with the validation of incest occurring in more than 95% of reported cases. In the context of divorce litigation however, the number of reported cases is relatively high (10% of divorce cases or more), but with the validation of those reports occurring in fewer than 5% of those cases. Bottom line, incest allegations in divorce cases are almost always FALSE, while incest allegations in outside the custody arena are almost always TRUE. Of course, base rates don't determine the facts in a single case, but they constitute an important contextual clue about what is LIKELY to be going on in an individual case.
Despite the decline of such serious allegations in divorce cases over the last 25 years, parents in contested custody cases continue to make false allegations about the behavior of their spouses and to coach their children about "bad things" the other parent has done or is doing. These parents, many of whom have very poor judgment, a blurry line between fantasy and reality, and a "black and white" view of the world and the people in it, do not appreciate the damage that they are doing to the children in the zeal to win the "custody battle". The long term research on the effects of divorce on children continues to show that the best predictor of damage to children in divorce is the result of ongoing conflict between the parents--when parents continue to fight, children are harmed--period.
Professionals involved with divorcing families and the parents who are divorcing must all recognize that when parents attack each other in court during the months of the divorce litigation, the children are damaged for the next 20 YEARS or more. I am sure NO parent really wants that kind of future for their children.
So given these risks, what are some alternatives?
1. Even when divorcing, agree to disagree without including the children.
2. Give the children access and visitation with both parents.
3. Avoid making allegations without objective proof substantiated by a third party.
4. When in doubt, don't.
5. If you really suspect child abuse, find a mental health professional with LOTS of experience in child abuse and child abuse allegations in divorce cases and let them decide whether to file a report about the "abuse".
While this is an extreme example of parental alienation in a custody case, allegations of sexual abuse in too many custody cases. Based on overall occurrence of sexual abuse outside the context of divorce litigation, the incidence of father-daughter incest is very low (less than 1 in 1000 families or less) with the validation of incest occurring in more than 95% of reported cases. In the context of divorce litigation however, the number of reported cases is relatively high (10% of divorce cases or more), but with the validation of those reports occurring in fewer than 5% of those cases. Bottom line, incest allegations in divorce cases are almost always FALSE, while incest allegations in outside the custody arena are almost always TRUE. Of course, base rates don't determine the facts in a single case, but they constitute an important contextual clue about what is LIKELY to be going on in an individual case.
Despite the decline of such serious allegations in divorce cases over the last 25 years, parents in contested custody cases continue to make false allegations about the behavior of their spouses and to coach their children about "bad things" the other parent has done or is doing. These parents, many of whom have very poor judgment, a blurry line between fantasy and reality, and a "black and white" view of the world and the people in it, do not appreciate the damage that they are doing to the children in the zeal to win the "custody battle". The long term research on the effects of divorce on children continues to show that the best predictor of damage to children in divorce is the result of ongoing conflict between the parents--when parents continue to fight, children are harmed--period.
Professionals involved with divorcing families and the parents who are divorcing must all recognize that when parents attack each other in court during the months of the divorce litigation, the children are damaged for the next 20 YEARS or more. I am sure NO parent really wants that kind of future for their children.
So given these risks, what are some alternatives?
1. Even when divorcing, agree to disagree without including the children.
2. Give the children access and visitation with both parents.
3. Avoid making allegations without objective proof substantiated by a third party.
4. When in doubt, don't.
5. If you really suspect child abuse, find a mental health professional with LOTS of experience in child abuse and child abuse allegations in divorce cases and let them decide whether to file a report about the "abuse".
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Special Challenges of Professional Athletes and Divorce
I recently had the opportunity to speak to the Sports Financial Advisors Association Conference in Dallas about "Clients in Crisis: Protecting them Legally, Emotionally, and Financially" on a panel with Rick Robertson from Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel, and Roberton in Dallas, and Anthony Flax from ITC Recovery in NYC. Both Anthony and Rick provided invaluable insights to the challenges of dealing with crises with professional athletes.
Russell Maryland, former DE from the Dallas Cowboys, and Shauna Collum, former wife of an NFL football player, were panel members on a panel just prior to ours, and gave an illuminating presentation about the financial and resulting relationship challenges that arise BEFORE draft day. Many potential professional sports draft picks are approached by potential "agents" and "advisors" with opportunities to borrow significant sums of money (to buy cars and bling, usually) BEFORE they have been drafted or signed contracts.
This practice is so common that many of these young men already have major financial problems brewing during the very first year of their professional careers. The numbers bear this out, as 80% of all NFL players and 60% NBA players are getting divorce AND in serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy within 3 years of the end of their playing careers. The toll on these players, the spouses, and their children is a disaster repeated year after year.
This extremely high rate of divorce, along with the accompanying financial challenges, is a black mark on both the NFL and the NFLPA. It is apparent to any reasonable professional that these young men are a high risk group that needs early intervention to prevent this predictable family carnage. Both groups need to collaborate on solutions like this:
1. Values education and clarification for players and spouses before the draft occurs or before first camp begins and legal advice about how to protect their newfound affluence and assets.
2. Mentors who are NOT family members or friends to advise on financial and relationship issues, including community service and personal branding as a part of long term career planning after retirement.
3. Life coaching for skills building in personal finance, emotional intelligence, relationship and personal management, and parenting.
4. Outplacement services to facilitate the transition to life after professional sports.
A comprehensive program could reduce the rate of divorce and financial disaster for these families substantially and save lots of children the anguish of divorce and financial stress. These families deserve a better life.
The PowerPoint presentation from our panel on dealing with crises is available online at my Linked-In page. http://www.linkedin.com/home
Russell Maryland, former DE from the Dallas Cowboys, and Shauna Collum, former wife of an NFL football player, were panel members on a panel just prior to ours, and gave an illuminating presentation about the financial and resulting relationship challenges that arise BEFORE draft day. Many potential professional sports draft picks are approached by potential "agents" and "advisors" with opportunities to borrow significant sums of money (to buy cars and bling, usually) BEFORE they have been drafted or signed contracts.
This practice is so common that many of these young men already have major financial problems brewing during the very first year of their professional careers. The numbers bear this out, as 80% of all NFL players and 60% NBA players are getting divorce AND in serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy within 3 years of the end of their playing careers. The toll on these players, the spouses, and their children is a disaster repeated year after year.
This extremely high rate of divorce, along with the accompanying financial challenges, is a black mark on both the NFL and the NFLPA. It is apparent to any reasonable professional that these young men are a high risk group that needs early intervention to prevent this predictable family carnage. Both groups need to collaborate on solutions like this:
1. Values education and clarification for players and spouses before the draft occurs or before first camp begins and legal advice about how to protect their newfound affluence and assets.
2. Mentors who are NOT family members or friends to advise on financial and relationship issues, including community service and personal branding as a part of long term career planning after retirement.
3. Life coaching for skills building in personal finance, emotional intelligence, relationship and personal management, and parenting.
