The following is a book review I published in the Tarrant County Association of Mediators regular newsletter.
"It's All Your Fault! (12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything)" Bill Eddy (2008).
Five stars (out of five). Highly recommended for all ADR practitioners.
Bill Eddy is an attorney, mediator, and licensed therapist who has focused his practice on what he calls "High Conflict Personalities" (HCP). In the psychopathology realm, HCP are often people who exhibit traits of personality disorders that result in an amount of conflict that is higher than the population norm. While Bill Eddy has previously published a number of commendable books, all generously exhibiting his unique perspective, this particular book is remarkable for two very strong reasons.
First, Eddy puts all the psychological knowledge in lay terms. He describes high conflict behavior that is easy to identify by any mediator, without necessitating a psychology degree to do so. He makes it clear that the existence of the traits is enough to justify practicing the techniques that he advocates - in other words, there is no need for a formal diagnosis, nor intensive psychotherapy in order to successfully interact with an HCP person. He draws very simply point-to-point lines between behavior and the possible emotional disturbances that may be taking place inside the mind of the HCP. This helps him explain how his techniques to deal with these HCPs work. Which leads to the second strength of this book.
As mentioned, Eddy doesn't try to turn every layperson into a practicing psychologist. Instead, Eddy simply creates a very straightforward "if you see this, then do that" instruction set that can be used by anyone, in any mediation. This instruction set includes both the proactive things a person can do when dealing with an HCP, as well as the maladaptive reactions that a person may ordinarily do, but that they should avoid when dealing with an HCP. Using everyday examples of interactions with HCPs, Eddy constructs possible responses in each example, and then discusses why each one will or will not work.
For mediators who believe in interest-based negotiation, these examples are the real gems of the book. With each one, Eddy reveals the emotional interests that are often driving HCP participants. These are the interests that often escape detection in a mediation. The emotional interests of an HCP often seem to be expressed in just the opposite manner than one who is not similarly emotionally challenged would predict. So, high-conflict interactions, taken at face value, often seem intractable in mediation. Eddy's book provides a path of understanding to the emotions of an HCP person, so that uncovering their interests -- the goal of interest-based negotiation -- can be achieved.
Eddy's book also serves an important "big picture" purpose. In his introduction, Eddy points out the cultural and environmental shifts that have caused our society to increase in combativeness in recent generations. This helps to lay a great framework for motivating alternative dispute resolution. Those of us who are dedicated to mediation and other alternative methods of dispute resolution can often get our best intentions knocked "off-center" whenever we encounter a high-conflict individual. It can leave us feeling as though we have failed as mediators. When we see the increase in conflict in our society, and read Eddy's explanation for why it exists, it can re-energize us in our purpose to more passionately evangelize a better way to solve disputes.
Part II of "It's All Your Fault!" outlines the "CARS" method for dealing with HCPs. This includes a worksheet that Eddy gives permission for the reader to re-copy and use in each encounter with an HCP. Along with the "CARS" method, Eddy utilizes other acronyms and helpful mnemonics to aid the mediator or conflict resolver in remembering the steps in the methods. This is handy, because, as Eddy explains, when we are dealing with HCPs, their emotionality can be contagious - and it can cause us, the mediator, to shut down the thinking/reasoning part of our brain. Having a quick, easy way to reconnect with our own thinking/reasoning brain will allow us to use the tools to help the HCP get out of emotionality and back into thinking/reasoning as well.
I recommend that any mediator add this particular book to their library. But don't let it set there collecting dust! This is one of those books that you will refer back to again and again, every time you encounter another high conflict person in your everyday mediation practice.
"It's All Your Fault!" is only available from Bill Eddy's High Conflict Institute website: www.highconflictinstitute.com; or from Janis Publications: www.janispublications.com.
Peace.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Psych Evals - The Nuts and Bolts
Once you have been immersed in the system known as "Family" court, you will often find yourself amidst a swirl of different activities about which you know almost nothing. The biggest problem with this is, right when you want to make the best decisions you can for yourself and your family, you cannot seem to get the information you need.
So... from time to time on my blog, we'll have some nuts and bolts lessons. This is one.
Many acrimonious divorces are a fight about who should "get" the children. One of the family court tools available for attempting to figure that out is the psychology evaluation.
In the state where I practice, and in many other states as well, from I've learned, there are basically three types of evaluation.
