Pronoia Mediation

5 Points to Review Before Telling the Kids You are Separating or Divorcing

2015-01-09T12:21:00.001-06:00

How or when do you tell kids about a separation or divorce? This is a question I often get asked in mediation. In some cases, parents work with a therapist who helps them talk this through. More often, though, parents must navigate this question on their own.

I’m not a counselor or psychologist or social worker but I do have over 15 years of experience working with families in mediation, many of whom need help discussing the particulars of sharing information with children about a separation or divorce. Regardless of the age of the children, I think there are some basic things for parents to keep in mind when deciding the how, when and where of breaking the news of a separation or divorce to kids.*

1) Get on the same page.

Parents must be in agreement that a separation or divorce is happening. If separating, parents must be in agreement about what this actually means. In other words, is this a trial separation where parents will reevaluate in six months, or is the separation a precursor to the ultimate, inevitable end of the relationship? Parents need to be honest with themselves and each other about this before the conversation with the children takes place. Likewise, if a divorce is definitely happening, both people need to be clear about this before the kids become involved. If one parent spends one night on the couch or in a hotel, and parents don’t know what’s next, there is no need to tell kids one parent is leaving the other. Same goes for when one parent and the kids take a month long “vacation” to grandma’s house. Wait and figure it out as adults first. Are you both certain that you are separating and/or divorcing? Do you agree on the timeline? Do you know at least on a short-term basis where you will each live? If you're staying in the house together for some period of time, where will you each be in the home so that you have some physical space? Figure out what you can first without involving the children. Parents need to be on the same page about their relationship first and foremost and they need to have a simple, short-term plan. Kids need boundaries so even if you feel out of control (a normal feeling to have) the kids need to experience from you that there will be no disruption in their care.

2) Truth, truthiness and everything in between.

It’s not uncommon for parents to come into mediation and share the following: “I don’t lie to my kids” or “I always tell my kids the truth.” When you were together did you tell the kids how often you and the other parent had sex? Of course not! In fact, that’s not only cringe worthy, it’s extremely inappropriate. So what makes you think it’s appropriate to tell the kids that the other parent had an affair? Kids don’t need to know the particulars of why your relationship ended. When you were married did you talk to the kids about how much you paid rent or the cost of the mortgage or how broke you were when you were helping support Grandma after she got sick? Kids need to learn financial responsibility but they don’t need adult financial stress. Kids do not need to know about the other parent’s gambling addiction or how a parent isn't helping support the family financially. Those are adult matters and they need to remain between the adults. By the way, grandparents and aunties and uncles and family friends need to keep their mouths shut also. If you or another adult in your child’s life is tempted to “tell the truth,” seriously consider for whom you are sharing that information. Is it something essential that your child must know for his or her own safety and well-being? If not, you are probably sharing it to make yourself look better, to make the other parent look bad in the eyes of the children, or to try and hurt the other parent. Let me break something to you. If you talk badly about the other parent to the children you will hurt your kids and hurt your own relationship with your children. I know this because the kids I meet tell me this. It doesn't matter if your kids are four, twelve or seventeen: they don’t need to know the details of why the relationship ended or why you and the other parent hate one another nor do they need to know all the reasons you think the other parent is in the wrong. Don’t fall into the trap of believing that one person needs to be blamed or shamed to the kids. Even if there’s blame between the two of you, it will only hurt your children if you pull them into it. Yes, some kids developmentally want to know “whose fault it is” because given their age they can’t yet hold the space for nuance and layered responsibility. Just because their brains want to organize things into right and wrong does not mean you have to feed that fire. You are adults and you should be able to recognize that relationships end for all sorts of complicated reasons. Since you are the adults, even if there is blame between you, you should be mature enough to keep this away from the kids. Parents need to communicate as a united front that they still respect each other (and fake it until you make it if necessary) and require of the children that they also continue to respect both parents.

3) Okay, so how and when do we tell them?

Ideally, parents will talk to kids all together: both parents in the same room with all children present, regardless of the kids' ages. There’s no need to tell kids of different ages at different times or in different ways because you will be sharing the same essential information with all of them. Also, why put pressure on one child to keep a secret from another? That's what you'll be doing if you don't tell all the kids at once. They need to trust and depend on one another now more than ever. Before you talk to the kids together, you and the other parent need to agree on what exactly you plan to say and who will say what. It can often be helpful to practice this with one another in advance. When preparing to tell them, make sure that you choose a time of day when the kids are well rested and well fed. Things should feel generally relaxed and nobody should have to go somewhere immediately following the conversation. So, for example, don’t tell them on a school night. If they have a big test or sporting event or recital then it’s best to wait until that's over. If you and your children have busy, active lives then of course it will be difficult finding the perfect moment. Let yourself off the hook because perfect moments don’t exist. Keep it simple. The conversation should take place in a private setting that is comfortable to all members of the family. Plan enough time for the kids to express their feelings and to ask you questions and for you all to have some regular parent/family time afterwards or for the kids to have some time alone if that’s what's needed. By the way, different kids may need different things at this point so consider this when planning the when, where and how so that you can help meet individual needs. If you have a lot of children this may be difficult but that's why there are two of you and that's why you're telling them all at once since siblings can be very supportive to one another under such circumstances. It shouldn't feel rushed and it should be planned and spoken by parents together, not spontaneously expressed by one parent out of anger.

4) What should we tell them?

Simply tell them some or all of the following:

· This is not your fault.

· We both love you and will always love you.

· You did nothing to cause this.

· You will still spend time with both of us.

· You will still get to __________(their favorite activities they enjoy doing with each parent).

· You will still see _______________ (grandparents, aunts, uncles, other family).

· We will do our best to help you keep your friendships with ____________ (their best friends).

· We will do our best to keep you involved in _____________ (activities they participate in).

· You will remain in your same school OR We are doing our best to work out where you will be for school and will let you know as soon as we know; we are trying as much as possible to keep things the same for you OR We plan to enroll you at ______ school starting _____. We have an appointment for you to visit it on ___________. You can talk to ________ or _________ who are familiar with the school and can tell you about it.

5) What questions will they ask and how do we respond?

First of all, think about possible questions and answers in advance and get on the same page about how you might respond. You can’t anticipate everything but you should have some idea of the types of things that might worry your kids. Most importantly, you and the other parent need to agree on your answers. Here are some possible questions to consider that kids might ask:

Do you still love each other?

Will you get back together some day?

Will I get to stay in our house?

Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend?

Who will we live with?

Will we have to talk to a judge?

Whose decision was it? (i.e.: whose fault is it)

Will I have a step-mom/step-dad someday?

Will I get to stay at my school?

Why did this happen?

Who knows about it?

Instead of asking questions, some kids might shrug and play with a favorite toy. They might sob uncontrollably. They might rage in anger. They need to be given the space for any of these reactions. There is no right or wrong reaction for a kid to have when receiving this information. If you are really concerned about them, then you could set up in advance some time for them to meet with a counselor or support group for kids. If your kids do ask the above questions, avoid blaming each other in your answers. Kids are egocentric. They want to know how this affects them. Focus on that and if you don’t know the answers such as how this will impact where they attend school you are allowed to say “we don’t know” because that is one truth that is appropriate for your kids to hear. Tell them you are working on it and will let them know once you know more. Remember point 2 above and focus on point 4 and repeat. Don't ask them over and over if they're okay. They will do what they need to do and they will talk to you if or when they are ready. Create space for them and listen. Always listen. Kids whose parents are separating or divorcing need to know that their parents love them and that they’ll be taken care of no matter what happens. Some things are firmly adult matters and you do not need to answer such questions; you can redirect them to what is most important. Tell them that everyone’s doing their best, and that you both love them. You’ll always love them.

*These ideas presume that parents and children are safe and that parents are able to negotiate on their own behalf (issues related to domestic violence and/or child abuse are too complicated to cover here).

CLICK HERE FOR A PDF VERSION OF THIS POST

5 Ways to prepare for your parenting plan mediation

2014-12-16T12:09:00.001-06:00

Either you have been ordered by the courts to attend mediation or you and the other parent have agreed to private mediation. Either way, there is a lot that can be done in advance to prepare for the upcoming mediation. Below are some things to consider and ways in which to get ready. These ideas presume that parents and children are safe and that parents are able to negotiate on their own behalf (mediation when there's been domestic violence or child abuse is too serious and complicated of a topic to cover here).

Is this conflict “ripe” for mediation?