4. Outplacement services to facilitate the transition to life after professional sports.
A comprehensive program could reduce the rate of divorce and financial disaster for these families substantially and save lots of children the anguish of divorce and financial stress. These families deserve a better life.
The PowerPoint presentation from our panel on dealing with crises is available online at my Linked-In page. http://www.linkedin.com/home
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
What Next?
Ok, so now, after months and months of legal wrangling--you're divorced. Congratulations! What next?
This question is one I have seen many newly divorced people, both men and women, struggling to answer. Whether the end of the divorce comes in mediation, collaborative divorce, or litigation, it seems to arrive with unexpected suddenness, leaving the newly single people relieved, weary, and bewildered. Having spent so much time, energy, and money focused on getting divorced, few are prepared for "what next?".
Research which has followed divorced people for 10 years after their divorce found that 90% of the men and 60% of the women were emotionally "unchanged" at the 10 year mark. For some, the emotional scars of a "failed" marriage or contentious divorce means that counseling or therapy is the first step toward a new life and a new approach to relationships. For a few others, because of counseling or some other helping relationship during their marriage and divorce, the end of the divorce signals the opportunity to renew and change the dirction their lives with a freedom previously unknown. That dissolution of life structures creates the promise for "positive divorce". Unfortunately, few have a "positive divorce" experience.
As a director of a divorce recovery program, I saw many people begin to heal as they shared their divorce experience with others who were "in the same boat". Most left the six week program with a good start down the road to recovery, but as the research cited above has confirmed, that process does NOT continue for most post-divorce people. For most women, and nearly all men, divorce doesn't lead to a new life, but a return to the "old life"--same values, same habits, same choices in work and relationships. For men in particular, most remarry too quickly (within a year) and then divorce again just as quickly, creating a sense of increasingly cynical disillusionment. For these men, life balance is usually the first casualty, leading to a retreat into too much work, too much drinking, or too much casual sex.
It has been my observation that those divorced people with a clear life purpose, a solid value system, and a supportive network of friends bounce back from the trauma of divorce better than those without those fundamental and foundational elements. It is in these areas where coaching can be invaluable in transforming life after divorce into a "positive divorce" experience and the beginning of a new and different life.
Coaching, not therapy, is intended to:
*improve life planning and performance
*clarify personal values
*re-discover life purpose
*re-define life balance
*return to or begin a habit of service to others,
with a focus on action learning as vehicle toward a more purposeful and meaningful life.
This question is one I have seen many newly divorced people, both men and women, struggling to answer. Whether the end of the divorce comes in mediation, collaborative divorce, or litigation, it seems to arrive with unexpected suddenness, leaving the newly single people relieved, weary, and bewildered. Having spent so much time, energy, and money focused on getting divorced, few are prepared for "what next?".
Research which has followed divorced people for 10 years after their divorce found that 90% of the men and 60% of the women were emotionally "unchanged" at the 10 year mark. For some, the emotional scars of a "failed" marriage or contentious divorce means that counseling or therapy is the first step toward a new life and a new approach to relationships. For a few others, because of counseling or some other helping relationship during their marriage and divorce, the end of the divorce signals the opportunity to renew and change the dirction their lives with a freedom previously unknown. That dissolution of life structures creates the promise for "positive divorce". Unfortunately, few have a "positive divorce" experience.
As a director of a divorce recovery program, I saw many people begin to heal as they shared their divorce experience with others who were "in the same boat". Most left the six week program with a good start down the road to recovery, but as the research cited above has confirmed, that process does NOT continue for most post-divorce people. For most women, and nearly all men, divorce doesn't lead to a new life, but a return to the "old life"--same values, same habits, same choices in work and relationships. For men in particular, most remarry too quickly (within a year) and then divorce again just as quickly, creating a sense of increasingly cynical disillusionment. For these men, life balance is usually the first casualty, leading to a retreat into too much work, too much drinking, or too much casual sex.
It has been my observation that those divorced people with a clear life purpose, a solid value system, and a supportive network of friends bounce back from the trauma of divorce better than those without those fundamental and foundational elements. It is in these areas where coaching can be invaluable in transforming life after divorce into a "positive divorce" experience and the beginning of a new and different life.
Coaching, not therapy, is intended to:
*improve life planning and performance
*clarify personal values
*re-discover life purpose
*re-define life balance
*return to or begin a habit of service to others,
with a focus on action learning as vehicle toward a more purposeful and meaningful life.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Decline of Litigation and the Paradoxical Increase in the Need for Witness Preparation
Even before the economic climate turned stormy, family law litigation has been on a trend toward less litigation and more mediation and collaborative law. This trend is very beneficial for both children and divorcing families, and I expect the trend to continue. As with any significant change in the legal system, this one has consequences for lawyers and their clients that may not be obvious, because the cause and effect are so distant in time and challenging to discern.
In short, the fewer the number of hearings or deposition appearances by the parties, the more important each appearance becomes in determining the final outcome of the case. In the old days, lengthy litigation meant multiple hearings, sometimes repeated depositions, and then a final trial with a full day on the stand for each party. Generally, that meant a terrible performance by a party at a temporary hearing would be separated by a year or more from the final trial, giving the judge plenty of time to forget the first performance or to explain it away to "nervousness" or "stress". Those days are gone.
Today, a temporary hearing may be the only court appearance a party makes during a divorce or custody case. Depositions are unlikely to be seen by the judge or jury, leaving the temporary hearing performance of the parties of increasing importance for judicial decision-making or for negotiation leverage. Consequently, the importance of witness performance early in the case increases as the length of divorce litigation declines.
What hasn't changed though, is what makes witnesses effective.
1. Well prepared witnesses don't look coached, they look confident and calm.
2. Well prepared witnesses are responsive to questions because they understand the rules of evidence.
3. Well prepared witnesses give answers that are brief and clear.
4. Well prepared witnesses tell stories and give examples and avoid making judgments.
5. On cross examination, well prepared witnesses answer "yes" "no" or "I don't know" and do NOT try to explain.
These characteristics of effective courtroom communication have only increased in importance as the number of opportunities to testify decline. In courts where hearing times are increasingly limited, the need for intense preparation and crisp performance increase exponentially.
Due diligence requires that attorneys give clients the tools they need to compete effectively in the legal arena where most clients have NO experience and many unhelpful tendencies to unlearn. There is no substitute for effective, professional preparation, and the need is growing daily. Delay disadvantages both attorney and client.
In short, the fewer the number of hearings or deposition appearances by the parties, the more important each appearance becomes in determining the final outcome of the case. In the old days, lengthy litigation meant multiple hearings, sometimes repeated depositions, and then a final trial with a full day on the stand for each party. Generally, that meant a terrible performance by a party at a temporary hearing would be separated by a year or more from the final trial, giving the judge plenty of time to forget the first performance or to explain it away to "nervousness" or "stress". Those days are gone.