Forensic Psychology evaluation: this is the most in-depth evaluation; it includes childhood history, any previous psych/counseling history, may include multiple evaluative instruments such as the Beck Depression Inventory, MMPI, or others; and interviews with extended family members and anyone else close enough to the family to provide insight. It is very thorough, and often involves several lengthy interviews with each party. The information is *not* privileged - meaning the report can be entered as evidence, and the Forensic Psychologist can be called as an expert witness - and while any specific item in the report (such as a previous counselor's verbal summary to the Forensic Psychologist) cannot be subpoena'ed, the conclusions made by the Forensic Psychologist are subject to any form of discovery, including subpeona. Usually, a Forensic Psych eval is court-ordered, considered impartial (that is, the Psychologist is not hired by either 'side'), and usually the judge is the one asking for the report back. The attorneys for the two sides then spend their time attempting to squelch or mitigate any damaging testimony brought out by the Forensic Psych. Unlike a Social Study or CPS study (see below), a Forensic Psychologist can enter a conclusion as to which is the "better" parent, if they so choose. Typically, a Forensic Psychologist is one that has plenty of schooling, long-term specialized experience, and multiple specialty licenses. They are generally well-respected by the court, and their conclusions are more trusted. They are also (in my opinion and experience) less likely to make a mistake, come to a wrongful conclusion, or be bamboozled by the superficial charms of either party. They are also a lot more costly.
Social Study - also called a home study, or parenting evaluation, this is usually the method employed by most courts to determine if there is any "danger" to a child. It is *not* supposed to determine which is the "better" parent, only to rule out any parent that would be dangerous. A Social Study can be requested by either party, or by the judge. Unfortunately, since the purpose of a social study is often intended by one of the parties to provide justification for reducing parent-child involvement, accusations against the other parent are often exaggerated, so as to meet the "danger" threshold, since merely meeting the "better-than" threshold isn't enough to convince the court to adjust parenting time. A social study is often conducted by lesser-qualified individuals: folks that may only have a masters degree in social work or psychology, who often are just starting out and don't have a lot of experience, and who may more easily be swayed by the superficial charms of someone trying to circumvent the system. They may also not be as adept at selected or interpreting evaluative instruments such as the MMPI. In addition, a Social Study is usually less rigorous and thorough than a forensic evaluation; many times consisting of a single 50-minute session with each party, and then a 1-hour session at each party's home, evaluating both the home's safety and appearance, as well as evaluating how the children interact with the parent in the home environment. Considering that they always give at least 72-hour notice of a home visit, it's rather easy for anyone to gloss it up temporarily. Because of these limitations, judges are less likely to weigh the results of a home study heavily... although I have also seen it go the other direction: if a judge is biased toward a pre-determined outcome and wants justification to back up his/her decision, then if the home study says what they want it to say, all of a sudden, it's v-e-r-y important.
Child/Family Protective Services Evaluation: this is the bottom rung of evaluations, and often means nothing (unless, again, it backs up the judge's pre-determined outcome). Usually conducted by students who are interning their first Mental Health Professional job and working for barely more than minimum wage on an overloaded case load, a CPS eval has as much chance of reflecting reality as a coin toss. I've personally reviewed "home studies" on case loads that when you do the math, the evaluator could not possibly have spent more than 5-10 minutes in each home they claimed to have visited. Physical evidence means more than anything to these people, so if you have any (bruises, scratch marks, etc.) take photos. They are so poorly trained that many of them don't even know how to spell "psychology". So forget about mentioning verbal abuse, emotional abuse, personality disorders, etc. to them... you probably know more about these than they do. They are also the most easily biased - which means the first person to make a claim has the upper hand. (by the way, this is also true of many of the Social Study/Home Study folks, so if you do find yourself the subject of a court-ordered home study or social study, do everything you can to get your evaluation date on their calendar ahead of the other party).
Keep in mind that the greatest danger to your children when you are restructuring your family is CONFLICT. As mentioned before, not merely the open, above-board kind with the yelling and screaming, but also the insidious, passive-aggressive kind with the subtle parent bashing and undermining. While it is important to do everything you can to collaborate and minimize conflict, it is also important to understand what is going on in the system. Sadly, I've seen too many well-meaning parents become the victims of false or exaggerated claims - all because they didn't want to "fight". There is a time to "fight", and there is a time to use the system to help you. Understanding the different elements of that system is an important first step to choosing how and when the battle must be engaged.
Peace.
So... from time to time on my blog, we'll have some nuts and bolts lessons. This is one.
Many acrimonious divorces are a fight about who should "get" the children. One of the family court tools available for attempting to figure that out is the psychology evaluation.
In the state where I practice, and in many other states as well, from I've learned, there are basically three types of evaluation.