Mediators use the word “ripe” to describe when the timing is good for mediation. Usually that means that the people participating in mediation are emotionally ready and motivated to deal with the practicalities of a parenting plan. That’s not to say that parents can’t bring intense emotion into the mediation; mediators help parents with intense emotions in mediation all the time. It just means that parents need to be essentially in agreement about some basic facts; primarily that any romantic relationship between them is over. If parents aren’t in agreement about this, then couple’s mediationor marital mediationmay be appropriate prior to mediation of a parenting agreement. Couples therapy can also be helpful when parents aren’t sure about ending the relationship. Another obstacle to mediation at this stage might be if one or both parents are just too angry at each other to deal with parenting plan particulars like a schedule and how decisions will be made about the children. Some anger is fine in mediation and there are certainly opportunities to vent, but anger to the point of immediate flooding (Andra Medea, Conflict Unraveled) and an inability to eventually shift to problem-solving and listening means mediation will be less effective. Same is true if one parent is really depressed, to the point of struggle with daily functioning. Support groups, individual therapy, talking to a spiritual leader, developing an exercise practice or finding creative outlets may be helpful to relieve some of this expressed anger or serious depression prior to mediation. A fantastic mediator, Bill Eddy, also has some great suggestions on pre-mediation coaching that parents could implement, including what he describes as “managed emotions.” To use this strategy, a parent will “memorize short encouraging statements that you can tell yourself as you are going through the process.” If the timing isn’t ripe for mediation, you could always request that the judge or mediator postpone it; for this request to be taken seriously, consider and present some steps you and the other parent might take to get yourselves emotionally ready for mediation.

What do I know about how to negotiate?

Maybe you’ve bought a used car before or you’ve had to negotiate with your child’s school district. Certainly you’ve had to negotiate with your own parents over the years not to mention with your own child. When it comes to negotiating with the other parent, however, some of those basics quickly and easily fly out the window in the heat of the moment; that’s why preparing is so important. Just because you’ve had a romantic relationship with the other parent doesn’t make mediation any less of a negotiation. In fact, it may require even more preparation because you and the other parent probably developed understandings and patterns of communication (perhaps some healthy and some not) that you fall into immediately even though you’re no longer together. There are some great books on negotiation such as Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury. For example, it can be helpful to understand the ways in which integrative negotiation is different from distributive bargaining. Usually when you’re buying something, you want to get the best deal possible which makes for distributive bargaining. It’s a win/lose situation where the more money you save means the more money the other person loses. When you’re dealing with your child’s other parent, you don’t want to enter into a negotiation with a win/lose attitude or the person who loses the most is your child. Since your relationship with your child's other parent is ongoing (as opposed to the used car salesman whom you’ll never see again) you do have to consider their interests in order to successfully meet your own needs and interests. For example, if the other parent has a need to be acknowledged by you as important in the child’s life, to do so may mean that the other parent can finally acknowledge the ways in which you put your career on hold for the sake of your family.

What’s my position and why does it matter?

You need to know more in advance than just your position. A position is often that statement that a parent makes regarding what they want the outcome to be. They repeat it often and firmly, making it clear that they will not budge. For example, a lot of parents walk into my mediation stating clearly that they want “sole custody” or “joint custody”. When I ask them what that means, or ask specific questions about residency or decision making, they often don’t know how to respond. Usually parents choose a position based on emotion. Sometimes it’s something their attorney tells them they deserve or that they would definitely “win” in court. Sometimes a grandparent or other family member tells the negotiating parent that they “have the right” to some aspect of the parenting plan. Never walk into mediation with a position that you can’t support or that you don’t truly understand. Educate yourself on the difference between physical custody and legal custody. Understand what it truly means to have sole legal custody versus joint legal custody and be able to articulate why either of those matter to you. For example, maybe you and the other parent have very different opinions about how the children should be educated and that is why you don’t want to try and make educational decisions together. On the other hand, maybe you feel you ‘ve been the one “making all the decisions” because the other parent worked all the time so you think you deserve to have sole legal custody. When parents are in a relationship, there is usually an agreed upon—either explicitly or implicitly—division of labor that works, at least for a while. Keep in mind that when you decide that your romantic relationship with the other parent has ended, both parents must then fill multiple roles in child rearing. Relying on the past to make arguments about the future can be self-defeating. You're better off figuring out all of the things you, your children, and the other parent need and putting the pieces together in a way that fits, like a puzzle.

What is my bottom line?

Understand what options you have if mediation doesn't work out and you are forced to go back to court on one or all parenting issues. Will an attorney be assigned for the children? Will there be home studies? Psychological evaluations? How much time will be missed from work? To what extent will strangers be talking with your kids? To what extent will strangers be making decisions for you instead of you and the other parent maintaining control of the parenting plan? Before you suggest to the other parent that you will “take my chances in court” or that you’re “better off having the judge decide” be very clear about what that really means. Going to court can be costly in terms of time and money. It will certainly further strain your relationship with the other parent. Your “day in court” may not happen for months or even years, after a lot of time and money has been spent, and when—totally out of your control—the outcome is decided you may not be happy with the results. Instead of using threats of court to try and get your way or to intimidate the other parent (they may just call your bluff) consider instead what is truly worth fighting for in court? This is your bottom line. You don't need to share it with the other parent, but you do need to learn it and understand it.

Between my position and my bottom line, what do I need to learn and what do I need to be prepared to share?

If you're not sure what you really want right now, do some research and write down some potential proposals to bring into mediation. For divorcing parents, www.uptoparents.org has some wonderful resources available. For never married parents, www.proudtoparent.org can be helpful. In your parenting plan you will need to decide how and when the children will spend time with each parent, including summers, holidays and other vacations (winter/spring). Usually there is one residential parent so you'll need to decide who that will be, or if you think you want to share residency/physical custody, you need to consider a) how far apart are you or do you plan to live from one another b) where will the children attend school c) what financial implications may shared residency have d) how would the kids do with shared residency e) how effectively do we as parents communicate with one another and/or how can we become better at communicating. You will also need to determine how major decisions (education, religion, health and extracurricular activities) will be made, either together or by one parent. There’s a lot of talking that needs to happen between your initial position and your bottom line. If you would prefer that you and the other parent maintain control of your parenting agreement rather than have a judge determine it for you, then prepare in advance by knowing what you want and why and be open to communicating with the other parent in mediation. Take the time to listen which is how you’ll learn what they really need in order to reach an agreement. Get all of the pieces of the puzzle before you try to put something together. Try your best to explain what’s important to you and why. Try to enter the mediation open to this process. Having a third party assist you to talk and listen can be extremely empowering. On more than one occasion I have had parents say after mediation: “If we had only talked like this when we were together, maybe we wouldn't have split up.”

CLICK HERE FOR A PDF VERSION OF THIS POST

#BlackLivesMatter

2014-12-04T22:12:00.001-06:00

While I’ve re-posted articles on Facebook, I’ve written nothing personally or professionally about the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In all honesty, I’m fearful of saying the wrong thing; I am a white woman who has experienced many of the privileges that that bestows. I can and have gotten it wrong. Thinking about the #BlackLivesMatter movement again today (in light of another Grand Jury decision not to indict), I feel an intensifying anger, and while the experience of oppression cannot be shared, the outrage is, or should be, shared, and in being shared it must be something of which we all speak in the best way we know how. Fear, after all, is part of the problem.I am angry.

I am furious. The friends and families of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and far, far too many other Black human beings should not be grieving the loss of their loved ones. They should not be experiencing, privately and publicly, the lack of justice in this country … yet again. Black human lives should not be cut short. I say “human beings” with intention and fury, because Black lives have, and continue to be, treated as less than all others.Morton Deutsch, a social psychologist and researcher, defines oppression as “the experience of repeated, widespread, systemic injustice” (Deutsch, Justice and Conflict, The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006). Deutsch explains in simple language the forms oppression takes as injustice. All of them apply here, but the one that has me most outraged is how systematically Black lives have been morally excluded. In the words of Deutsch, "moral exclusion or the scope of injustice is concerned with who is included in the moral community and who is thought to be entitled to fair outcomes and fair treatment.” Furthermore, moral exclusion occurs “when individuals and groups who are outside the boundary in which considerations of fairness apply may be treated in ways that would be considered immoral if people within the boundary were so treated” (Deutsch, “A Framework for Thinking about Oppression and Its Change,” Social Justice Research, 2006).

The United States’ “justice” system’s furthering of oppression through a failure to bring to justice those who have killed Black human beings is unacceptable. Police officers make mistakes. They are human. However, this is not an isolated incident, the mistake of one person. Deutsch further writes: “Retributive injustice is concerned with the behavior and attitudes of people, especially those in authority, in response to moral rule breaking… almost every comparison of the treatment of Black and White criminal offenders indicates that, if there is a difference, Blacks receive worse treatment.” There is a history and pattern here of Black loss of life due to police brutality. This is a case of moral exclusion + distributive injustice + procedural injustice + retributive injustice + reparative injustice + cultural imperialism = oppression = lack of accountability and consequences = justifications for killing Black Human Beings = getting away with murder.