Today, a temporary hearing may be the only court appearance a party makes during a divorce or custody case. Depositions are unlikely to be seen by the judge or jury, leaving the temporary hearing performance of the parties of increasing importance for judicial decision-making or for negotiation leverage. Consequently, the importance of witness performance early in the case increases as the length of divorce litigation declines.
What hasn't changed though, is what makes witnesses effective.
1. Well prepared witnesses don't look coached, they look confident and calm.
2. Well prepared witnesses are responsive to questions because they understand the rules of evidence.
3. Well prepared witnesses give answers that are brief and clear.
4. Well prepared witnesses tell stories and give examples and avoid making judgments.
5. On cross examination, well prepared witnesses answer "yes" "no" or "I don't know" and do NOT try to explain.
These characteristics of effective courtroom communication have only increased in importance as the number of opportunities to testify decline. In courts where hearing times are increasingly limited, the need for intense preparation and crisp performance increase exponentially.
Due diligence requires that attorneys give clients the tools they need to compete effectively in the legal arena where most clients have NO experience and many unhelpful tendencies to unlearn. There is no substitute for effective, professional preparation, and the need is growing daily. Delay disadvantages both attorney and client.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
How experts predict whether couples will divorce
Dr. John Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute in Seattle, has emerged as a leading expert in the understanding of marriage dynamics and in predicting divorce. After more than 25 years of research and therapy with married and divorcing couples, a number of basic patterns in how married couples interact can be used to predict divorce (in the absence of change in these patterns).
First, there are two periods in married life when the risk of divorce is highest:
• After 5-7 years of marriage when conflict is usually highest
• After 10-12 years of marriage as a result of lost intimacy
It should be noted that marital conflict often increases when a baby arrives, which usually happens during the first few years of marriage (see bullet one above). After the first child is born, 40 to 70% of couples report significant declines in satisfaction with their marriage. So, a period of marital dissatisfaction is the norm after the first child is born, and in the absence of malignant interaction patterns, does NOT necessarily lead to divorce . (Remember, most unhappiness is temporary.)
The process that leads to loss of intimacy takes longer to result in divorce, and Gottman's research has identified the malignant interaction patterns that DO predict divorce. These are:
• A one to one ratio between positive and negative interactions (for happy couples the ratio of positive/negative interactions is 20 to 1)
• Mutual criticism (personal attacks on character not complaints about behavior)
• Defensiveness (“no I didn’t”, “yes but…”, “let’s talk about what YOU did…” or other denials of any personal responsibility)
• Stonewalling (refusing to talk in order to avoid conflict)
• Contempt for the partner (eye rolling, sarcastic humor, mocking)
Of the last four factors, those Gottman called the “four horsemen” (of the Apocalypse), contempt is the worst.
Here are some other findings from the research by Dr. Gottman:
•Conventional wisdom says it is not a good idea to “go to bed angry”. Gottman discovered that “flooding” – a physiological phenomenon triggered by emotional conflict — leaves people’s heart rates too high for them to clearly concentrate on the conversation at hand. He found that taking the time to calm down before finishing an argument is more likely to help couples stay close and connected.
•He learned that couples therapy with battering couples actually makes things worse for the woman—not better—another significant departure from the conventional wisdom. Partners both need to get individual therapy.
•It is extremely beneficial for both parents to express their own emotions, and it is especially important for fathers to express their feelings—especially sadness. This is critical for helping children develop "emotional intelligence",which is a better predictor of success than IQ.
The Positive Divorce bottom line
If your relationship is not overwhelmingly positive in your pattern of interactions with your partner, but rather is characterized by Gottman’s “four horsemen” of criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and especially contempt, your odds of being divorced are more than 4 out of 5.
If you want to stay married, you both need to change the way you interact.
If you are in the process of getting divorced, now is the time to begin learning new ways of interacting with your intimate partner (current or future) to change the outcome of your next relationship. Use this opportunity to learn to identify and change your contributions to the interactions that poisoned your relationship, so that history doesn’t repeat itself. (The odds of a second divorce are VERY high for once-divorced people.)
Learn about yourself, change your own intimate behavior, and make your own future better.
Copyright 2008 Kevin Karlson All rights reserved.
First, there are two periods in married life when the risk of divorce is highest:
• After 5-7 years of marriage when conflict is usually highest
• After 10-12 years of marriage as a result of lost intimacy
It should be noted that marital conflict often increases when a baby arrives, which usually happens during the first few years of marriage (see bullet one above). After the first child is born, 40 to 70% of couples report significant declines in satisfaction with their marriage. So, a period of marital dissatisfaction is the norm after the first child is born, and in the absence of malignant interaction patterns, does NOT necessarily lead to divorce . (Remember, most unhappiness is temporary.)
The process that leads to loss of intimacy takes longer to result in divorce, and Gottman's research has identified the malignant interaction patterns that DO predict divorce. These are:
• A one to one ratio between positive and negative interactions (for happy couples the ratio of positive/negative interactions is 20 to 1)
• Mutual criticism (personal attacks on character not complaints about behavior)
• Defensiveness (“no I didn’t”, “yes but…”, “let’s talk about what YOU did…” or other denials of any personal responsibility)
• Stonewalling (refusing to talk in order to avoid conflict)
• Contempt for the partner (eye rolling, sarcastic humor, mocking)
Of the last four factors, those Gottman called the “four horsemen” (of the Apocalypse), contempt is the worst.
Here are some other findings from the research by Dr. Gottman:
•Conventional wisdom says it is not a good idea to “go to bed angry”. Gottman discovered that “flooding” – a physiological phenomenon triggered by emotional conflict — leaves people’s heart rates too high for them to clearly concentrate on the conversation at hand. He found that taking the time to calm down before finishing an argument is more likely to help couples stay close and connected.
•He learned that couples therapy with battering couples actually makes things worse for the woman—not better—another significant departure from the conventional wisdom. Partners both need to get individual therapy.
•It is extremely beneficial for both parents to express their own emotions, and it is especially important for fathers to express their feelings—especially sadness. This is critical for helping children develop "emotional intelligence",which is a better predictor of success than IQ.
The Positive Divorce bottom line
If your relationship is not overwhelmingly positive in your pattern of interactions with your partner, but rather is characterized by Gottman’s “four horsemen” of criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and especially contempt, your odds of being divorced are more than 4 out of 5.
If you want to stay married, you both need to change the way you interact.
If you are in the process of getting divorced, now is the time to begin learning new ways of interacting with your intimate partner (current or future) to change the outcome of your next relationship. Use this opportunity to learn to identify and change your contributions to the interactions that poisoned your relationship, so that history doesn’t repeat itself. (The odds of a second divorce are VERY high for once-divorced people.)
Learn about yourself, change your own intimate behavior, and make your own future better.
Copyright 2008 Kevin Karlson All rights reserved.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Client request--Video conferencing/telephone consults
After more than 25 years of working in a traditional face-to-face conference room setting, technical improvements in video conferencing technology now make desktop video conferencing a viable method of service delivery.
