Recently, a fellow blogger friend of mine and I had an exchange that sparked a conversation.
In his blog, he spoke of some of the things that he had experienced in his divorce. Things that seem outlandish to anyone who has never actually experienced them for themselves. We talked about the many times that he had been blind-sided by the antics that his wife engaged in, all in the name of "divorce war".
And, as you know, it's my passion to help people avoid such wars.
And, as most people realize, one way to avoid war, or even one skirmish in it, is to see it coming, so you can prepare for it. Yet, as I remarked to my friend, it's often frustrating in my line of work to warn someone who is smack-dab in the midst of the skirmish of an impending attack... and hear them respond "Oh, my spouse would never do that!" It happened often enough, that when my friend made mention of it as we commented about his blog, I realized it was time to think this through some more. If I could not learn a way to help my clients understand and get past their blindness, I would be doing them a disservice.
So, I thought about what causes a person who is going through divorce to get taken by ambush by the shenanigans of their spouse. And I am talking about the stuff that happens often enough (sadly) that it's easy for those of us who are familiar with the course of divorce to predict with pretty fair accuracy when then next stunt is going to get pulled. When you know what to look for, you can see it coming for miles.
I realized that a big part of the problem is that there is cognitive dissonance for a divorcing person, between the married life that they once knew, the marriage partner that they once knew, and the life they are transitioning into presently. I wrote about this in a guest blog on my friend's site (see www.thepsychoexwife.com).
But mere understanding is not a remedy in and of itself. So, I also tried something new with one of my clients today, and asked her for permission to share how it worked with my readers.
As she and I spoke, I heard the classic sounds of "oh, my spouse would never do that!" In her case, the words were not exact, but the overall gist was the same. So I said "will you take a short walk with me?" She looked puzzled, but agreed.
We walked down the hall of my building and out onto the sidewalk. Across the street a man had just parked his car and was hurrying into a nearby building, carrying a briefcase. I asked my client "do you recognize that man?" She replied that she did not.
I asked her "what do you know about him?"
"Only that he looked middle-aged, seemed to be in a hurry, and was carrying a bag."
I thanked her for trusting me, and said "Let's go back inside." After we returned to the office, I explained: "Someday in the future, you will see your husband somewhere, a random glimpse, and it will occur to you that you know longer know him. He will seem like a stranger to you. You will hardly know more about him than what you know right now about that man on the street. It will probably even feel strange and quite distant to recall anything about him. That's the destination of this part of the journey for your brain. Can you imagine that happening?"
She struggled for a moment, but finally mentally merged the image of the stranger on the street with an image of her husband. I prodded her: "Imagine that all you know of your husband is that he is middle-aged, seems to be in a hurry, and is carrying a bag. Keep that picture in your mind until it seems real to you and not merely imagination."
I was really glad she was able to trust me! Finally, she nodded.
And I said to her: "That man you are picturing right now, that total stranger who merely looks like your husband... that is the person you are divorcing. You know no more about him - his intentions, his cares, his drives, his plans - than you did about the man on the street. From this point forward, you simply have no way to predict what he will do."
Now, I may have overstated the magnitude of the situation, to make an impact. But finally, it got through. My client needed to understand that the man she was divorcing was not the man who had bought her flowers, rubbed her feet, or gotten up early to make the coffee.
One need not transform their soon-to-be-ex into some demon, nor resort to paranoia, to avoid the surprise attack that can take place in divorce war. As I mentioned in the other blog post, we must always hope for the best behavior, of both ourselves and our divorcing spouse. But, to avoid a prolonged, painful, scorch-the-earth war, we must also prepare for the worst. And step one in that preparation, is to trust your coach when he or she tells you "oh yes, your soon-to-be-ex spouse would do that."
Peace.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Random, and Completely Unrelated...
In my life prior to becoming a divorce coach, I was involved in the aerospace industry. It was a great, rewarding, and joyous career, and I am thankful for it. Today's blog has nothing to do with divorce. It's just a little blurb I wrote a while back, after I had learned to fly. Read on:
=========================
Peace.