I’m a queer-identified white woman married to a queer-identified Brown woman, raising an Indian-Irish-Italian child. In his lifetime, this violence toward Black lives must stop, but the white population in our country allows, and often benefits from it continuing. Professionally, I studied Morton Deutsch in graduate school, whose expertise in the social psychology of justice was at the heart of my final project. His words spoke to me nearly twenty years ago and they do still, as my anger intensifies at the systematic oppression of Black human beings. I recognize that I have had the privilege of not having been born with the right to that anger. Instead my anger comes from being an ally and that should and does matter much less. I feel that anger out of solidarity, but my white privilege means I will never share the space within which the anger of racial oppression truly exists.

I’m the daughter of a retired police sergeant who had over 30 years on the job. I loved going to the police station as a kid, hanging out with his police buddies, getting fingerprinted and pretend locked up in the real jail. I felt safer there than anywhere else in the world. The contrast of the experience I had as a young white girl with a police officer father to that of too many young Black men is not lost on me. I know my father’s job was not an easy one as I witnessed the pain in his eyes from all he saw more than I’d like to recall. It took a huge toll not just on him, but on all of us directly and indirectly, day after day. It is no accident that I became a mediator, as my Dad instilled a desire for justice in my tiny being. He taught me that no one’s life is worth more than any other. He taught me about accountability and apology. He taught me about forgiveness.

But what I learned on my own was that power and privilege matter and cannot go ignored. I learned that the anger of the oppressed matters and that it is my responsibility to listen without judgment or justification or defensiveness to those who have less power and privilege; and to speak out against oppression.

I began writing this post earlier in the day and as I conclude it this evening protesters march in cities throughout the country. #BlackLivesMatter

Negotiating: preschool years part II (or “prequel” if this was a Star Wars movie)

2014-11-10T16:01:00.001-06:00

The field of dispute resolution has a lot to offer educators, parents and other care givers beyond peer mediation programs. Young people can benefit from an application of this knowledge as a preventative measure before they become someone Bill Eddy might define as having a high-conflict personality (HCP), his area of specialty in the field. Eddy’s definition of someone with a high-conflict personality is as follows:

Basically, when a person has a high-conflict personality, he or she is stuck in conflict. It’s part of who they are. The issue’s not the issue. They will just find another issue to fight about the same way. It’s how they routinely think, feel, and act. Because it’s part of their personality, they can’t see it. They can’t see that their behavior is out of line or “over-the-top.” It feels necessary and normal to them even though everyone around them can see that the person—who I call an HCP—is acting very inappropriately. It’s hard to believe, but they really lack self-awareness of how inappropriate they are. And you can’t “make” them see it like you can’t make a blind person see. HCPs just get defensive when you give them negative feedback, and often escalate the conflict even more. The biggest sign is whether they can turn their aggressive behavior on and off to appropriately fit the circumstances. If they are always aggressive—even when it hurts their client or themselves—that is a sign they can’t stop themselves. It’s this lack of self-awareness that’s key; e.g., if you can’t even talk to them reasonably on the phone; if they always make it personal with personal attacks or public rebukes of you or your client; if they have emotional outbursts they can’t control; when they can’t even make a settlement proposal or respond to one; if they “project” their own behavior onto you and blame you for acting in ways that they are really acting; or if they tell the judge that you’re being uncooperative or not communicating. These are all signs of a high-conflict personality and predictive of future uncivil behavior. (Interview with Deborah Bayus, President, NorthCounty Bar Association, The Magazine of the North County Bar Association, Vol.25, No. 10, October 2008)

I first heard Eddy present at the Academy of Professional Family Mediators annual conference a year ago in Denver (I recently posted about this year's conference in San Diego). There’s clarity and practicality to his writing and speaking that is immediately applicable to working with clients. It turns out that the language Eddy uses to describe HCPs resonated for me when interacting with preschoolers as well so I thought I'd attempt to more formally apply his ideas to that population.

In July I wrote a post, Negotiating: preschool years and perhaps I made it sound easy, which it is not. I didn't really address what to do when the preschooler‘s emotions have completely consumed him to the point of intense expressions of anger (throwing objects, hitting, demanding), sadness (withdrawal, inconsolable sobbing), or both. Once those emotions set in they often continue to escalate and ultimately peak (minutes, hours later) then gradually subside. It’s hard to prevent a preschooler from climbing to that emotional peak, and perhaps best not to interfere with that if it’s a natural progression of an emotional release. Often once on the other side the child is relieved, relaxed and finally able to express herself verbally. Sometimes, though, the child appears to be actually suffering from his own loss of emotional control.

Young people are obviously born highly emotional beings that ultimately learn how to reason. Eddy is not the first to talk about the functioning of different parts of the brain but he does it very well and adds layers of value to existing knowledge. In summary, Eddy tells us that HCP’s have a really difficult time shifting from an emotional state to a problem-solving place. Deep seated fear (the origins of which – usually from childhood –can be any number of things), and experiencing everything from this place of fear, results in a fight or flight response which projects outward as defensiveness, lack of personal insight or responsibility and an inability to problem-solve (APFM Conference, San Diego October 16-19). Similarly, Andra Medea, an alternative dispute resolution researcher and writer, describes an individual’s intense escalation of emotion as “flooding” and she talks about “shifting to healthy conflict” in her book, ConflictUnraveled. Toddlers flood easily (what many would call "tantrums") and preschoolers, while less prone to this, still struggle to make this shift.

Children who don’t learn how, at crucial moments, to move from a place of intense emotion into problem solving could become adults who are personally challenged in such a way. The ability to shift from a place of intense, unhealthy expressions of emotion to a place of healthy expressions of emotion and problem solving requires practice and actual learned behavior to create a physical change in the brain. If we don’t teach children how to do this, they risk becoming an adult HCP.

Medea suggests that when someone is “flooding” give them a mundane task or a physical objective, such as repeating their address, or having them carry a large object (Safe Within These Walls, Medea 2014). These tasks force someone who is overcome by intense emotion to relax their primordial fight or flight response and bring down the level of adrenaline coursing through their body. Similarly, asking questions of a preschooler in the grips of flooding such as “What day of the week is today?” or “How many different kinds of trains are there?” creates enough of an internal shift that he becomes capable of providing answers between ever-calming exhalations of breath. On another day, if those questions are asked, that same preschooler may throw his train across the room.

Eddy suggests using a process he named “E.A.R” which stands for Empathy, Attention & Respect and by providing structure. E.A.R. decreases the individual’s defensive response by connecting in a non-threatening way; “Calm them down first, so they can hear you”, Eddy says (APFM Conference, Oct 16-19, San Diego). Preschoolers, like HCPs, can be emotionally sensitive. Whether intuitive to others’ emotions or not, they can also be highly reactive. For some preschoolers, E.A.R. may be an effective first step toward tempering what a child may be experiencing as an unwelcome flood of emotion. A preschooler may melt into open arms when a caregiver provides empathy with full attention and respectful language such as “I see you’re having some big feelings about that. I’m right here with you. I know we can figure this out together.” Other times it may set off a reaction from the preschooler of: “I’m not having big feelings! Go away! Don’t say that!”

No matter what, requesting that a person—adult or child—respond from a place of reason when they are in a place of high emotion, almost always backfires. Helping a child internalize calming skills undoubtedly takes practice and patience and creative thinking as a child ages and develops. Once they’re in a calmer place, successful processes and solutions become more possible.

After helping a person feel calmer and less threatened (they are not in a state of flooding) providing a structured process for discussion allows the potential for a positive outcome to most any conflict. Since HCPs flood easily (as do preschoolers) Eddy suggests having HCPs in mediation set the agenda because that requires that they define the problem and take personal responsibility for solving it. Similarly, a preschooler could be asked: “I think there’s a problem here but I need help in naming it. How would you describe the problem right now?” This gives the preschooler the opportunity to “set the agenda” so to speak.

When dealing with an HCP one-on-one (even if that person is flooding), Eddy suggests asking “So, what’s your proposal” thus speaking to that person from a problem-solving place, getting them engaged in taking responsibility for a solution, and providing structure for the discussion. When working with a preschooler, whether or not the problem is already defined, a caregiver might ask: “Okay, so what do you think we should do about it?” A caregiver could even teach a preschooler what “propose” means and how to do it, likely surprising you both by his insatiable interest in coming up with creative solutions. When we define it, it becomes our problem and teaches cooperative problem solving skills while simultaneously empowering her as her own agent capable of proposing—and ultimately implementing—solutions. From there, the process I outlined in my previous post may flow more naturally.