As with the normal consulting process, a contractual relationship with the client's attorney as a "consulting expert" is necessary to maintain the attorney-client privilege in discussions with the client.
For more information about video or telephone consultation, contact Dr. Karlson:
Phone: 972.839.2394
Email: kevinkarlsonjdphd@swbell.net
As with the normal consulting process, a contractual relationship with the client's attorney as a "consulting expert" is necessary to maintain the attorney-client privilege in discussions with the client.
For more information about video or telephone consultation, contact Dr. Karlson:
Phone: 972.839.2394
Email: kevinkarlsonjdphd@swbell.net
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Divorce myths exploded #1: My spouse is a jerk, I will get everything
For reasons not altogether clear to me, the idea that “my spouse is a jerk, I will get everything” remains a widespread and mistaken belief among women (and a few men) seeking divorce. Whether you live in a community property state, like California or Texas, or in one of the other 48, judges in divorce cases rarely deviate very much from a roughly equal split of the couple’s assets in a divorce.
In my experience in hundreds of cases, property division of 55/45 is about as good as it gets for the "innocent" spouse, even in cases where the other spouse has been unfaithful, abusive, or both. Judges just don't punish unfaithful spouses, especially men who have been primary bread winners, by a grossly unequal property division in a divorce, even though many divorcing spouses believe that such a ruling would be "fair" or "justice".
As a consequence of this mistaken belief in the eventual outcome of the divorce litigation, many women spend an inordinate amount of time and money to document the extent of the indiscretions. As they describe their motivation, it is primarily in hopes of persuading the judge to “punish” the unfaithful spouse through a “90/10” property split in favor of the injured spouse. Regardless of the value of the marital estate, up to billions of dollars, I know of NO case where such a punishment has been meted out by a divorce court.
Any competent attorney and the financial expert he hires will attempt to document how much of the couple’s money was spent financing the affair, and will ask the court to reimburse the injured spouse for those expenses, before the court divides the marital estate in a final decree. While the total expenses for these extramarital recreational activities may reach into the thousands of dollars, it never reaches a number which represents a significant percentage of the couple’s assets.
The Positive Divorce bottom line: bad conduct by a spouse MAY move the court to divide the marital estate 55/45 in favor of the “innocent” spouse, but that’s about as far it is likely to go.
So, have reasonable expectations about how divorce courts divide property and be prepared to settle when your lawyer tells you the offer is as good as you can reasonably expect.
Develop a vision for your financial future based on those realistic expectations for your starting point, develop a strategy for building on it from there, focusing on factors YOU can control.
Positive Divorce means accepting the challenge of being in charge of your own financial life again, and building on the opportunity to start a new and more prosperous life.
In my experience in hundreds of cases, property division of 55/45 is about as good as it gets for the "innocent" spouse, even in cases where the other spouse has been unfaithful, abusive, or both. Judges just don't punish unfaithful spouses, especially men who have been primary bread winners, by a grossly unequal property division in a divorce, even though many divorcing spouses believe that such a ruling would be "fair" or "justice".
As a consequence of this mistaken belief in the eventual outcome of the divorce litigation, many women spend an inordinate amount of time and money to document the extent of the indiscretions. As they describe their motivation, it is primarily in hopes of persuading the judge to “punish” the unfaithful spouse through a “90/10” property split in favor of the injured spouse. Regardless of the value of the marital estate, up to billions of dollars, I know of NO case where such a punishment has been meted out by a divorce court.
Any competent attorney and the financial expert he hires will attempt to document how much of the couple’s money was spent financing the affair, and will ask the court to reimburse the injured spouse for those expenses, before the court divides the marital estate in a final decree. While the total expenses for these extramarital recreational activities may reach into the thousands of dollars, it never reaches a number which represents a significant percentage of the couple’s assets.
The Positive Divorce bottom line: bad conduct by a spouse MAY move the court to divide the marital estate 55/45 in favor of the “innocent” spouse, but that’s about as far it is likely to go.
So, have reasonable expectations about how divorce courts divide property and be prepared to settle when your lawyer tells you the offer is as good as you can reasonably expect.
Develop a vision for your financial future based on those realistic expectations for your starting point, develop a strategy for building on it from there, focusing on factors YOU can control.
Positive Divorce means accepting the challenge of being in charge of your own financial life again, and building on the opportunity to start a new and more prosperous life.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
What qualifies me to write about divorce?
Simply put, I am the most qualified expert on divorce you’ve never heard of. I have devoted my professional life to working with divorcing people, and have been involved in one way or another with thousands of them. Literally NO one has as much experience with as many aspects of divorce and divorce recovery as I have, and now I want to share that experience and the lessons that I have learned with you.
Here’s a list of my qualifications for writing about the legal and psychological aspects of divorce, and for talking about divorce recovery:
• PhD in clinical psychology from UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas (1983)
• JD in law from Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas (1984)
• Contributing author to an award-winning psychiatric/psychological evidence book
• Adjunct faculty in forensic psychology and psychological evidence--8 years
• Co-author of custody evaluation system (UCCES published by PAR, Inc.)
• Co-author of a parenting book (Loving Your Children Better by Nolo Press)
• Co-facilitator of Divorce Recovery Workshop at NCC in Dallas-8 years
• Co-convenor of divorced singles Sunday school class
• Invited presenter to Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists Trial Workshop-10 years
• Invited presenter to Texas Advanced Family Law Course- 2 years
• Former member of American Psychological Association Committee on Practice and Professional Standards (setting child custody evaluation standards)
• Former lay member of Dallas County Bar Grievance Committee
• Former Chair, Dallas County Psychological Association Ethics Committee
• Psychotherapist to divorced/divorcing clients-10 years
• Custody evaluator-10 years
• Litigation consultant in hundreds of divorce/custody cases--25 years
• Certified in Collaborative Divorce—member of Collaborative Law Institute of Texas
The point of that list is that I have been involved in divorces and divorce litigation as a court-appointed expert, as a therapist, as a law clerk to a nationally recognized divorce lawyer, as a marriage counselor, as a consultant to lawyers and their clients, as a facilitator of divorce recovery workshops, and as a friend to divorcing people. Last, but not least, I am divorced myself.
Here’s a list of my qualifications for writing about the legal and psychological aspects of divorce, and for talking about divorce recovery:
• PhD in clinical psychology from UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas (1983)
• JD in law from Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas (1984)
• Contributing author to an award-winning psychiatric/psychological evidence book
• Adjunct faculty in forensic psychology and psychological evidence--8 years
• Co-author of custody evaluation system (UCCES published by PAR, Inc.)
