A core principle of Collaborative Process is the value of reaching resolutions that benefit the entire family. We believe that respectful interest-based problem solving and negotiation is effective, and much less likely to deepen conflicts and worsen emotional distress than an adversarial process. This is of enormous benefit to the children in the family.
When a Collaborative Team Process is used, the needs of the children can be addressed even more clearly and powerfully. The children become members of the collaborative team through their work with the Neutral Child Specialist. The Child Specialist ensures that children are kept in the center and out of the middle.
A child-inclusive process keeps the focus directly on the individual needs of each child. Children old enough to understand the big picture are able to share their perspectives on how family can work best for them in the future. Children's voices are heard in a safe, supportive environment, and their parents get important feedback from a neutral collaborative team member. When it is time to create a parenting plan with the Child Specialist, each child's temperament, developmental stage and specific needs are honored. I call the end result a developmentally responsive parenting plan.
A child-inclusive Collaborative Team Process is valuable for any family with children, and for children of all ages. I believe that children deserve the best safe parenting they can get from both parents, and it is always a privilege to work with families to define those terms and reach that goal in their parenting plans.
Deborah Clemmensen, M.Eq.
Licensed Psychologist
Neutral Child Specialist
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The ABC Speech
What is the "ABC Speech" that I sometimes give to potential clients, and who would need this speech?
Who? A spouse, sitting across the conference table at my law firm, who has found him or herself facing a possible divorce. This person does not want a divorce, but feels the need to seek out information on what life would look like if Divorce was looming.
Minnesota law states that one spouse, either the husband or wife, needs to state under Oath that he or she believes his or her marriage is irretreivably broken. Often the spouse who does not want a divorce, must seek legal representation or, at least, consult with a family lawyer out of fear that the other spouse is going to file for divorce. I see these people in this position, often scared and sad to even have to sit across the table from a divorce attorney. It is a surreal experience. I know this because I've asked several of these people what it is like to sit in a room with a divorce attorney.
In the alternative, a person may be in my conference room and I discover that this person is the victim of domestic violence, including emotional abuse. This sort of person is very frightened and often won't even give me her last name. This person also needs the ABC speech. To me, this speech is based more on my undergraduate work in psychology rather than my law school education or the life lessons learned while practicing law or being married--twice.
I discuss with the distraught person that there are basically three options available going forward. Only one involves a family lawyer. There is a pregnant pause.
First, there is Option A. I continue on by revealing that this option is where the person continues to live the same way that he or she is currently living, also known as the status quo. This type of living, the same way, feels safe to some because of its predictability, but hurtful because it is painful. The person often lives walking on eggshells, always trying to do whatever it takes to save the relationship or to keep the abusive spouse content. Imagine trying to stay married, doing everything you can to salvage what little hope there may be, always giving 110%. The victim of abuse may be just trying to do whatever possible to maintain peace. This is an awful option for children. When parents are not happy, the children are not happy and the quality of life for the family suffers.
I encourange the person not to be in this option. They all agree. After discussing Option A with my potential client, the person, listening intently for the other options, agrees that Option A is a choice available as an outcome--simply do nothing to alter the situation.
Option B, quite simply, is for the person to have a discussion with his or her spouse and to give the spouse an ultimatum. Yes, an ultimatum. This person owes it to him or herself, and the children, to have a healthy marriage. The potential client is surprised to learn that, feeling like a victim, is not an option when opting to select Option B.
The ultimatum is such that this person must communicate the goals for preserving the marital relationship, such as marital counseling, marriage retreats, and other things that will assist in healing the relationship. This person must further insist that the other spouse actively participate in putting together an action plan and then following it. Imagine the body language I view when discussing Option B with someone who feels that the other spouse is in control.
Option B mandates that my potential client does not do all the work to 'fix' the relationship. Option B must have measurable goals with an end time when the person can assess whether the other spouse is truly working to stay married. Journaling progress is also important.
It is critical to note that, if spouses are physically separated, the other spouse is not delaying progress by stating, "I need my space" or "I need to think about whether I want to stay married." This is not fair to the potential client or the children to wait long. As such, counseling is highly, highly recommended to assist in forward progress. Merely pointing this out, does wonders. People on the receiving end of the spouse's actions to move out or mandate that this person move out, need to know that he or she does not need to sit back and let life happen.
Option B is very proactive. It insists that this person does not sit idle and let life happen. Instead, Option B is designed to empower the individual, insisting that this person be a driver, not a passenger. Ask the person, "Is the way your relationship with your spouse is today, what you would feel is a good relationship for your child in his or her marriage?"
It seems odd when I encourange this person to make a calculated change, complete with measurable objectives. A collaborative professional coach would be an excellent assistant. Here I am, a divorce attorney, asking someone to consider their options for staying married--not good for business, but good for people!