Expanding our use of dispute resolution knowledge to preschoolers allows us to potentially preempt needing to use such skills on them as adults. In this case, Eddy’s and Medea’s understanding and approach can allow caregivers to develop opportunities for the firing of neurons in preschoolers , thus nurturing the connection between the emotional and problem solving parts of young brains. We may teach preschoolers how to recognize their own signs of flooding and how to internalize important calming mechanisms. We can help them engage in becoming solution-makers and sharers of life’s big and small challenges. Or at the very least, preschoolers may stop throwing objects, hitting caregivers or friends, or making irrational demands long enough to melt into a body-changing hug, and from there, the work of true collaboration begins.

Academy of Professional Family Mediators Annual Conference, San Diego (Coronado) 2014

2014-10-21T11:45:00.001-06:00

I just returned from the Academy of Professional Family Mediators (APFM) Annual Conference in San Diego. Presenters included veteran mediators Forrest (Woody) Mosten, Bill Eddy, Marilyn McKnight and John Fiske, among others. I've been mediating since early 1999 so I’m not new to the field, but these folks have been mediating since the 70’s and 80’s, many of whom have had a direct hand in actually creating the field of family mediation (including Diane Neumann who unfortunately was not present this year). In fact, in the late 90’s or early 2000’s I attended a family mediation conference where John Fiske facilitated family mediation role-plays in front of a room full of 50 or more people, and I even participated as one of the parties. There’s no reason for Fiske to recall me, but I remember him quite well because of his sense of humor and his ease in front of others. At one point during this recent conference in San Diego I turned to a colleague during Bill Eddy’s presentation and asked about Eddy, “Do you think he knows he’s a mediation rock star?” My colleague replied: “absolutely, yes.” Eddy’s confidence and knowledge is always on display, yet so is his accessibility and willingness to teach, like with Fiske and other veteran mediators. Folks new to the field may not be fully aware of how unique an opportunity it is to tap the expertise of individuals so instrumental in creating, defining, and expanding a profession.

I have created and presented on a number of topics myself, most recently collaborating on the topic of same-sex couple disputes including at the national Association for Conflict Resolution Annual Conference held in Chicago four years ago. I recently blogged about how I entered the field of dispute resolution which is re-posted on a colleague, Alyson Carrel’s, blog: ADR as First Career. I've written a fair amount about mediation, have taught conflict resolution to undergraduate and graduate students, and have educated the public about mediation at my own cost.

Yet I found myself having two simultaneous thoughts during this conference. The first was that, given how energizing it was to be around such collective mediation knowledge, I realized that I need to re-challenge myself to consider my own offerings to the mediation field after nearly 16 years of experience. What do I have to contribute to the field of mediation at the present time and how do I build on that to have something to offer in the future? How do I connect with colleagues in some meaningful way? How do I say something not already being said that is practical and accessible and pushes fellow mediators in the ways I was professionally challenged during this conference?

The second permeating thought I had during and since the conference meant looking at how I defined myself from the outside in, considering the ways in which other attendees perhaps saw me. I could see them size me up, being 41 years of age (thanks Mom and Dad for blessing me with genes that make me look even younger) among a majority of folks in their 50’s and 60’s, and having a non-traditional entry into the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution. I saw expressions of surprise when I told folks that I mediated full-time, that I've had my own business since 2007 (currently accept select pro-bono cases only) and employment from one of the largest court systems in the country, and that I had been mediating since 1999.

For example, I continued to get the age-old question: “are you an attorney … therapist … social worker?”

“No,” was my reply complete with a head shake.

“Oh, so …. “

“I have a Master of Arts degree in Dispute Resolution,” I nodded.

“Oh, really? You can get a degree? From where?”

“Mine was from UMass Boston, but there are other programs.”

“Oh, so you…”

“I mediate full-time,” I concluded.

This particular conversation-along with my asking the open ended question of “what’s your ADR background” – was repeated with everyone I met. In the past, such questions didn’t surprise me, but keep in mind how long I’ve been mediating now. It was one thing to get this question in 2001, another thing all together to get it from fellow mediators in 2014; not clients or associates asking, but folks working directly in the field. How do folks in my own field, after all this time, not know that it’s possible to get a graduate degree in our field, and to have done so fifteen years ago? Initially, I found this irritating, but as I reflected on it, I saw that the shift had to come from me, not them. This brings me back to my first thought, and to the education work my colleague, Alyson Carrel, is doing through her ADR as FirstCareer blog. I, as well as others who started professional careers in ADR, need to make our presence more widely known.

So here’s what I will do. I can’t promise to present at next year’s conference, but I do commit to thinking beyond my day to day mediations, to analyzing the body of knowledge that I’ve accumulated in 16 years, and to building upon my unique perspective and experience to meaningfully connect with my peers in ways that will challenge and inspire them like so many mediators did for me in San Diego. It’s true that in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s great attorneys took it upon themselves to become excellent family mediators, as did therapists and social workers. I won't become a mediation “rock star” but I do hope to shift the perspective within our field that we are limited to our origins when in fact the field of dispute resolution is itself its own field of origin for increasing numbers of us. Some speakers touched upon this at the conference, but there is a lot more work to do.

"Dear Mediator"

2014-09-09T14:30:00.002-06:00

I’ve decided to try something I’m calling “Dear Mediator” where readers write to me about a conflict and I present a possible approach for how they might go about resolving it. Since I will obviously only be learning one side of the conflict, and since I am a mediator, I will refrain from presenting one solution or outcome. Instead I will focus my response on a possible process for obtaining a healthy resolution.

I like thinking about conflict. To me conflict is a puzzle that if taken apart and put back together in a myriad of ways has the potential to meet multiple needs. I’ve never liked the idea that there is only one truth or that one thing is right and another thing wrong. Certainly this may be the case in some instances, but most human behavior, conflict, etc., is complex and nuanced.

I’ll respond once to all serious submissions and will choose some to publish anonymously on www.pronaoimediation.blogspot.com.

I don’t have all of the answers but I do like to puzzle over conflict and I have found that most people like to talk about conflicts they are experiencing.

To participate:

*Send an email to dearmediator@noahmediation.comwith the following.

1) In the “subject” line of your email, give yourself an anonymous name that I could use if I decide to publish your email. Also use this name when you sign the letter.

2) In 100 words or less describe the conflict.

3) In 100 words or less tell me what, if anything, you have already done to try and resolve it and what worked or didn’t work.

4) In 100 words or less describe the perfect outcome to the conflict from your perspective.

EMAIL SHOULD BE NO LONGER THAN THIS POST (300 words total).

Please spread the word.

Current clients may not participate.

*Disclaimer: Email addresses and other personal information will be kept confidential with the following exceptions: in the case of threats of harm to oneself or others or in the event that a child or elder is being neglected or abused, confidentiality may be broken. I am not an attorney and any information provided by me shall not be construed as legal advice. Do not send emails that involve untreated mental illness, untreated substance abuse or other addictions, domestic violence, or the abuse of elders or children. Do not send emails requesting legal advice. I am not a therapist and participation shall not be construed as therapy. Current clients may not participate. I reserve the right to exclude any emails from participation without explanation.

One pathway to a Career in the field of Conflict Resolution

2014-08-15T11:46:00.000-06:00

I recently read “Engaging Conflict for Fun and Profit: Current and Emerging Career Trends in Conflict Resolution” by Robert J. Rhudy (2014), none of which surprised me, but all of which I wish I could have told my 30-something self when I was first considering starting my own business. In particular, I wish I had known that:

Several parties interviewed echoed the point that we have failed to develop clear pathways into conflict resolution careers… With some exceptions, most persons interviewed described a fairly long pathway to full-time career success. With particular reference to such private practitioner services as mediation and public policy facilitation, the perception is that a small number of practitioners get very good incomes while there are fairly recent estimates that the majority of providers in private practice likely make $50,000 annually or less from such work while perhaps supplementing their conflict resolution income through other activities (Rhudy, 2014, P.3).

With hindsight being 20/20, would I have done things differently? Yes, probably. But it was still a perfect time in my life to launch a business; and to begin adjunct teaching; and to engage in a fascinating part-time job as a program development consultant with a lovely non-profit. My wife and I lost money—more money than I want to even consider—but we didn’t lose money we had, we lost money I could have otherwise earned if I had stayed at my court mediation job. I knew that I was lucky to have ever landed that job (I get to mediate full time and be paid for it!) when I first did so after moving to Chicago in 2004 and I knew I was giving up a lot when I left the court mediation job in 2007, but—without going into detail—I had no choice at the time, and a mediation business was something I had always imagined starting someday.

Upon re-launching this blog I stumbled upon my draft post: "How do you start a small business? 'Get good and get known'" from June 2009. I’m not sure why I never published it then so I published it this week, with the original backdate. Similarly, Rhudy (2014) quotes Juliana Birkhoff, Vice President of RESOLVE in Washington, D.C. as saying: “’People who are creative, opportunistic and ambitious need to network, volunteer, get known, and sell, and eventually they will find something to focus on, market, and succeed.’” I believe I did just that when I launched Noah Mediation Services in 2007.