• Co-author of a parenting book (Loving Your Children Better by Nolo Press)
• Co-facilitator of Divorce Recovery Workshop at NCC in Dallas-8 years
• Co-convenor of divorced singles Sunday school class
• Invited presenter to Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists Trial Workshop-10 years
• Invited presenter to Texas Advanced Family Law Course- 2 years
• Former member of American Psychological Association Committee on Practice and Professional Standards (setting child custody evaluation standards)
• Former lay member of Dallas County Bar Grievance Committee
• Former Chair, Dallas County Psychological Association Ethics Committee
• Psychotherapist to divorced/divorcing clients-10 years
• Custody evaluator-10 years
• Litigation consultant in hundreds of divorce/custody cases--25 years
• Certified in Collaborative Divorce—member of Collaborative Law Institute of Texas
The point of that list is that I have been involved in divorces and divorce litigation as a court-appointed expert, as a therapist, as a law clerk to a nationally recognized divorce lawyer, as a marriage counselor, as a consultant to lawyers and their clients, as a facilitator of divorce recovery workshops, and as a friend to divorcing people. Last, but not least, I am divorced myself.
Seven Secrets to Peak Performance
Seven Secrets to Peak Performance During Divorce Litigation
INTRODUCTION Stress is a direct result of a person being focused on, and trying to control the "un-controllable" external forces and events in their divorce (i.e., judges, tactics or stunts of the other party, economic or business conditions, reactions of friends and family, etc.). When a person focuses on these uncontrollable external forces, he/she is more likely to experience the high stress-related symptoms and the resulting questionable thinking and judgments that can follow. Here are some ways to cope with the stress of litigation more effectively.
SECRET ONE
HAVE A PERSONAL VISION THAT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION The biggest challenge for people involved in divorce is to stay focused on what matters to them personally and to avoid becoming trapped in the daily chaos of the divorce/litigation process. Litigation always ends (15 months seems to be about average for divorce litigation in the US). In the meantime, remaining connected to the things that provide real meaning to life and committed to something bigger than and outside of one’s self is a critical component of successful coping.
SECRET TWO
UNDERSTAND THE STRESS/PERFORMANCE CURVE Divorce is stressful and requires additional energy and attention not needed during less stressful times. This is not the time to “relax”, but it is a time to understand that being either too “relaxed” or to “hyped up” can interfere with peak performance. The graphic illustrates the relationship between stress and performance. Notice that peak performance is in the middle, so the goal is to use your body’s natural responses to maintain levels of stress that are neither too high nor too low. Regular routines, regular exercise, and good nutrition contribute to the ability to operate at peak levels.
SECRET THREE
LEARN COPING SKILLS THAT HELP TO MANAGE STRESS SYMPTOMS Here are the strategies that have been proven to lower your stress symptoms.
• First have a regular daily routine that includes 8 hours of sleep and regular times for going to bed and getting up and stick to it (A disrupted sleep schedule for one night lowers your body’s ability fight infection by more than 50% for the following day).
• Second, walk or do some aerobic exercise for 30 minutes every day (It will take your body more than two hours to calm down after this so don’t exercise right before bedtime).
• Third, eat more fruit and protein and few carbs a minimum of three meals and preferably 5 smaller meals per day (but none late in the evening).
• Finally, spend 15-30 minutes per day sitting quietly in a chair in a quiet room and focus only on your breathing (or listening to a relaxation tape). All of these strategies will improve your performance by increasing your stress tolerance, and the effects are cumulative-the more things on this list that you do, the greater the benefit.
SECRET FOUR
LEARN HOW TO BE GRATEFUL IN THE PRESENT One of the natural and unavoidable effects of stress on every human being is a narrowing of perceptions- “tunnel vision” that can make the stressful situation appear to consume the entire world. The anti-dote to this tunnel vision is a constant and intentional focus on a daily “gratitude journal”. This means making a written list of the five things in life that you are most grateful for AT THIS MOMENT. For many divorcing people, first on the list is their children, but the list is different for each person. An intentional focus on the good things in life counteracts a world of temporary if overwhelming situations by reminding us of the more important and enduring parts of life.
SECRET FIVE
MAKE TIME TO PLAY AND HAVE FUN The surest way to perform poorly, during divorce or not, is by being too serious. Peak performance in everything comes out of having fun. While the circumstances of divorce make having fun a bit more challenging, they also make having fun more important. Many people immediately eliminate recreation when they get overwhelmed and frantic, and report that they “don’t have time for anything fun”. Peak performance depends on giving your body and mind a break; make time for fun.
SECRET SIX
SEPERATE SELF-WORTH FROM PERFORMANCE Whether in marriage or divorce, you are NOT defined by your successes nor by your failures, but rather how you handle both. Learn to separate your value as a person from your performance at the same time that you learn to get better at handling both success and failure. When your personal worth is on the line for every decision you make, you are making a difficult situation even more challenging by increasing your own stress level. Give yourself a break and remind yourself of your inherent value regardless of your performance. You’ll feel better and you will do better!
SECRET SEVEN
FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Practice living life like you want it to be, even if you can only do it for a few minutes at first. Focus on what you want for yourself, your family, your career, your home, your relationships. Most people are much more resilient than they give themselves credit for, so focus on your track record for bouncing back to boost your confidence that you can succeed.
FINAL THOUGHT
In contrast to peak performance in athletics, peak performance during divorce holds the possibility of being transformational in a way that no other life experience can be. Because divorce dissolves so many of a person’s life structures and expectations, it creates an opportunity to rebuild them in a new and better way that can lead to a much happier and more satisfying life. Seize the moment!
INTRODUCTION Stress is a direct result of a person being focused on, and trying to control the "un-controllable" external forces and events in their divorce (i.e., judges, tactics or stunts of the other party, economic or business conditions, reactions of friends and family, etc.). When a person focuses on these uncontrollable external forces, he/she is more likely to experience the high stress-related symptoms and the resulting questionable thinking and judgments that can follow. Here are some ways to cope with the stress of litigation more effectively.
SECRET ONE
HAVE A PERSONAL VISION THAT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION The biggest challenge for people involved in divorce is to stay focused on what matters to them personally and to avoid becoming trapped in the daily chaos of the divorce/litigation process. Litigation always ends (15 months seems to be about average for divorce litigation in the US). In the meantime, remaining connected to the things that provide real meaning to life and committed to something bigger than and outside of one’s self is a critical component of successful coping.
SECRET TWO
UNDERSTAND THE STRESS/PERFORMANCE CURVE Divorce is stressful and requires additional energy and attention not needed during less stressful times. This is not the time to “relax”, but it is a time to understand that being either too “relaxed” or to “hyped up” can interfere with peak performance. The graphic illustrates the relationship between stress and performance. Notice that peak performance is in the middle, so the goal is to use your body’s natural responses to maintain levels of stress that are neither too high nor too low. Regular routines, regular exercise, and good nutrition contribute to the ability to operate at peak levels.
SECRET THREE
LEARN COPING SKILLS THAT HELP TO MANAGE STRESS SYMPTOMS Here are the strategies that have been proven to lower your stress symptoms.
• First have a regular daily routine that includes 8 hours of sleep and regular times for going to bed and getting up and stick to it (A disrupted sleep schedule for one night lowers your body’s ability fight infection by more than 50% for the following day).