=========================
Recently, I was given the opportunity to finally learn to fly a real airplane. After years of collaborating with pilot review teams to develop cockpits, I was finally going to learn firsthand what it was like to truly use my product. Up until this point, I had spent countless hours “flying” our test cockpits in the simulators. But the many pilots on my test teams insisted over and over that I could not know what it was truly like, until I had truly flown.
They were right. And so, after finally learning to fly for real, I realized that there were some important life lessons that went along with the flying lessons. At least, this is what the experience taught me:
- You can control a simulator with millions of lines of code and control laws and rules and logic statements. You don't control real flight: you surrender to the laws of nature (gravity, Bernoulli's principle, physics) and the airplane flies itself. If you hit turbulence, have a cross-wind, get out of trim, or slightly "off-course" you inspect, adapt, and correct. If you over-correct, you inspect, adapt, and correct back in the other direction. You are never "perfectly" on... except for a teeny instant when you are going past 'perfect' on your way out to the other side of the pendulum. And that's okay.
- When you sit in a simulator, you feel NOTHING. This is because there is nothing at stake. If you crash, the dome goes black and the technicians will tease and harass you a bit. But you have never left safe, secure, terra firma, and somewhere, your brain knows that. When you sit in a real plane, you feel the wind, the surge of forces against the controls, the pressure of the stick and the rudders; you feel the force of gravity as you lift off... you feel twice the force of gravity as you make a steep 60-degree angle turn and it pins you back into your seat. You feel a thrill of watching the altimeter zip past 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and you look down at tiny little roads and trucks and houses and lakes. You feel a twinge of excitement and panic as you realize you are high up in the air. You feel your "oh s***" moments when you realize you didn't pull your nose up correctly and you just lost 200 feet of altitude. You FEEL it ALL. You are taking a risk to live a reality, and somewhere, your brain knows that.
- You cannot make an airplane take off. You just put all of the elements into place and it will take off when it's ready. You point it into the wind if you can... you give it all the speed you can... you pull back and give it all the lift vector that you can... and then you surrender and let the natural laws do what they will do. You cannot make a simulator take off. No matter what you do, you will just be sitting there, in a dome, strapped into a seat that a lot of people spent a lot of time and a lot of money to make *look* just like you are flying. But no matter what, you will always just be sitting there.
- Flying an airplane is ALL IN. From the second you strap into the seat... you push all your chips to the middle and play hard with all you've got. If you're not prepared to do that, you don't get in at all. There is no halfway. There is no control-P to pause it. There is no withholding a portion; keeping one leg on the ground; or being wishy-washy about your commitment. There is certainly no "pretending to fly" or "wearing a mask" of flight. It is undeniably, unshakably R.E.A.L.
- Off the ground is off the ground. If you're going to fly, you may as well soar all the way to the stratosphere (well, allowing for equipment limits, but you know what I mean). It is no scarier or riskier to fly at 5,000 feet than at 1,000... so why needlessly limit yourself? Fly higher!!!
- Most of the joy of flight is paying attention to what is going on outside the airplane... not what's going on inside. So... break away from the control panel as often as you can, learn to *feel* your way so you don't have to constantly monitor your instruments and gages -- and look out the window and enjoy the amazing view!
Peace.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Way It Looks To Them
The following is an excerpt from an e-mail I received from one of my clients (used with permission):
"We continue to struggle with my stepson's relationship with his mother." [the court had awarded primary custody of the 15-year-old boy to the father, two years ago; the mother agreed to shift custody because she recognized that the boy needed to be with his father more once he entered his teen years; this e-mail is from the boy's stepmother]. "We try to explain our values to her, but she still thinks she can make up for abandoning her son by buying him off. Now she has promised him a car for his 16th birthday, after we told her not to. We are still recovering from the cell phone fiasco she started when she bought him his own cell phone. It's impossible to enforce the court order restricting her phone calls when he has access to his own phone. We try very hard to teach our son to resist all these materialistic bribes, but he's only 15. He's really confused because he seems to think that love equals stuff. How do we help him see that phones and cars are not love?"
Sounds quite innocent, right? Someone in a parental role, hoping to rear their child with solid, respectable values.