From 2007 through 2012, I juggled mediation, curriculum design, public education, peer mediation training, teaching and the nuts to bolts of running a business with sleepless nights and a breast-feeding baby. I paid off a $15,000 business loan, kept up with business expenses and my partner and I still managed to buy a home, get pregnant, and occasionally dine out. I learned. Hopefully my clients learned. And I got to watch—fulltime—my son’s daily learning for the first two years of his life. Building a business takes time and commitment and an unfailing belief in your ability to be successful which you then must sell to others. As Rhudy (2014) states:

In various ways, several described the kind of entrepreneurial drive required for success. Susan Butterwick said that her professional experiences indicate the need to hustle for grants and other funding, to sell yourself, to be adaptive and flexible, and to exercise self-promotion. Carole Houk said that she “had to create the need and the recognition for the need” in many of her earlier working experiences. Juliana Birkhoff similarly stated that conflict specialists will often have to make their own paths, and will have to convince their client or employer that what they have and do are what the consumer needs. (P.22)

I knew what I needed to do to succeed and I had been doing it, but I also knew that most businesses took a minimum of five years to become truly profitable. As it turns out, we just didn’t have that kind of time. After losing my part-time job at the end of 2009, I closed the office early in 2010 and kept the business limping along from home until ultimately in May 2013 I returned to my full-time mediation job at the courts, no less grateful to have it, once again thrilled to get paid to mediate full-time. I loved everything I had been doing privately, but once expenses were deducted, at most, between 2007-2011, I contributed $15,000 a year to the household; at worst, in 2012, the final year before I returned to full-time employment, I contributed $0 to the household income. Fortunately, I always broke even. As a contingency to my 2007 business loan the bank put a lien on my car: my wife and I named it our Toyota Collateral until it officially returned to my possession in 2010. As much as you can love something and believe in its value, lack of financial resources always takes its toll.

Would I say that I have been successful in the unique path I have taken toward a career in conflict resolution? Let me reflect on how I initially entered the field and where I am currently and then I’ll come back to that question.

In 1997, shortly after graduating from college, I landed a job as an administrative assistant in a high tech human resources department in Cambridge, Massachusetts. From the director down, the department was an employment utopia with wonderful management and a supportive team environment and opportunities to grow and learn. The technology excited me; my colleagues and the supervisors were motivating and driven and kind; I’ve been chasing such a wonderful workplace ever since and I don’t believe it exists. We were in a bubble until it burst a year later when our small company was bought by one much larger. By the time of the acquisition, I had been accepted into and begun my graduate program studies in dispute resolution. A colleague had been taking a course in negotiation at Harvard University and it sounded interesting to me; she reminded me of our company’s generous education assistance program. I told my mom about the course, but being practically minded I felt that if I were to take a class, I wanted it to be toward a degree; Harvard didn’t offer a degree in this particular field. My mom, ever the librarian, researched graduate programs in negotiation—and more specifically, conflict resolution—and found the one at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. She even accompanied me to the open house at which point I was hooked.

I didn’t know it at the time, but the program only accepted students who were interested in applying their studies to an existing field; mine was corporate human resources. Our program was careful not to do what concerned many of the interviewees with whom Rhudy (2014) spoke, such as John Bickerman who believes “’we are training people for jobs that don't exist’ (p.6).” Coming from an existing field—human resources—I had an advantage over other young applicants in getting accepted into the graduate program in Dispute Resolution. Ironically, I left the field of human resources immediately upon graduating. Like many before and after me, I learned to mediate and immediately fell in love.

Rhudy (2014) writes: “Adler believes it is good to get an advanced conflict resolution degree if you want to be an academic” but according to Adler: “’If you want to work in the field rather than teach or do research get a degree in something else like law, social work, psychology, business—courses that prepare you for a primary field—with a certificate or course work in conflict resolution (p.6).” In hindsight, I agree pretty strongly with this advice. My stubborn 20-something-self believed otherwise, however, as I set out to make my career in mediation. I applied and was rejected to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), which conducted multi-party mediations typically involving racial disputes in Boston Public Schools. I was too white and too female—and in retrospect I understand why I was rejected from the program—most applicants, myself included, fitting this particular demographic. Despite having participated in City Year between 1993 and 1994, I was virtually indistinctive from my liberal, white, female peers who had applied to be mediators with CIT. However, given my drive to work with youth and/or families, I kept my head down and kept knocking on doors. I took the course being offered by the very director of the CIT program to which I had been rejected, and I worked my butt off in her course to distinguish myself and prove my commitment to mediating in schools. A semester later, I reapplied to the CIT program and was accepted. From there, I applied and was accepted into a Child In Need Of Services (CHINS) mediation program, and began mediating on a voluntary basis for them as well. In total, I spent about 3 years doing voluntary mediation before landing a full-time job in the field (peer mediation coordinator in fall 2001) , a relatively short time volunteering in comparison to people entering the field these days. As Rhudy (2014) explains: “several of the leaders that I interviewed stated their overall view of the current situation in essentially the same terms: ’The field continues to have a high supply of providers, low market demand, and high social need’ (P.3).” I think this is truer now even than when I entered graduate school in 1998. Breaking into family mediation proved to be an even greater challenge.

At some point while I was in graduate school I attended a conference of the best known family mediation professional organization at the time. I was young and green but highly driven. Whether warranted or not, I ultimately felt shunned by veterans I sought out at the conference from whom I hoped to learn the profession. I found family mediators at that time to be a small, powerful (mostly attorneys, mostly white, mostly male, mostly older) and exclusive club to which I had not yet paid dues.

I graduated with my degree, began running a peer mediation program in Boston, but sustained an interest in family mediation. I soon learned that one of the veteran divorce mediators by whom I felt snubbed at the conference was teaching for a semester in my former graduate program so I audited the class. Over time, this person softened toward me. I got to know this mediator and ultimately, over dinner, I learned about the field of family mediation, in which I would enter full-time less than two years later.

When I moved to Chicago in early 2004 I knew no one other than my partner. I found a family mediator in the gay yellow pages and cold-called her. We hit it off. I asked her if she knew of any job opportunities. She said she rarely responded so extensively to calls like mine—people paid her to intern with her through her private mediation practice—but she thought there might be an opening with the courts. The timing was perfect. There happened to be an opening and after a grueling but exciting interview of spontaneous role-plays and heated debate, I started mediating full-time for the courts a few months later. This same mediator mentored me as I left the courts and broke out on my own, to which I will be forever grateful. Because of her, I have mentored others when my personal and professional obligations allow; there are no secrets to becoming successful in this field because so many of us are still defining what that even means, individually and as a profession, but we can pass along what we have learned.

I appear to be in the relatively unique position of having worked in the conflict resolution field as a mediator, program developer, educator and trainer in a variety of settings including private mediation, community mediation, schools, non-profits, and mandatory court-related mediation. I did all of these things because they interested me, but I also did all of these things because they were ways in which to “get good and get known.” To me success is in getting paid to do something I love each day; being invited into people’s lives at their most vulnerable and possibly effecting change for the better; teaching them skills to hopefully prevent future damage to themselves and one another; creating space for children to be heard; and helping to heal emotional damage and wounds, or at the very least, to create potential for such healing to occur. If I do these more times than not, than I feel like I am successful in my conflict resolution career.

Other important, related questions include how do you evaluate whether someone is a “capable mediator” or a “good mediator?” What types of settings make for a good mediator or make for a good mediation? I think mediators would disagree about the answer to this and dialogue is necessary. As written by Rhudy (2014), “Bickerman believes, however, that growth in court-ordered mediation is marginalizing mediation—stating many less capable mediators are now doing court-ordered cases and “It's become an event in the litigation process. Check off the mediation box before continuing with litigation to mediation.” I will weigh in on it this and I couldn’t disagree more with Bickerman. Some of the best mediators I have met do court-ordered cases. The program for which I now work helps families daily in minimizing conflict escalation and in developing tools and skills for better approaches to conflict and communication; we even help them develop workable parenting plans. I have mediated for the courts and I have mediated independently, and while there are numerous differences relative to context and clients, the quality of the mediators is not one of those differences. The problem isn’t with who is doing mediation but with who isn’t doing mediation, as in the Cook County rule approved by the Illinois Supreme Court only allowing attorneys on the court referral list for family mediation cases involving financial matters.

There are many pathways to a conflict resolution career, and I, among many of my peers believe that some sort of regulation or certification is essential as our field expands and as more people enter it. Yet as a profession, we must also be honest about who has power to decide such things and who has a stake in what happens. We must invite everyone with related experience and an invested interest to the table; and until we do develop a clear path to becoming “successful” or “good” in the field of conflict resolution—and can reasonably and objectively evaluate this accordingly—we must be open to the myriad of respectable ways individuals come to be experts in doing this important work, without elevating one path over another.