Forensic Psychology evaluation: this is the most in-depth evaluation; it includes childhood history, any previous psych/counseling history, may include multiple evaluative instruments such as the Beck Depression Inventory, MMPI, or others; and interviews with extended family members and anyone else close enough to the family to provide insight. It is very thorough, and often involves several lengthy interviews with each party. The information is *not* privileged - meaning the report can be entered as evidence, and the Forensic Psychologist can be called as an expert witness - and while any specific item in the report (such as a previous counselor's verbal summary to the Forensic Psychologist) cannot be subpoena'ed, the conclusions made by the Forensic Psychologist are subject to any form of discovery, including subpeona. Usually, a Forensic Psych eval is court-ordered, considered impartial (that is, the Psychologist is not hired by either 'side'), and usually the judge is the one asking for the report back. The attorneys for the two sides then spend their time attempting to squelch or mitigate any damaging testimony brought out by the Forensic Psych. Unlike a Social Study or CPS study (see below), a Forensic Psychologist can enter a conclusion as to which is the "better" parent, if they so choose. Typically, a Forensic Psychologist is one that has plenty of schooling, long-term specialized experience, and multiple specialty licenses. They are generally well-respected by the court, and their conclusions are more trusted. They are also (in my opinion and experience) less likely to make a mistake, come to a wrongful conclusion, or be bamboozled by the superficial charms of either party. They are also a lot more costly.
Social Study - also called a home study, or parenting evaluation, this is usually the method employed by most courts to determine if there is any "danger" to a child. It is *not* supposed to determine which is the "better" parent, only to rule out any parent that would be dangerous. A Social Study can be requested by either party, or by the judge. Unfortunately, since the purpose of a social study is often intended by one of the parties to provide justification for reducing parent-child involvement, accusations against the other parent are often exaggerated, so as to meet the "danger" threshold, since merely meeting the "better-than" threshold isn't enough to convince the court to adjust parenting time. A social study is often conducted by lesser-qualified individuals: folks that may only have a masters degree in social work or psychology, who often are just starting out and don't have a lot of experience, and who may more easily be swayed by the superficial charms of someone trying to circumvent the system. They may also not be as adept at selected or interpreting evaluative instruments such as the MMPI. In addition, a Social Study is usually less rigorous and thorough than a forensic evaluation; many times consisting of a single 50-minute session with each party, and then a 1-hour session at each party's home, evaluating both the home's safety and appearance, as well as evaluating how the children interact with the parent in the home environment. Considering that they always give at least 72-hour notice of a home visit, it's rather easy for anyone to gloss it up temporarily. Because of these limitations, judges are less likely to weigh the results of a home study heavily... although I have also seen it go the other direction: if a judge is biased toward a pre-determined outcome and wants justification to back up his/her decision, then if the home study says what they want it to say, all of a sudden, it's v-e-r-y important.
Child/Family Protective Services Evaluation: this is the bottom rung of evaluations, and often means nothing (unless, again, it backs up the judge's pre-determined outcome). Usually conducted by students who are interning their first Mental Health Professional job and working for barely more than minimum wage on an overloaded case load, a CPS eval has as much chance of reflecting reality as a coin toss. I've personally reviewed "home studies" on case loads that when you do the math, the evaluator could not possibly have spent more than 5-10 minutes in each home they claimed to have visited. Physical evidence means more than anything to these people, so if you have any (bruises, scratch marks, etc.) take photos. They are so poorly trained that many of them don't even know how to spell "psychology". So forget about mentioning verbal abuse, emotional abuse, personality disorders, etc. to them... you probably know more about these than they do. They are also the most easily biased - which means the first person to make a claim has the upper hand. (by the way, this is also true of many of the Social Study/Home Study folks, so if you do find yourself the subject of a court-ordered home study or social study, do everything you can to get your evaluation date on their calendar ahead of the other party).
Keep in mind that the greatest danger to your children when you are restructuring your family is CONFLICT. As mentioned before, not merely the open, above-board kind with the yelling and screaming, but also the insidious, passive-aggressive kind with the subtle parent bashing and undermining. While it is important to do everything you can to collaborate and minimize conflict, it is also important to understand what is going on in the system. Sadly, I've seen too many well-meaning parents become the victims of false or exaggerated claims - all because they didn't want to "fight". There is a time to "fight", and there is a time to use the system to help you. Understanding the different elements of that system is an important first step to choosing how and when the battle must be engaged.
Peace.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Am I Going Crazy??
For many divorcing people, the emotional swirl can be overwhelming. There are several key emotions that tend to surface during divorce, and these can all have direct and hidden impact on the choices people make and the way they behave.
For example, there is guilt. Many people experience guilt during divorce. Guilt for things they did that promoted the end of the marriage; guilt for choosing to end the marriage; guilt that parents, friends, children, and even the ex-spouse can impose; and guilt for not "being enough" for everyone that needs more.
This guilt can drive a person to make decisions in the divorce that are unreasonable, irrational, and often, regrettable.
Guilt over an affair, for example can cause a man to agree to a property settlement that is unfair and unreasonable. Later, after the man has resolved (or buried) his guilt, he feels "buyer's remorse" for giving up so many of his assets. Since it is now too late to reclaim them, he often positions himself as a "victim" of the divorce system, and expresses anger toward his ex-wife, who seems to be enjoying her life of luxury at his expense.