Option C is the choice involving a family law attorney. This is the option that enlists the services of an attorney to assist in resolving the issues necessary for a divorce in Minnesota. The person comes to the realization that Option A is not desirous and Option B is not likely to occur. Again, it is up to the person who is seated across from me. Reminding the client throughout the consultation that, although is feels that their life is out of control, they actually have considerable power. Showing them the obvious is all it takes to empower them to get thinking about options. The option is not what will divorce look like for me when and if it happens. Instead, it is all about selecting an option and making it happen.
After this discussion, the person takes it all in, conemplates the options and is so thankful. I close my initial consult with a statement, "I hope I never see you again." They all laugh at my dry sense of humor, but they all know that I will only help them with Option C, and only when it is the right time.
Who? A spouse, sitting across the conference table at my law firm, who has found him or herself facing a possible divorce. This person does not want a divorce, but feels the need to seek out information on what life would look like if Divorce was looming.
Minnesota law states that one spouse, either the husband or wife, needs to state under Oath that he or she believes his or her marriage is irretreivably broken. Often the spouse who does not want a divorce, must seek legal representation or, at least, consult with a family lawyer out of fear that the other spouse is going to file for divorce. I see these people in this position, often scared and sad to even have to sit across the table from a divorce attorney. It is a surreal experience. I know this because I've asked several of these people what it is like to sit in a room with a divorce attorney.
In the alternative, a person may be in my conference room and I discover that this person is the victim of domestic violence, including emotional abuse. This sort of person is very frightened and often won't even give me her last name. This person also needs the ABC speech. To me, this speech is based more on my undergraduate work in psychology rather than my law school education or the life lessons learned while practicing law or being married--twice.
I discuss with the distraught person that there are basically three options available going forward. Only one involves a family lawyer. There is a pregnant pause.
First, there is Option A. I continue on by revealing that this option is where the person continues to live the same way that he or she is currently living, also known as the status quo. This type of living, the same way, feels safe to some because of its predictability, but hurtful because it is painful. The person often lives walking on eggshells, always trying to do whatever it takes to save the relationship or to keep the abusive spouse content. Imagine trying to stay married, doing everything you can to salvage what little hope there may be, always giving 110%. The victim of abuse may be just trying to do whatever possible to maintain peace. This is an awful option for children. When parents are not happy, the children are not happy and the quality of life for the family suffers.
I encourange the person not to be in this option. They all agree. After discussing Option A with my potential client, the person, listening intently for the other options, agrees that Option A is a choice available as an outcome--simply do nothing to alter the situation.
Option B, quite simply, is for the person to have a discussion with his or her spouse and to give the spouse an ultimatum. Yes, an ultimatum. This person owes it to him or herself, and the children, to have a healthy marriage. The potential client is surprised to learn that, feeling like a victim, is not an option when opting to select Option B.
The ultimatum is such that this person must communicate the goals for preserving the marital relationship, such as marital counseling, marriage retreats, and other things that will assist in healing the relationship. This person must further insist that the other spouse actively participate in putting together an action plan and then following it. Imagine the body language I view when discussing Option B with someone who feels that the other spouse is in control.
Option B mandates that my potential client does not do all the work to 'fix' the relationship. Option B must have measurable goals with an end time when the person can assess whether the other spouse is truly working to stay married. Journaling progress is also important.
It is critical to note that, if spouses are physically separated, the other spouse is not delaying progress by stating, "I need my space" or "I need to think about whether I want to stay married." This is not fair to the potential client or the children to wait long. As such, counseling is highly, highly recommended to assist in forward progress. Merely pointing this out, does wonders. People on the receiving end of the spouse's actions to move out or mandate that this person move out, need to know that he or she does not need to sit back and let life happen.
Option B is very proactive. It insists that this person does not sit idle and let life happen. Instead, Option B is designed to empower the individual, insisting that this person be a driver, not a passenger. Ask the person, "Is the way your relationship with your spouse is today, what you would feel is a good relationship for your child in his or her marriage?"
It seems odd when I encourange this person to make a calculated change, complete with measurable objectives. A collaborative professional coach would be an excellent assistant. Here I am, a divorce attorney, asking someone to consider their options for staying married--not good for business, but good for people!
Option C is the choice involving a family law attorney. This is the option that enlists the services of an attorney to assist in resolving the issues necessary for a divorce in Minnesota. The person comes to the realization that Option A is not desirous and Option B is not likely to occur. Again, it is up to the person who is seated across from me. Reminding the client throughout the consultation that, although is feels that their life is out of control, they actually have considerable power. Showing them the obvious is all it takes to empower them to get thinking about options. The option is not what will divorce look like for me when and if it happens. Instead, it is all about selecting an option and making it happen.
After this discussion, the person takes it all in, conemplates the options and is so thankful. I close my initial consult with a statement, "I hope I never see you again." They all laugh at my dry sense of humor, but they all know that I will only help them with Option C, and only when it is the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)