Negotiating: preschool years

2014-07-30T11:49:00.000-06:00

My wife (Yay, gay marriage was legalized in Illinois during my four-year hiatus from blogging!) often tells me that I am raising a little negotiator. He and I discuss “terms” and “make proposals” and “offers” and “counter offers.” We also identify the “problem” and “develop solutions” and, after running through the pluses and minuses of each option, we choose the best one together. There is no right or wrong, no power struggle. It’s a collaborative negotiation, where we try to meet the needs and interests of all parties.

He’s a preschooler and he’s an excellent negotiator; in fact, I would suggest that all kids are excellent negotiators but often parents don’t have the time or energy to nurture that in them. Most of us in our forties (Something else that happened to me these past four years: I aged out of my thirties.) had at least one parent, if not both, who asserted power and authority over us—certainly we experienced the power and authority of teachers and school administrators— so it comes more naturally. It takes a great deal of conscious thought to negotiate with someone, particularly a preschooler who thinks he knows everything already (or is preschooler and “thinks he knows everything” redundant?), but it’s always worth it.

For example, one day when I picked him up from school after work we needed to get dinner started soon and disagreed on how to spend the little time we had left. We identified the problem: we had limited time and he wanted to go to the park whereas I wanted to go to the library. Then we asked questions. I asked him why he wanted to go to the park. They hadn’t gone to the park at school that day he explained (unusual for a school day). I told him I had a book waiting for me to pick up at the library. There were two obvious solutions: go to the park or go to the library. I asked him what we should do. Instead of whining or yelling or insisting we go to the park “NOW!,” my son offered a third solution: we could go to the park that day and the library the next day. I talked it through for a minute while he listened: the book would still be waiting for me the following day; I had another book I was still reading (I am lost without a good book on hand at all times); and the weather was gorgeous while (quickly pulling over and checking my weather app) it was purported to rain the following day. Okay, I said, he had a good idea: park today, library tomorrow. We had a lovely time at the park that afternoon and the following day, as the rain came down, we skipped into the library, hand in hand.

Of course, there are always things that aren’t negotiable, mostly to do with health and safety, but they make up a small percentage of daily interaction, and if discussed in the same manner with respect and context, our little negotiator *mostly* accepts them, especially when I point out the twenty other things that we did negotiate that day.

In my experience teaching our child negotiation skills, boundaries are just as important, perhaps even more so, than when asserting adult/parental authority. Respectful negotiation—listening, considering context and relationship, making reasonable proposals—focuses our communication and I think we both walk away more satisfied. Yelling, whining or complaining isn’t allowed. We talk, identify the problem, discuss our personal needs and interests, and determine whether they are compatible or conflictual, then identify and analyze solutions, ultimately choosing the best one together.

Digital image content © 2014 Laura L. Noah. All Right Reserved.

Blog Again

2014-07-30T11:00:00.000-06:00

Last weekend I celebrated a friend’s birthday at a house she rented and at dinner we took turns sharing something we loved about her. I talked about how this friend, no matter how busy or stressed, always took time to connect so that the people around her could actually feel that they mattered. It reminded me of a piece I wrote when I was blogging years ago (MediationSmall Talk: Continuing the Conversation) because she was in fact the same friend I referenced then, with the same positive qualities I was hoping to emulate. Four years later, she is still excellent at connecting with people in the moment–no matter the particulars surrounding that moment–and communicating to them that they matter. I, on the other hand, am still working on getting better at this in more varied settings. I am good at it in my role as a professional mediator but given my introverted and efficiency-driven nature it’s not a strength I find myself possessing in hallways, on the playground, at the neighborhood block party, or during other unplanned encounters.

A couple days following this birthday weekend, I took a walk with a mediator friend and colleague and we discussed mediators who had influenced us, as we reflected on ways in which we could continue to develop and learn professionally. We are considering starting a book group in our office. Reflecting on these two conversations, I found myself re-reading my old blog posts.

Despite being well-intentioned, my idea of writing articles for Noah Mediation Services never got off the ground. Life happened—as it often does—as my business model changed, I had a kid, experienced some complicated health matters, and a year ago returned to the steady and predictable schedule and paycheck of mediating full-time for the courts. My business still exists primarily for purposes of educating the public; I also occasionally mediate pro-bono for cases where clients may not otherwise have access to services. While my mediation job keeps me busy, as compared to juggling a business, adjunct teaching, and being with a baby full-time, I actually now have more opportunities to read and reflect (that time on the El: luxurious!).

Four years since the last post, I’ve decided to give this blog another go. I won’t make promises about how frequently I will write, but I will write and reflect and connect in the ways I know best.

Transitioning from Blog Posts to Articles

2010-07-05T13:04:00.003-06:00

Three years ago I started this blog with the intention of meaningfully considering important issues in mediation, particularly those affecting the professional mediator. While posts became fewer in number as each year passed, I believe the words that were written here contributed new thoughts and critiques to the field of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).

The reality, however, is that I could not sustain the quality of introspection and writing that I wanted to achieve. To do so in blog format became too great a challenge since blogs require frequent contributions and my style and interest in writing on various mediation topics did not coincide with that format.

It is therefore time now to shift things from the forum of a blog to one of written articles for the Noah Mediation Website. I will be re-posting the majority of articles from this blog on the Noah Mediation Website in additional to contributing new articles, particularly for potential clients. While I sustain a insatiable interest in the professional aspects of mediation, I also have seen a tremendous need on the part of clients to learn more about mediation from a non-mediator participant perspective.

So while Pronoia Mediation will soon cease to exist, I will continue to contribute thought-provoking articles about mediation. Please consider one of the following ways in which to continue reading articles written by me:

1. If you are on Facebook you can become a "fan" of Noah Mediation Services and receive articles on your FB homepage as they are posted. Here is the link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oak-Park-IL/Noah-Mediation-Services/39987777530

2. If you would like articles emailed directly to you, please send an email to "toread@noahmediation.com" and ask to subscribe and you will be put on the email list.

3. Check Noah Mediation Services website at www.noahmediation.com directly for updated articles.

For those of you who have followed Pronoia Mediation, I thank you for your interest and support.
Laura L. Noah

Response to "A More Perfect Union" which ran in the New York Times Magazine

2009-12-20T09:18:00.009-06:00

Married (Happily) With Issues or A More Perfect Union, was published in the New York Times Magazine on December 1, 2009. Here is my response.

As a mediator experienced working with families in the midst of crisis and relationship dissolution, I have long encouraged the use of mediation in a more preventative way. Unfortunately, for the many reasons Weil outlined, particularly the fear that “[it] carries not only the threat of learning things about yourself that you might prefer not to know but also the hazard of saying things to your spouse that are better left unsaid” (p.42) most people wait until the point of crisis to get help; a point at which they have already said many hurtful things to one another which cause irreparable damage to the relationship. Mediation as a preventative measure may be a more manageable option for some couples than therapy, since facilitative mediation has at its foundation a practical, problem-solving approach. Weil states about her marriage to Dan: “we never discussed, or considered discussing, why we were getting married or what a good marriage would mean” (p.38). This is true for most couples. Couples with different, un-communicated expectations regarding marriage, children, careers, retirement and many other important issues in the course of a life together, will inevitably build resentment toward one another over time. Thinking that love is the great equalizer, although idealistic, is unrealistic. Love does not ensure that we want the same things or expect the same things from our partners. Therapy delves into emotions while mediation deals with life’s practicalities. Both processes are important to creating a more perfect union, but depending on the couple, one process might create “the capacity to allow spouses to keep growing, to afford them the strength and bravery required to face the world” (p. 52) better than the other.

Youth Sports & Adult Violence: What will it take for communities to use the field of conflict resolution as a preventative resource?

2009-10-19T14:13:00.008-06:00

One adult physically beat another adult at a youth football practice in Wilmington, Massachusetts this past weekend. There’s commentary in the papers regarding what might have actually happened leading to the fight and who actually threw the first punch. I don’t care about what happened. I care that it did happen. And it’s happened before. Fortunately, this time no one died. Others have died: Michael Costin, for example, in 2002. If we’re waiting to dissect the particulars of how or why these incidents occur, then we’re already too late, and frankly, it’ll happen again. It will keep happening, in fact.

Simply put, when individuals and institutions don’t have the skills and training in conflict de-escalation then conflict often escalates. When healthy conflict resolution isn’t part of a given culture then conflict often escalates.

Here’s what I suggest we do to prevent violent incidents from occurring in our communities in relation to youth sports (and as a mediator by profession, I’m stepping outside my role a bit by actually making suggestions).

