Saturday, June 21, 2008

All About Boundaries, Part 2

We talked before about building new boundaries with the person you used to share everything with. Creating emotional, physical, financial, and legal space between yourself and person you are no longer married to is essential to moving on with your life.

But the difficulty comes in finding ways to create and support boundaries with the person that you still share children with. You still share parenting responsibility with this person, and you will need to learn how to effectively share time and energy with your children in a way that both supports your own boundaries, and respects those of your ex-spouse.

One of the primary ways in which you will engage with your children's other parent is through communication. This is where boundaries come in handy. Two of my clients, whom I'll call "Greg" and "Marge" can illustrate. Greg wants to spend time with the kids every-other Wednesday evening, which the court order allows. Marge doesn't mind if Greg spends that time, but she wants him to take the kids to church. Since Greg is not supportive of Marge's religion, and since the order does not specify whose right it is to select the children's religion, Greg sees no reason why he should give up "his" time by taking the children to church.

So, on the weeks that Greg is supposed to have the kids Wednesday night, Marge arranges for several members of her church to telephone the children, and entice them to attend that week's activity. By the time Greg picks up the kids, they are very excited and eager to go to church. Greg feels that he has been "set up".

If you were Greg, what would you do?

1. Ignore the problem and take the kids the church. You don't want to come off as the 'bad guy'.
2. Find ways to manipulate the children into not wanting to attend church that evening after all, such as enticing them with an activity that is 'more fun'. After all, two can play at that game.
3. Tell the kids 'the truth' - that their mother is conniving to step on top of your parenting time, and you will not put up with it. If necessary, make them feel guilty for choosing 'her' activity over spending time with you.
4. Talk to Marge and request a different parenting night to replace Wednesdays. If she doesn't go along with the idea, then threaten to take her to court and have a judge modify the order to a different night.

All of these alternatives are ways that Greg can protect his boundaries. Unfortunately, all of them come with a host of collateral damage, no matter which one he chooses. Let's look:

If Greg chooses Option #1, he is giving Marge implicit permission to continue to encroach on his parenting time. If she can get away with violating the Wednesday night boundary, then it's only a matter of time before she is scheduling other enticing activities and events during other times that the children are supposed to be with their Dad. Once that ball starts rolling, it's very difficult to get it stopped! Soon, Greg's children will hardly ever see him. What's more, they will also learn that anything and everything else is the world is more important than time with their Dad. Sadly, they will also soon come to believe that their Dad wants it this way, too. While Greg is 'playing the nice guy', the kids are wondering why their Dad doesn't want to see them.

So, what about Option #2? Why not show the kids that they are important, by making it easy for them to choose to be with Greg? Sadly, this option does not maintain boundaries at all. It merely puts the kids in a drivers seat for which they have no license. When they are faced with a tug-o-war with each parent vying for their 'vote', they have been given power for which they are ill-prepared. Best to let the grown-ups make the decisions about where the kids go.

And, Option #3 hardly fares any better. Now the kids are still expected to make a choice, and they are also expected to understand subtleties of human emotions that they cannot comprehend. They don't know why Dad thinks that Mom is bad; they only know he is saying bad things about her. It's never a good idea to help children understand "the truth". They are not equipped to understand, and attempting to inform them only makes Greg look bad. Especially if he adds in the emotional blackmail of making the kids feel guilty for not siding with him.

Then there is Option #4 - a good start it seems, to attempt a compromise. Why not allow Marge to have the kids every Wednesday night - that way, she can take them to church all she wants - and Greg can have the kids on a different night. That way, the kids can spend the same amount of time with him, which is what he wants. Option #4 breaks down if there is an implied or explicit threat attached - go along with this *or else*. But what can Greg do, if he proposes Option #4, and Marge doesn't go along with it?

The thing is, in boundary-setting, Option #4 is merely premature. If Greg sets a boundary regarding the scheduling of activities during his parenting time, then the reality is, Marge may be the one to end up suggesting Option #4 herself. Here's how: if Greg simply states that he will not support any activity which has been scheduled by Marge if it takes place during his parenting time, and if Greg is firm about this boundary, both with Marge, and with the kids, then it will be Marge who is in the "discomfort zone" about the outcome, and who will be looking for possible alternatives. Greg just needs to be patient. And firm.