Here is what that 15-year old boy hears:
"Your mother doesn't love you."
"Your mother has abandoned you."
"Your mother doesn't want you to interfere with her selfish, materialistic life."
"Your mother is a bad person, and if you accept these gifts, that makes you a bad person, too."
"You should not want to contact your mother."
"You cannot have a relationship with your mother, and also have a good relationship with your father at the same time."
"You are bad person if you want a cell phone or a car."
When I informed my client of the messages she was sending to her step-son, she vehemently denied it. "Oh no," she said, "I never ever say these things around him."
When I explained to her that these were the messages he was receiving, whether or not they were what she intended to send, then she returned to her original position: that the mother had abandoned her position as parent. My client then wanted to know how she could convey "the truth" to her step-son in a way that "wouldn't damage him."
What I said to her, I say to all parents, step-parents, grandparents, and any other quasi-parental role: it is not your job to make sure your child knows "the truth" about their other parent. There is simply no way you can do this without damage. Even if there were a way to do it without damage, it is still not your job.
Even if the child seems "confused." Not your job.
What is your job? To let that kiddo know that YOU love them, support them, will be there for them, no matter what. That's it. You can tell them YOUR feelings ("I love you"), YOUR intentions ("I will always have your back"), and YOUR commitment ("I will never abandon you"), but you cannot tell them someone else's. Don't even try.
The interesting thing is, if the parents, step-parents, grandparents, and other quasi-parents will just do this one thing - their own part - the kiddos grow up healthier. They own their own "truth", and they can handle it... in large part because of the gift of emotional health given to them by grown-ups who were secure enough themselves to do their own job.
Peace.
"We continue to struggle with my stepson's relationship with his mother." [the court had awarded primary custody of the 15-year-old boy to the father, two years ago; the mother agreed to shift custody because she recognized that the boy needed to be with his father more once he entered his teen years; this e-mail is from the boy's stepmother]. "We try to explain our values to her, but she still thinks she can make up for abandoning her son by buying him off. Now she has promised him a car for his 16th birthday, after we told her not to. We are still recovering from the cell phone fiasco she started when she bought him his own cell phone. It's impossible to enforce the court order restricting her phone calls when he has access to his own phone. We try very hard to teach our son to resist all these materialistic bribes, but he's only 15. He's really confused because he seems to think that love equals stuff. How do we help him see that phones and cars are not love?"
Sounds quite innocent, right? Someone in a parental role, hoping to rear their child with solid, respectable values.
Here is what that 15-year old boy hears:
"Your mother doesn't love you."
"Your mother has abandoned you."
"Your mother doesn't want you to interfere with her selfish, materialistic life."
"Your mother is a bad person, and if you accept these gifts, that makes you a bad person, too."
"You should not want to contact your mother."
"You cannot have a relationship with your mother, and also have a good relationship with your father at the same time."
"You are bad person if you want a cell phone or a car."
When I informed my client of the messages she was sending to her step-son, she vehemently denied it. "Oh no," she said, "I never ever say these things around him."
When I explained to her that these were the messages he was receiving, whether or not they were what she intended to send, then she returned to her original position: that the mother had abandoned her position as parent. My client then wanted to know how she could convey "the truth" to her step-son in a way that "wouldn't damage him."
What I said to her, I say to all parents, step-parents, grandparents, and any other quasi-parental role: it is not your job to make sure your child knows "the truth" about their other parent. There is simply no way you can do this without damage. Even if there were a way to do it without damage, it is still not your job.
Even if the child seems "confused." Not your job.
What is your job? To let that kiddo know that YOU love them, support them, will be there for them, no matter what. That's it. You can tell them YOUR feelings ("I love you"), YOUR intentions ("I will always have your back"), and YOUR commitment ("I will never abandon you"), but you cannot tell them someone else's. Don't even try.
The interesting thing is, if the parents, step-parents, grandparents, and other quasi-parents will just do this one thing - their own part - the kiddos grow up healthier. They own their own "truth", and they can handle it... in large part because of the gift of emotional health given to them by grown-ups who were secure enough themselves to do their own job.
Peace.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
"It's All Your Fault!" Book Review
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.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)