• Second, walk or do some aerobic exercise for 30 minutes every day (It will take your body more than two hours to calm down after this so don’t exercise right before bedtime).
• Third, eat more fruit and protein and few carbs a minimum of three meals and preferably 5 smaller meals per day (but none late in the evening).
• Finally, spend 15-30 minutes per day sitting quietly in a chair in a quiet room and focus only on your breathing (or listening to a relaxation tape). All of these strategies will improve your performance by increasing your stress tolerance, and the effects are cumulative-the more things on this list that you do, the greater the benefit.
SECRET FOUR
LEARN HOW TO BE GRATEFUL IN THE PRESENT One of the natural and unavoidable effects of stress on every human being is a narrowing of perceptions- “tunnel vision” that can make the stressful situation appear to consume the entire world. The anti-dote to this tunnel vision is a constant and intentional focus on a daily “gratitude journal”. This means making a written list of the five things in life that you are most grateful for AT THIS MOMENT. For many divorcing people, first on the list is their children, but the list is different for each person. An intentional focus on the good things in life counteracts a world of temporary if overwhelming situations by reminding us of the more important and enduring parts of life.
SECRET FIVE
MAKE TIME TO PLAY AND HAVE FUN The surest way to perform poorly, during divorce or not, is by being too serious. Peak performance in everything comes out of having fun. While the circumstances of divorce make having fun a bit more challenging, they also make having fun more important. Many people immediately eliminate recreation when they get overwhelmed and frantic, and report that they “don’t have time for anything fun”. Peak performance depends on giving your body and mind a break; make time for fun.
SECRET SIX
SEPERATE SELF-WORTH FROM PERFORMANCE Whether in marriage or divorce, you are NOT defined by your successes nor by your failures, but rather how you handle both. Learn to separate your value as a person from your performance at the same time that you learn to get better at handling both success and failure. When your personal worth is on the line for every decision you make, you are making a difficult situation even more challenging by increasing your own stress level. Give yourself a break and remind yourself of your inherent value regardless of your performance. You’ll feel better and you will do better!
SECRET SEVEN
FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Practice living life like you want it to be, even if you can only do it for a few minutes at first. Focus on what you want for yourself, your family, your career, your home, your relationships. Most people are much more resilient than they give themselves credit for, so focus on your track record for bouncing back to boost your confidence that you can succeed.
FINAL THOUGHT
In contrast to peak performance in athletics, peak performance during divorce holds the possibility of being transformational in a way that no other life experience can be. Because divorce dissolves so many of a person’s life structures and expectations, it creates an opportunity to rebuild them in a new and better way that can lead to a much happier and more satisfying life. Seize the moment!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Managing the Needy Client--Tips for Lawyers
In an earlier post, I outlined the pattern of the needy woman-disengaged man divorce. What follows are strategies for managing these clients to minimize the stress that most professionals experience.
For the needy (usually woman) client:
What they communicate:
Helplessness
Hopelessness
Catastrophic expectations
Black and white thinking
Need for constant contact and reassurance
Impulsive decisions and poor judgment
What to do:
Call mental health professional
Think gray
Build trust, be consistent
Take threats seriously
Provide predictable, limited access to you or your assistant
Be calm,
Avoid surprises
Let me explain a bit about each of these "to dos". Since most of these women either already have therapists or need to be in therapy, the first call you should make is to the woman's therapist. You want to know what the presenting complaint was, how long therapy has been going on, how often the patient has talked about or attempted suicide, whether she is on anti-anxiety and/or anti-depressant medication and how much, how often she is seeing the good doctor, and how therapy is going.
"Think gray" means intentionally look for the exaggerations and distortions in the story your client is telling, and ask about the "other side" of the story. Few men are as monstrous as these women describe them (though some are cruel and abusive), and few mothers are as virtuous as these moms describe themselves. Ask these women to describe the "good dad" or "good husband" characteristics of their spouses, and they frequenty can find nothing good to say--this is a confirmation of the black and white cognitive style that traps these women in a world that is either "all good" or "all bad". Help the client to practice thinking both good and bad at the same time.
Because these women are so emotionally vulnerable, they personalize everything that happens, and much like young children, believe that they are the cause. Forgetting to return a phone call, being late for a meeting, or not taking their (20 times per day) phone calls will be interpreted by the client as "I am a bad person" and can easily turn into "I have a bad lawyer who doesn't care about me". For these women, regular, scheduled and frequent but short meetings (like every week but no more than two weeks) is important to build trust and get the client to confide in you. Otherwise, you will certainly be unpleasantly surprised by what you learn from opposing counsel. If you don't have time to do this yourself, delegate the task to your legal assistant and step in when the legal process demands it, but someone needs to maintain regular but limited contact with these clients. Don't promise what you can't deliver, and when you promise, do what you say you will do.
True borderline personality disorders make suicide attempts much more frequently than any other diagnostic group, and because their mood swings can be so severe, they can go from OK to suicidal in a flash. Consequently, take ANY discussion of suicide seriously, and make sure the therapist is on top of the situation. These women also make a number of suicidal gestures too, but a miscalculated gesture, designed to get attention and communicate helplessness can get out of hand and turn into a tragic and fatal event.
The best way to keep these women on an even keel is to be calm yourself. They are extremely sensitive to the moods of others and will react to them without awareness or self control. The more calm you are, the more calm the client will be.
Because of their limited ability to cope, surprises are NOT a good thing. Keep the client informed, in person when possible, and by phone if necessary, and then follow up with CYA letters. Bad news about the case will often NOT be heard and retained the first time, so be sure to confirm that your client heard you correctly by having her summarize it back to you. You will be astonished at the differences between what you said and what she heard, so be prepared to repeat and clarify her distortions and misunderstandings.
These strategies will help your client to cope and will make your job of representing her much easier. These clients require a greater time investment in order to provide adequate representation, so plan for more time and YOU be in charge of your time. Your client will thank you for it after the case is over.
For the needy (usually woman) client:
What they communicate:
Helplessness
Hopelessness
Catastrophic expectations
Black and white thinking
Need for constant contact and reassurance
Impulsive decisions and poor judgment
What to do:
Call mental health professional
Think gray
Build trust, be consistent
Take threats seriously
Provide predictable, limited access to you or your assistant
Be calm,
Avoid surprises
Let me explain a bit about each of these "to dos". Since most of these women either already have therapists or need to be in therapy, the first call you should make is to the woman's therapist. You want to know what the presenting complaint was, how long therapy has been going on, how often the patient has talked about or attempted suicide, whether she is on anti-anxiety and/or anti-depressant medication and how much, how often she is seeing the good doctor, and how therapy is going.
"Think gray" means intentionally look for the exaggerations and distortions in the story your client is telling, and ask about the "other side" of the story. Few men are as monstrous as these women describe them (though some are cruel and abusive), and few mothers are as virtuous as these moms describe themselves. Ask these women to describe the "good dad" or "good husband" characteristics of their spouses, and they frequenty can find nothing good to say--this is a confirmation of the black and white cognitive style that traps these women in a world that is either "all good" or "all bad". Help the client to practice thinking both good and bad at the same time.