The individual or individuals who are administrating the youth program attend a basic conflict resolution or mediation course as soon as possible to be able to identify and address conflict before it escalates and to be able to work toward developing conflict resolution mechanisms for their youth sports programs.
A mandatory conflict resolution training program be developed and administered for all youth coaches.
A mandatory conflict resolution training program be developed and administered for all youth referees.
An optional (yet strongly encouraged) conflict resolution training program be developed and administered for parents of youth involved in sports.
Develop a process for coaches, players, parents and/or referees to file grievances about coaches, players, parents and/or referees and have those grievances addressed. This could include a mediation program. (I have developed mediation programs that cost virtually nothing and are run by volunteers, so it is possible to do this on the cheap with enough local support and investment.).
Parents sign a “conflict resolution” agreement in order for their children to participate in a given sport. This would commit parents to a culture of healthy conflict resolution and it would make parents accountable to one another, to the young people, and to the youth sports program at large.
At the start of each season, someone trained in conflict resolution (and this could be a coach and/or administrator and/or parent) spend a few minutes at practice with each team discussing and role-playing healthy conflict resolution skills.
If team conflict is affecting a team’s performance, bring in someone trained in multi-party dispute resolution that has experience with sports teams to mediate (or have a framework where the coach could mediate if he/she has been trained in mediation).

In sports, I realize credentials are important so here are mine: I’ve been coaching sports (primarily soccer and some basketball) on and off since I was a teenager. I’ve coached various youth teams and I’ve coached division three college women’s soccer. I started playing soccer when I was in kindergarten and was on many winning teams, including our high school soccer team that were state semi-finalists my senior year. I was the captain of both my soccer and basketball teams my senior year in high school. I played soccer at Kenyon College for four years and received various awards during that time including team MVP my sophomore and senior years and the First Team All Conference NCAC All Star team my senior year. I focused my Master of Arts degree final project in dispute resolution on conflicts in sports.

It’s too easy to excuse violence connected to youth sports as isolated “freak” incidents that could never happen here. There is research that collects data regarding such incidents and breaks it down. Yet it’s too easy to take that information and use it to dismiss the possibility that it could ever happen in our community. It can, and it has, and there are things that can be done to prevent it from occurring.

For more information: http://www.noahmediation.com/Conflict_in_Sports.html.

The Young and the Restless: Did Mediation Work for Billy and Chloe?

2009-09-03T09:03:00.005-06:00

Billy and Chloe are a young married couple on The Young and the Restless who have a child and who are going through a divorce. They decide to try mediation. The mediator, a Ms. Dalton, dresses in a power suit and works out of an impressive office furnished in thick, dark wood. Episodes which aired on August 26 and 27, 2009 reveal mediation as a positive option for Billy and Chloe who wish to divorce amicably. Toward the end, however, just as they've reached a full agreement and are set to sign the final paperwork, everything appears to fall apart. Through a series of frowns and pensive stares, all signs indicate that their efforts in mediation may be foiled by strong emotions and doubts about whether or not they're doing the right thing by splitting up.

A family member who watches the show told me about the role mediation was playing in Billy and Chloe's divorce and I immediately screened the relevant episodes online. They're quick; snapshots clipped between ever more powerful drama. You don't see much of the mediator who mostly appears in the background and says virtually nothing. Yet the very fact that mediation is playing a role in a daytime T.V. divorce, if even briefly, indicates an important turning point for the field of mediation. If daytime soaps are sending conflictual couples to mediation, then perhaps more and more couples will self-select mediation rather than have it forced upon them by a judge; mediation as a mutual choice being the most effective.

I could pick apart the ways in which The Young and the Restless got it wrong (mediation doesn't look like that!) but instead I choose to focus on what the show did right. Mediation is a viable option for couples, and if it can work for Billy and Chloe -- they ultimately signed the mediated agreement -- then that illustrates how well it can work for regular folks too.

Photo borrowed from www.soapoperadigest.com.

Free Mediation Informational Session

2009-09-03T08:41:00.004-06:00

Attend a free mediation informational session on Thursday, September 17, 2009 at the Oak Park Public Library. The presentation will focus on common disputes experienced within families. Topics include separation, divorce, custody & visitation for married, divorced, never-married and LGBT couples. This session is for people experiencing family conflict who want to better understand mediation as an option for resolving their dispute/s.

September 17, 2009
Oak Park Public Library, Main Branch
834 Lake Street
Oak Park, IL
2nd Floor, Small Meeting Room
6:00-7:30PM

Learn about the mediation process.
Understand when mediation is required in Illinois.
Understand the difference between a private mediator and a court mediator and the options you may have with each.
Learn how to find, screen and select a private mediator.
Learn some basic tools to prepare to negotiate common disputes in mediation.
Q & A.

Noah Mediation Services DOES NOT provide legal services. No legal advice will be given. This presentation will focus on general topics and not on specific disputes of individual attendees.

This session is for people experiencing family conflict who want to better understand mediation as an option for resolving their dispute/s. While attorneys, therapists, mediators and other professionals are welcome to attend, the primary focus of the presentation will be geared toward those currently experiencing conflict and those wishing to prevent future conflict within their family.

The presentation may vary depending on the number of attendees. While drop-ins will not be turned away, please help out by registering for the free informational session in advance. Send email to: info@noahmediation.com.

Soldiers and Suicide: can mediation help?

2009-08-02T06:32:00.011-06:00

Soldiers have been returning from war physically unharmed for decades, only to die by their own hand weeks, months or even years after coming home. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have perpetuated this no differently. Military specialists try to understand why this happens and then offer some, often unsatisfactory, explanation to grieving families. Mental health professionals look to sometimes undiagnosed (or ignored) preexisting mental health conditions in suicidal soldiers as having provided a warning system. Others look to war trauma, particularly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD, as the cause. Yet all of this looks at suicide after the fact, not before it happens.

In today's New York Times, a cover article by Erica Goode ("After combat, Victims of an Inner War") focuses on a particular group of soldiers from the 141st, who suffered four suicides upon returning home from Iraq. The unit experienced the death of two friends and colleagues just two weeks before they were to go home which some claim to have precipitated the suicides of the other four. The article also mentions that there had been impending divorce and/or claims of domestic disputes involving all four of the soldiers who committed suicide. In fact, at least one soldier -- who was in the midst of stressful divorce proceeding with a different woman with whom he had a child -- shot himself in the presence of his girlfriend in their home.

All of this leads to the question: can mediation help?

Mediation has long been a process used most frequently during the point at which conflict has already escalated. Yet there are those, myself included, who have advocated for the use of mediation in a more preventative way. In fact, like couple's therapy, mediation has the potential to avert irreconcilable breakdowns in relationships. The key shift that needs to occur, particularly with such a high stress population as soldiers returning home from war, is educating parties about the positive uses of mediation before things escalate.

One of the most frequent refrains involving the epidemic of suicidal soldiers is that most soldiers, by nature, don't seek help. In general, they tend to be more private and individualistic, thus relying on their own internal resources to get through stress and trauma. Preventative, facilitative mediation, then, might be the perfect process for this demographic. A focus on practical discussions and solutions with a key emphasis on self-determination could allow soldiers and their significant others a space in which to negotiate things before one leaves for war; or better yet, before one leaves for basic training. The military could make mediation mandatory for all soldiers, not just for those with husbands or wives. Such a process could be equally beneficial between the 18-year-old soldier and his or her parents as between the soldier-wife and her spouse. Married couples could negotiate means and frequency of contact between them and/or between a soldier and his or her children; something that would equally benefit soldiers who are separated or divorced from relationships involving children. The 18-year-old soldier and her parents could create a plan whereas the parents keep in contact with her friends, so as to ensure ongoing connection and support within her community.

There are countless possibilities of what could be discussed and addressed, plans that could be put in place in advance of combat, so soldiers could experience enduring connection to loved ones and so that those connections would have the greatest chance of sustainability upon a soldier's return. Mediation could take place via telephone, video conferencing or online chat during a soldier's tour of duty, to include negotiations regarding the school a child will attend that fall, for example, or when and how to celebrate a significant birthday, holiday or anniversary. Follow-up mediation could be required as part of re-entry after combat.

I suggest these steps not in place of therapy, but ideally in conjunction with therapy and/or for those soldiers who are distrustful of, or too proud for, therapy as a process. Culturally speaking, Americans have a tendency to wait until things have escalated before creating steps toward positive intervention. Mediation is just one of many measures that could be taken from a preventative standpoint for the well being of our soldiers and their families.

Digital image content © 1997-2007 Hemera Technologies Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Jupiter Images Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

How do you start a small business? "Get good and get known"

2009-06-20T17:29:00.015-06:00

Introduction

When I was starting up my business a self-employed friend told me something that someone had told her when she was getting started: "get good and get known." As I continue into my third year of owning a small business during one of the worst economic recessions in recent history, I grasp ever more fully the importance of this advice.