The important element here is in the communication. And here is where we apply B.I.F.F.

BIFF communication between co-parents is (B)rief, (I)nformative, (F)riendly, and (F)irm. Here is a possible way that Greg can send a BIFF communication to Marge regarding Wednesday evenings:

"Marge, I notice that you are scheduling activities and appointments for the children, to take place during my parenting time. This violates the court order. Please refrain from making any future plans for the children that take place during my parenting time. I will not honor or keep any activity or appointment that you have made if it takes place during my parenting time.
Sincerely, Greg"

Note that Greg does not expound on Marge's manipulative behavior, nor does he attack her character or bring up all of the past incidents where Marge has scheduled activities. He addresses her behavior at face-value. Greg informs Marge that he will not honor the appointments she has made. He is neither unkind nor disrespectful. He is friendly enough to make his explicit request: "Please refrain..." and he is brief and to-the-point.

When Greg picks up the kids on Wednesday, and the kids ask about going to church, all he has to say to them is "I have communicated with your mother on this issue, and when you are with me, we will spend our time together as I see best." Yes, there will be complaining, but overall, the kids will learn three very important things: their parents are communicating; their father has boundaries; and their father is confident in his fitness as a parent. These are three great truths that the children need to know. They don't need to know all of the rest of it, but they do need to know that they (the kids) are not in charge, and that the people who are in charge (the parents) are competent. Period.

When Greg and Marge came to see me on this issue, they were still in the thick of battle. Each was grappling for control, and the kids were being torn apart as a result. Helping them see and learn to honor each other's boundaries was a key for helping the kids stay out of the cross-fire.

Greg and Marge still have a lot of co-parenting issues that come up. But as each issue arises, we go back to the basics: how to create and sustain personal boundaries, and how to honor and respect the boundaries of the other parent. This is the key to successful post-divorce co-parenting.

Peace.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

All About Boundaries

One thing divorcing couples almost always underestimate as they approach their divorce is the extent to which they were connected or linked.

When you and/or your spouse first consider divorce, you are most likely focused on the ways that you are different, separate, or have "grown apart". You both usually look at the conflicts, your opposing world views, or your disparate parenting techniques. You may have already taken up with different friends or groups, you are probably already re-entrenching with your respective extended family members, and you may even already be living at separate addresses. It's easy to see distance between you, and to notice ways and reasons to increase that distance.

That's why it often comes as a surprise to discover that you and your spouse have spent your entire marriage connecting, along a lot of threads that you may not initially notice.

The obvious one if you have children: you are connected as co-parents, and, no matter how much you disagree with your ex-spouse's child-rearing approach, you will have to live with it.

Here are some less obvious ways that you and your spouse are connected:

-- you may attend the same church, social clubs, or neighborhood groups
-- you probably rely on each other for emotional support far more than you believe
-- you know each other in the little ways: number of times the snooze button is pressed, how you like your eggs cooked or your coffee prepared, where you squeeze the toothpaste-and there is a certain comfort in knowing and being known
-- you know your spouse's weaknesses... and your spouse knows yours
-- your names appear together on checks, debts, the mortgage, insurance cards, etc.

And here is the point: when what used to be "one" entity is now becoming "two" separate people again, there is a space in between where a new boundary must be created. You may want to unload your emotions on your spouse, but now that would not be very wise. You can no longer assume that it's okay for you to know everything your spouse does, or everyone your spouse sees. You may discover that your spouse has signed privacy paperwork that denies you access to his or her medical records - something you previously took for granted. You cannot assume that joint debts will be paid by the other spouse just because they said they would. You may find yourself waking up and realizing that nobody has started the coffeemaker.

During the course of divorce, whenever either spouse creates a new boundary, it can set off emotions in the other spouse. No matter how much a person wants the divorce, running up against a new boundary will feel like a loss. For example, discovering that the other spouse has started dating may trigger a strong desire to know who they are seeing; and it may feel like "betrayal" or "infidelity", even though the marriage is over. This is more difficult for the spouse that has not progressed as far in the psychological divorce and who may be struggling to move on.