Because these women are so emotionally vulnerable, they personalize everything that happens, and much like young children, believe that they are the cause. Forgetting to return a phone call, being late for a meeting, or not taking their (20 times per day) phone calls will be interpreted by the client as "I am a bad person" and can easily turn into "I have a bad lawyer who doesn't care about me". For these women, regular, scheduled and frequent but short meetings (like every week but no more than two weeks) is important to build trust and get the client to confide in you. Otherwise, you will certainly be unpleasantly surprised by what you learn from opposing counsel. If you don't have time to do this yourself, delegate the task to your legal assistant and step in when the legal process demands it, but someone needs to maintain regular but limited contact with these clients. Don't promise what you can't deliver, and when you promise, do what you say you will do.
True borderline personality disorders make suicide attempts much more frequently than any other diagnostic group, and because their mood swings can be so severe, they can go from OK to suicidal in a flash. Consequently, take ANY discussion of suicide seriously, and make sure the therapist is on top of the situation. These women also make a number of suicidal gestures too, but a miscalculated gesture, designed to get attention and communicate helplessness can get out of hand and turn into a tragic and fatal event.
The best way to keep these women on an even keel is to be calm yourself. They are extremely sensitive to the moods of others and will react to them without awareness or self control. The more calm you are, the more calm the client will be.
Because of their limited ability to cope, surprises are NOT a good thing. Keep the client informed, in person when possible, and by phone if necessary, and then follow up with CYA letters. Bad news about the case will often NOT be heard and retained the first time, so be sure to confirm that your client heard you correctly by having her summarize it back to you. You will be astonished at the differences between what you said and what she heard, so be prepared to repeat and clarify her distortions and misunderstandings.
These strategies will help your client to cope and will make your job of representing her much easier. These clients require a greater time investment in order to provide adequate representation, so plan for more time and YOU be in charge of your time. Your client will thank you for it after the case is over.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Needy Woman--Disengaged Man Pattern
The needy woman-disengaged man is probably the most volatile and contentious pattern that I have seen in more than 30 years of dealing with divorcing couples. These couples are far more likely to litigate, and although they all eventually get divorced, the legal divorce is seldom the end of the conflict. What follows is a brief description of the individuals, followed by a summary of how the divorce process unfolds for these unfortunate people and their children. It is important to remember that "it takes two to tango" and to a large extent, these patterns require both spouses in order to play out the drama. The more that each partner fits the individual patterns described below, the greater the chaos, and the more closely the divorce will follow the "worst case" scenario.
The most visible partner in this scenario and the likely "identified patient" is the woman. She is likely to be attractive, bright, sociable, well-dressed, articulate, and frequently insightful about her husband and his motivations but blind to her own. These women usually make a good first impression, unless they are having one of their frequent "melt downs"--then they will be anxious, depressed (even suicidal), irrational, and even paranoid. Logical thinking will be a challenge, and it will be hard for them to learn about the slow and confusing legal process, so they will be a difficult client to manage.
Emotionally, divorce represents the realization of the greatest fear of these women-being abandoned. These women will develop rapid and intense attachments to lawyers and mental health professionals, and will barrage them with phone calls and emails with little recognition of the impact of their behavior on others (just like in the rest of their lives). They will appear to be remarkably helpless and unable to follow through with tasks related to their lives or their divorces, despite the outward appearance of competence and success that may well be apparent in their social or professional lives. These women are frequently misusing either drugs or alcohol or both, and are highly addiction prone (it could be food, sex, caffeine, xanax, or wine). They have a very "black and white" view of the world, and readily split people and events into either "all good" or "all bad" categories, and are rarely able to be balanced and objective.
As mothers, these women tend to be overly involved ("enmeshed") with their children or inappropriately disengaged. When there is more than one child, both patterns could be evident, with a "good" child and "bad" child ("just like his/her father"). Moms frequently have real difficulties being separated from their children, making visitation very challenging, and with mom distorting or exaggerating the bad experiences of their children when visiting dad. This separation anxiety is frequently evident to the children, who often express the need to "take care of" mom or just act out and complain about dad to a degree that is not supported by the facts as a way to be loyal to mom.
Many, though not all, of these women meet most or all of the diagnostic criteria for the DSM-IV personality disorder "Borderline Personality"(BPD). Many mental health professionals, knowing that they are likely to be deposed or called to testify in a divorce, will avoid diagnosing BPD because of the stigma attached to this diagnosis. BPD is difficult to treat, takes 2-5 years of twice per week psychotherapy, and has a poor prognosis without treatment (chronic "stable instability" with vulnerability to recurrent depression and anxiety and heightened suicide risk). Many less well-trained mental health professionals won't recognize the pattern at all, and will naively support the exaggerated and distorted claims of mistreatment made by many of these women.
The men in this drama may be disengaged for a number of reasons, but they will almost always appear to be quite distant and emotionally uninvolved by the time of the divorce. Many times the men have filed for divorce, although a substantial number will be the respondent after the wife discovers some infidelity. These two sub-groups of men are quite different in their outward appearance and emotional makeup. First, the ego-driven husbands.
These men are smart, successful, extremely self-confident, and almost clinical in their approach to divorce. Many are executives and medical professionals and high profile community figures. They can be both calculating and cruel in their treatment of their spouse and children, and frequently quickly replace the wife with a "newer model". Their capacity for empathy is limited or absent, and they will treat everyone they deal with a replaceable commodity. Many of them have had one or more affairs with secretaries or assistants, or like Governor Spitzer, used high price escorts.
Ironically, these men share the same black and white thinking style as their spouse, and will find it hard to be objective about their now "worthless *****" of a wife. While their thinking is less impaired than that of their wife, their judgment is usually equally poor, and they can act in remarkably thoughtless and self-defeating ways because they believe that "the rules don't apply" to them, and that they won't get caught or punished.
These men probably meet some or all of the criteria to be called "narcissistic personality disorders (NPD)" in DSM-IV terms, but they will NOT be in treatment nor interested in it. Because they sincerely believe in their own superior intelligence and perfection, therapy is a joke to them.
The other group of disengaged men is more healthy than the ego-driven group, but nonetheless emotionally disengaged. These men usually make impulsive and poorly considered commitments to marry the needy, dependent, borderline women as a way to avoid being alone. They are usually quiet, smart, conforming men who are attracted to the charismatic, extraverted persona that these women present when they are "on the market". Usually, the men describe how their wives changed overnight once "the deal was sealed", and they are reluctant, regretful participants in the divorce process, not the "take no prisoners" litigants like the ego-driven men. After many unsuccessful attempts to work out compromises with these unstable and uncompromising women, the men withdraw from the wives out of frustration and in self-defense until they decide they have had enough.