Along with guilt, there is pain/sadness at the grief that comes with the "death" of the marriage. There is fear/anxiety that comes with such profound change in the family structure and not being able to predict the outcome or know the future. And there is the grandest emotion of them all: Anger. Because anger is easy to see, easy to identify, and easy to express, it often serves as a cover emotion for the others. Unfortunately, most divorcing people stay in the anger, and never dig underneath it to address the true emotions - the guilt, sadness, and fear - that are influencing the outcome of their divorce.
The swirl of emotions, unplanned and unacknowledged, can often drive folks to do things they would never do otherwise. It can influence choices they would never otherwise make. It can cause a person wonder if they are going crazy (and, unfortunately, the ex-spouse and probably many others outside of the situation would confirm that in fact, the divorcing person is crazy).
However, this "craziness" is situational. There is a lot a person can learn from their so-called "negative" emotions, if only they will listen. And this is where a coach comes in. Many people never know how to listen to themselves or to what their emotions are telling them, until a coach teaches them how. A coach does not inform or enlighten the divorcing person. A coach does not counsel or diagnose a person. A coach teaches a person how to stop and listen to their own emotions, and then learn from what the emotion is telling them.
For example, a woman couldn't understand why she still responded to her ex-husband's put-downs and verbal abuse. "I know better", she would say. "I often feel so good about myself when I am at my job, or when I accomplish something. So, why is it that he still has the power to make me feel small?" After we listened to what her emotions were telling her, she discovered that the emotion she was responding to was fear. She feared that she would never be attractive to another man again. She feared that she was doomed to a life of loneliness. The mental recording that her husband had implanted said "you're no good", and her fear was "what if he's right?" After we faced her fear head-on, she was able to counter it with some tools she had learned in a powerful training class... and from then on she never responded again to her ex-husband's abuse.
Emotional turmoil is an inherent part of the divorce journey. It is empowering to acknowledge its existence. It's enlightening to use those emotions to your advantage and restore yourself to serenity.
Peace.
For example, there is guilt. Many people experience guilt during divorce. Guilt for things they did that promoted the end of the marriage; guilt for choosing to end the marriage; guilt that parents, friends, children, and even the ex-spouse can impose; and guilt for not "being enough" for everyone that needs more.
This guilt can drive a person to make decisions in the divorce that are unreasonable, irrational, and often, regrettable.
Guilt over an affair, for example can cause a man to agree to a property settlement that is unfair and unreasonable. Later, after the man has resolved (or buried) his guilt, he feels "buyer's remorse" for giving up so many of his assets. Since it is now too late to reclaim them, he often positions himself as a "victim" of the divorce system, and expresses anger toward his ex-wife, who seems to be enjoying her life of luxury at his expense.
Along with guilt, there is pain/sadness at the grief that comes with the "death" of the marriage. There is fear/anxiety that comes with such profound change in the family structure and not being able to predict the outcome or know the future. And there is the grandest emotion of them all: Anger. Because anger is easy to see, easy to identify, and easy to express, it often serves as a cover emotion for the others. Unfortunately, most divorcing people stay in the anger, and never dig underneath it to address the true emotions - the guilt, sadness, and fear - that are influencing the outcome of their divorce.
The swirl of emotions, unplanned and unacknowledged, can often drive folks to do things they would never do otherwise. It can influence choices they would never otherwise make. It can cause a person wonder if they are going crazy (and, unfortunately, the ex-spouse and probably many others outside of the situation would confirm that in fact, the divorcing person is crazy).
However, this "craziness" is situational. There is a lot a person can learn from their so-called "negative" emotions, if only they will listen. And this is where a coach comes in. Many people never know how to listen to themselves or to what their emotions are telling them, until a coach teaches them how. A coach does not inform or enlighten the divorcing person. A coach does not counsel or diagnose a person. A coach teaches a person how to stop and listen to their own emotions, and then learn from what the emotion is telling them.
For example, a woman couldn't understand why she still responded to her ex-husband's put-downs and verbal abuse. "I know better", she would say. "I often feel so good about myself when I am at my job, or when I accomplish something. So, why is it that he still has the power to make me feel small?" After we listened to what her emotions were telling her, she discovered that the emotion she was responding to was fear. She feared that she would never be attractive to another man again. She feared that she was doomed to a life of loneliness. The mental recording that her husband had implanted said "you're no good", and her fear was "what if he's right?" After we faced her fear head-on, she was able to counter it with some tools she had learned in a powerful training class... and from then on she never responded again to her ex-husband's abuse.
Emotional turmoil is an inherent part of the divorce journey. It is empowering to acknowledge its existence. It's enlightening to use those emotions to your advantage and restore yourself to serenity.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)