Nevertheless, boundaries are important. The divorce cannot truly be completed (even if there is a legal decree "dissolving" the marriage) until the two former spouses have become two completely separate entities. If there are still debts, property, or other ties, divorce is not truly complete.

When there are children involved, the need for strong boundaries becomes even more important. This is such an important topic, I will address in the next post, All About Boundaries, Part 2.

Peace.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Fun Times Damaging Kids

The following is an example of the behavior that I see all the time in the divorced parents that I teach. I call it "passive-aggressive" because it is a classic example of one person deliberately appearing to play the 'good guy', while setting up the other person to appear as the 'bad guy', no matter what course of action they choose. It is insidious. It goes on all the time "under the radar", thus twice victimizing the participants: once via the behavior itself, and second via the ongoing sense of invalidation and feeling off-balance.

Take a look:

As per most standard orders, the kids are with Mom during the month of June, with the exception of Father's Day weekend. According to the order, Dad picks up the kids from Mom's house at 6:00 p.m, on Friday and returns them at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Except of course, that on the day Dad is to pick up the kids, Mom has set it up to take the kids to the amusement park. The kids are all excited! They get to spend all day playing! The amusement park doesn't close until 11:00 p.m., so the kids won't get back to Mom's house till after midnight. Too late for Dad to get the kids, so they will not see him until Saturday. Oh, except that on Saturday, the kids will be all tired and worn out from their big day at the amusement park, so they will sleep in till late morning. Half the weekend is now gone.

And of course, Mom has the kids so wound up over the entire event that if Dad puts the brakes on it, he comes off as the 'bad guy'. But if he allows the kids to stay with Mom for the extra day, then she sells him off to the kids with "See there? I told you your Dad doesn't care about you. Look how he has abandoned you one more time. He doesn't even want to see you during 'his' time. Some father he is." Note that Mom doesn't have to actually state these exact words, she can convey the message in her tone of voice and in subtle little comments that she drops throughout the day.

Sometimes, the kids are wise enough to see through the manipulation and object to going, because they realize that it will cost them time with Dad. What happens then? Mom gets all
teary-eyed and puts a major guilt trip on the kids for being so unappreciative of her grand fun gesture.

Now, considering that there are 27 other days in June that the Mom could have picked to take the kids to the amusement park, choosing this particular day seems like a deliberate manipulative attempt to keep Dad away from the kids. Again. You see, for the Mom, it's not about how beneficial it would be for the children to have two parents. For the Mom, it's about her withholding "her" property (the kids) from someone she despises. Disguising it as a fun day at the amusement park is a great way to hide her own anger and hatred. And she gets away with it because it is such a perfect set-up on the Dad.

Of course, Mothers are not the only ones who play this game. Fathers do it too. Either parent can use the kids as a method to "get back" at their ex-spouse. Too bad they don't realize it's their kids who pay the price. The kids are the ones that get deprived of the love and support of having two parents in their lives. The kids are the ones that get put in the middle One More Time. The kids are the ones that get to learn at an early age that it's "normal" to lie, connive, manipulate, and get their own way by being passive-aggressive no matter who it hurts. The kids are the ones that live with near-constant instability.

Conventional wisdom says (and data support the idea) that the most significant factor for children of divorce to successfully heal from their wounds is the absence of conflict. This is the caveat I bring today: playing passive-aggressive games with kids in the name of amusement park fun is *not* the absence of conflict. It is still there, it is still real, and it is still damaging. It is the absence of drama, shouting, and arguing, yes. But it is not truly the absence of conflict.

Here is the bitter irony: when parents turn rearing their children in a "Disney-contest", it destroys the kids. The "Disney parent" is often motivated by a deep desire to make the children 'love' them more, and 'love' the other parent less... so that the "Disney parent" can win the prize of being "better" in some unspoken contest. The tragic irony is that this very behavior results in children who resent and often come to hate the "Disney parent". Everyone loses.