The classic "War of the Roses" divorce scenario is played out between the borderline woman and the narcissistic man. Allegations are exchanged without consideration of the consequences for the children, and actual parental alienation--active attempts by both parents to smear the other parent and to enlist the children in the conflict--are the norm. Allegations of abuse or neglect are also the norm, and sometimes are true (the base rate for truthful abuse allegations in divorce cases is under 5%). Husbands almost always have control of the money in these relationships, and use the children as leverage to minimize their financial exposure in the final settlement. The women frequently want to use the legal system to extract "justice" for the behavior of their husbands, and make unwise decisions to prolong the litigation and thereby remain negatively engaged with the husbands. Husbands frequently accuse the wife of being "crazy" or "unstable" and a danger to the children, even though they have usually been uninvolved as parents prior to the divorce. Ironically, both spouses are in some respects "right" in their claims about the other, although the exaggeration and hyperbole makes both stories hard to believe.Litigation is usually protracted and needlessly expensive, and terminated in some kind of "lose-lose" settlement agreement for both property and custody of the children.
The big losers in this drama are the children, who usually end up spending more time with mom and never establishing a good connection to dad, even if he faithfully exercises visitation. Conflict between the parents usually continues throughout the child's life, leading to emotional behavioral problems, and and as the research shows, handicaps the children in their ability to form intimate relationships as an adult.
Discussion of the other patterns to follow.
The most visible partner in this scenario and the likely "identified patient" is the woman. She is likely to be attractive, bright, sociable, well-dressed, articulate, and frequently insightful about her husband and his motivations but blind to her own. These women usually make a good first impression, unless they are having one of their frequent "melt downs"--then they will be anxious, depressed (even suicidal), irrational, and even paranoid. Logical thinking will be a challenge, and it will be hard for them to learn about the slow and confusing legal process, so they will be a difficult client to manage.
Emotionally, divorce represents the realization of the greatest fear of these women-being abandoned. These women will develop rapid and intense attachments to lawyers and mental health professionals, and will barrage them with phone calls and emails with little recognition of the impact of their behavior on others (just like in the rest of their lives). They will appear to be remarkably helpless and unable to follow through with tasks related to their lives or their divorces, despite the outward appearance of competence and success that may well be apparent in their social or professional lives. These women are frequently misusing either drugs or alcohol or both, and are highly addiction prone (it could be food, sex, caffeine, xanax, or wine). They have a very "black and white" view of the world, and readily split people and events into either "all good" or "all bad" categories, and are rarely able to be balanced and objective.
As mothers, these women tend to be overly involved ("enmeshed") with their children or inappropriately disengaged. When there is more than one child, both patterns could be evident, with a "good" child and "bad" child ("just like his/her father"). Moms frequently have real difficulties being separated from their children, making visitation very challenging, and with mom distorting or exaggerating the bad experiences of their children when visiting dad. This separation anxiety is frequently evident to the children, who often express the need to "take care of" mom or just act out and complain about dad to a degree that is not supported by the facts as a way to be loyal to mom.
Many, though not all, of these women meet most or all of the diagnostic criteria for the DSM-IV personality disorder "Borderline Personality"(BPD). Many mental health professionals, knowing that they are likely to be deposed or called to testify in a divorce, will avoid diagnosing BPD because of the stigma attached to this diagnosis. BPD is difficult to treat, takes 2-5 years of twice per week psychotherapy, and has a poor prognosis without treatment (chronic "stable instability" with vulnerability to recurrent depression and anxiety and heightened suicide risk). Many less well-trained mental health professionals won't recognize the pattern at all, and will naively support the exaggerated and distorted claims of mistreatment made by many of these women.
The men in this drama may be disengaged for a number of reasons, but they will almost always appear to be quite distant and emotionally uninvolved by the time of the divorce. Many times the men have filed for divorce, although a substantial number will be the respondent after the wife discovers some infidelity. These two sub-groups of men are quite different in their outward appearance and emotional makeup. First, the ego-driven husbands.
These men are smart, successful, extremely self-confident, and almost clinical in their approach to divorce. Many are executives and medical professionals and high profile community figures. They can be both calculating and cruel in their treatment of their spouse and children, and frequently quickly replace the wife with a "newer model". Their capacity for empathy is limited or absent, and they will treat everyone they deal with a replaceable commodity. Many of them have had one or more affairs with secretaries or assistants, or like Governor Spitzer, used high price escorts.
Ironically, these men share the same black and white thinking style as their spouse, and will find it hard to be objective about their now "worthless *****" of a wife. While their thinking is less impaired than that of their wife, their judgment is usually equally poor, and they can act in remarkably thoughtless and self-defeating ways because they believe that "the rules don't apply" to them, and that they won't get caught or punished.
These men probably meet some or all of the criteria to be called "narcissistic personality disorders (NPD)" in DSM-IV terms, but they will NOT be in treatment nor interested in it. Because they sincerely believe in their own superior intelligence and perfection, therapy is a joke to them.
The other group of disengaged men is more healthy than the ego-driven group, but nonetheless emotionally disengaged. These men usually make impulsive and poorly considered commitments to marry the needy, dependent, borderline women as a way to avoid being alone. They are usually quiet, smart, conforming men who are attracted to the charismatic, extraverted persona that these women present when they are "on the market". Usually, the men describe how their wives changed overnight once "the deal was sealed", and they are reluctant, regretful participants in the divorce process, not the "take no prisoners" litigants like the ego-driven men. After many unsuccessful attempts to work out compromises with these unstable and uncompromising women, the men withdraw from the wives out of frustration and in self-defense until they decide they have had enough.
The classic "War of the Roses" divorce scenario is played out between the borderline woman and the narcissistic man. Allegations are exchanged without consideration of the consequences for the children, and actual parental alienation--active attempts by both parents to smear the other parent and to enlist the children in the conflict--are the norm. Allegations of abuse or neglect are also the norm, and sometimes are true (the base rate for truthful abuse allegations in divorce cases is under 5%). Husbands almost always have control of the money in these relationships, and use the children as leverage to minimize their financial exposure in the final settlement. The women frequently want to use the legal system to extract "justice" for the behavior of their husbands, and make unwise decisions to prolong the litigation and thereby remain negatively engaged with the husbands. Husbands frequently accuse the wife of being "crazy" or "unstable" and a danger to the children, even though they have usually been uninvolved as parents prior to the divorce. Ironically, both spouses are in some respects "right" in their claims about the other, although the exaggeration and hyperbole makes both stories hard to believe.Litigation is usually protracted and needlessly expensive, and terminated in some kind of "lose-lose" settlement agreement for both property and custody of the children.
The big losers in this drama are the children, who usually end up spending more time with mom and never establishing a good connection to dad, even if he faithfully exercises visitation. Conflict between the parents usually continues throughout the child's life, leading to emotional behavioral problems, and and as the research shows, handicaps the children in their ability to form intimate relationships as an adult.
Discussion of the other patterns to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)