If you are co-parenting with an ex-spouse, I urge you to examine more than merely your outward gestures. Look at your motives. I guarantee your kids are picking those up too. They may be too young to use words, but they are not too young to feel feelings. Your greatest gift to them will be to not only control the outward conflicts, but to learn to shield them from the inner ones as well.

Imagine what it could have meant to those kids, if instead of sabotaging Dad with an amusement park day, Mom had gotten the kids excited about seeing their Dad. Suppose she had spent the time helping them shop for Father's Day gifts, and teaching the kids about honoring their Dad. Suppose she had quietly listened while the children talked about how important their Dad is to them. Suppose she had validated their feelings of love and respect, rather than attempting to make them feel the emotions of aggravation and hatred that she felt. The gift she could have given would far outweigh and outlast the few hours of fun at the amusement park.

Peace.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Handling Emotions During Conflict Resolution

This is part of the content of a talk I gave at the North Texas Conflict Resolution Conference today:

The Brain Science of War and Peace (conference theme)

During any conflict, both parties (as well as the mediator or conflict resolver, in many cases) will experience a perceived threat to their boundaries, in the form of a possible physical, financial, or personal loss. For example, the party or parties may believe that their livelihood, home, reputation, role as father or mother, affiliation with family members, church, social clubs, or even their workplace may be jeopardized. The belief that one is in jeopardy will trigger a limbic response -- what we know as the "flight or fight" mechanism.

At that point in time, an older, more primitive part of the brain is in control (the limbic region). A flood of chemicals is discharged along a portion of the brain and body called the "HPA Axis", and results in sensations of shaky voice, tremulous limbs, butterflies in the stomach, racing pulse, and sweating skin. In addition, the pupils dilate, we become attuned to visual stimuli, and our hunger and sex drives are reduced. These are all adaptive responses to fight or flee from peril.

This response happens without awareness and without cognitive or directed control. It happens "without thinking." Indeed, the regret that often takes place after we have cooled from "the heat of the moment", often leads us to buy-in to the popular notion that we can make much more rational and effective decisions, if only we could find a way to suppress or control this limbic response.

Not true. Modern neuroscience supports the idea that humans actually make the best decisions when we are operating from a combination of both the reasoning and rational decision-making in the frontal cortex, as well as the emotion in the amygdala and other limbic brain structures. We need both. So, the question becomes: how can we put that awful irrational, running-like-a-crazy-person-from-the-saber-toothed-tiger energy to work for us, rather than either being ruled by it, or being forced to inhibit it?

Here is what I teach:

Acknowledge it -- take note of the behaviors and overall situational cues. "You seem agitated". "I'm really wound up right now". "I can see that you are fidgety". "I can feel my heart pounding". These are all neutral statements that we can make that can lead us to a better awareness of our own state, as well as allowing others to become aware of theirs.

Name it -- give yourself or the person to whom you are interacting permission to name a feeling. Researchers have found that merely giving the emotion a label - no matter what label is used - creates additional activity in the frontal cortex. In other words, the mere act of labeling the feeling restores a bridge between the rational cognitive control centers of the brain and the emotional centers of the brain.

Use it -- now that both the thinking/processing center and the feeling center of the brain are engaged, it's time to dig under that feeling and work toward a solution - a conflict outcome that can be more positive for both parties. Open-ended questions such as "what might happen if...", or "how could we make that work...", or "what would it take for this..." are valuable tools at this point.

Diffuse it -- once the emotion has been acknowledged, named, and used, it's time to settle all that autonomic system response back down. Nobody wants to go around with their hearts racing and their palms all sweaty and a big icky lead ball in their stomach. The limbic response has served its purpose and it's time for it to go. Slowed breathing, visualizing a peaceful setting, or deliberately putting the face in a calm or happy expression can send afferent sensations to the brain to make the brain release the chemicals to turn off the fight/flight response.

In sum, the limbic or fight/flight response is a valuable condition that has evolved with our brains. It keeps us alive. It gives us valuable signals of threat or peril, as well as redirecting our body's energy to respond to those signals. It is maladaptive to try to ignore this. It is useful to acknowledge it, name it, use it, and then diffuse it. This is what we were created to be able to do.

Peace.