Given the state of the economy, I thought it would be important to reflect on starting a small business, the lessons I've learned, and the different ways in which to determine success. I do so with the hope of starting a dialogue with other small business owners and to provide support to those just starting out.

Getting good

When I began my business I had already been mediating for over a decade with a master of arts degree in dispute resolution under my belt. Still, I knew "getting good" had to involve more than that. It wasn't just about actual mediation ability, although that was also exceptionally important. To me, getting good included creating solid business structures - accurate bookkeeping, sound policies and procedures, and high ethical standards of practice. It meant turning away clients when mediation wasn't appropriate for them or when I wasn't the best mediator to take their case (for example, when disputants wanted someone more evaluative). Those were difficult moments from a financial perspective - my phone wasn't exactly ringing off the hook - but I knew turning away inappropriate cases was essential and in fact something I could not compromise on.

I also made the difficult decision not to chase clients. That is, I made it a policy that all parties had to contact me directly. It wasn't enough that one disputant called and expressed an interest in my services. The other party had to contact me as well. I made this decision for the sake of neutrality; I didn't want to be perceived as pursuing one party on behalf of another or in appearing as though I was pushing people to use my services.

I also decided to provide free telephone consultations, an essential given the current state of mediation. I have spent as much as an hour on the phone with individuals who I knew would not be clients, answering questions about the difference between arbitration and mediation, discussing disputes they had with people whom they knew would never agree to mediate, and taking time to respond to queries posed by new mediators hoping to start their own private practice someday. In the past two plus years of owning my own business, I have collectively spent hours of unpaid time educating people about mediation, providing an empathetic ear, and suggesting resources that could possibly assist them.

As I started I had doubts about some of the decisions I had made. I wondered if I was losing out on clients or if I was giving away too much for free. I considered how my long-term goals possibly wouldn't be met if I didn't find quick and easy ways to make money in the short-term. Yet ultimately I knew I couldn't compromise my ethics and values despite the financial risks. In my gut, I knew I had to stick with my early goals, despite how hard that felt at times.

But it should never stop, trying to get good. It includes frequently evaluating my services, constantly educating myself, and remaining aware of cultural and legal changes that may affect clients. It is being ever-vigilant and dynamic too. It is a lot of work.

Getting known

When I got started I had to make immediate decisions that would have a long-term impact on my business such as choosing a location. I wanted the business to be situated somewhere that would draw clients, was close to public transportation, affordable and near other businesses such as restaurants and cafes. Even more importantly, however, I wanted to be part of a community. So I picked Oak Park, Illinois where I had personal ties versus Chicago where I had professional ones.

I did all the basics like building a website, blogging, contacting everyone I knew and telling them I had gone off on my own, developing marketing materials like business cards and brochures. Yet there's more to be done here. I've knocked on a few doors and introduced myself. People have found me through attorneys and therapists and judges and Google. But that's not enough. I want them to come to Noah Mediation Services because this is a small business and business owner who is invested in their community. I need to meet the local police, the village board of trustees, other local business owners.

As far as I'm concerned, until every resident of Oak Park, Illinois and the surrounding communities know about my business, I have not "gotten known."

Getting a part-time job

If someone told me they were planning to start their own business, there's one more thing I'd add to the other two important pieces of advice I received and that is: "get a part-time job." I was fortunate to get my start during a time in which small business owners could still obtain loans. I couldn't start my business while I was employed as a mediator for Cook County because of strict policies. While I never attended business school, I still knew that it's often better to start a business while you're employed, as long as you can do so legally and ethically. Since this wasn't an option for me, I knew quitting my job was taking a huge risk. I also knew that I had to begin looking for a part-time job immediately upon giving notice. I searched for full-time non-mediation jobs as well, but in retrospect part-time employment was best. A full-time job would have taken away from the business too much, and that would have been a fatal flaw.

Nine months after I opened the doors to my business, I started a part-time job as a Program Development Consultant at Resolution Systems Institute (formerly CAADRS) for the Statewide Mediation Access Project (SMAP). My role is to assist courts in developing mediation programs throughout the state of Illinois outside of Cook County (there are existing resources in Cook County) specifically in the areas of family, consumer and housing where poor and low-income disputants have the most unmet legal needs. As a result of this project, I have assisted one circuit develop and launch a new small claims mediation program and have helped with the development of a new non-profit community mediation center in another circuit.

As a result of this work, not only have I been able to pay down my business loan, I have also learned a tremendous amount from other professionals who have a passion for mediation and who care about the fact that the legal needs of the poor and those who earn low-incomes are not being met in this state. I have and will continue to offer private mediation services pro-bono and sliding scale.

I have also taught at two different institutions, North Central College and The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. While this past spring that meant juggling four jobs at one time, they all intersected in ways both fascinating and essential in helping me get good and known.

Conclusion

So I've followed this advice and I've added a few pieces of my own and the truth is I still can't relax because my business loan isn't yet paid off and my part-time job is at risk due to the state budget crisis (SMAP received funding through the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation which receives funding from the State of Illinois) and people are avoiding spending money on mediation just as they are other services. Yet this business I started two plus years ago, though not yet profitable, is a success on various counts. I know this. If nothing else, it is something I created; something that has helped those clients who have chosen to use my services.

The United States' Ugly Divorce ... and the remarriage to follow

2008-10-29T14:02:00.025-06:00

I haven't written in a while; since May to be exact. There's been stuff. Personal. Professional. Malaise has set in. A funk. I'd been blaming it on that "stuff," but now I have a more layered theory. You see, I'm not the only one with it. I'm not the only one who is distracted, maybe a little less energetic than usual, maybe a bit mopey, perhaps even pessimistic. Nope. There's a collective energy in the United States and it's down in the dumps.

I believe it has to do at least in part with our country's marriage to W. After 8 long years of marriage, now we're in the midst of a messy separation. Our housing is getting pulled out from under us. Our money is disappearing. Just when we thought it couldn't possibly get any uglier, our boss lays us off.

The thing is, though -- and what truly concerns me most -- is that we're already looking to a new spouse/partner/lover/significant other to save us; to make it all better. Regardless of our political preference, both candidates have been elevated to savior-like status relative to fixing the current state of funk in the United States. For many voters, there's that belief that once a new president is in place (i.e.: the divorce has been finalized), the malaise will be lifted, order restored, and money will be back in our pockets. I think this hope is particularly true in regard to those of us who are voting for Obama. In fact, many are outright afraid of the potential state of things to come if he is not elected.

Yet what if he is elected? The remarriage will be quick, instantaneous in fact, as the divorce from W. in January is finalized and Obama is sworn in just moments later. Remember, this has been an ugly, ugly separation. We've lost money, housing, and our pride, not to mention important friendships or friendly relations with other countries. I think many of us believe that the new marriage will make it all better. Yet it doesn't work that way. Any professional in the field of divorce knows that people are bound to repeat old patterns in new relationships, particularly if they re-marry quickly on the heels of a fresh -- and ugly -- divorce.

So we need to do ourselves and the new president a favor. We need to dig deep and consider what WE may have contributed to the current state of things in this country. Okay, yeah, sure W. certainly messed up a whole heck of a lot but didn't we make individual choices along the way? Any marriage is based on dynamics and patterns of interaction. Everyone brings baggage into that. How can we prevent that baggage from carrying over into the new presidency? If we don't consider this, we're bound to repeat at least some of the same mistakes we made in our last marriage. We did make choices. We can't pretend we didn't.

So let's remain hopeful about the positive ways in which a new president could lift this country, yet let's also take control of our own destiny. Yeah, there's "stuff" happening. It's hard to fight the funk right now. But neither Obama, nor McCain, could ever do it alone. We all want to feel better, but first we need to take a close look at the individual choices we've made that got us here. Then we need to put on our dancing shoes, our funky (rather than funk) music, with a smile and a nod for every single neighbor, family member, friend, and stranger who crosses our path because sometimes doing happy is the only way to make it be.

Digital Image Content © 2008 Alexander Yakovlev | Dreamstime.com.
All Rights Reserved

screening The Sari Soldiers in the classroom

2008-05-16T16:46:00.006-06:00

We had an interesting classroom discussion following the screening of The Sari Soldiers on Monday. You can read my previous post about the documentary here.

I'm going to attempt to discuss the classroom experience without giving away too much about the film. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is a film that really needs to be seen and I don't want to ruin that experience for anyone. At the same time, in the interest of exposing other teachers and conflict resolution professionals to this documentary, I think it's important to describe the ways in which the students interacted with it and how it informed other aspects of the course.

Immediately upon the conclusion of the film the students appeared as though they might burst from their seats with eagerness to express their thoughts about it. To put that into context, this was a group of graduate students from whom I had to pull words over and over again the first few weeks. Energy and enthusiasm increased over the course of the term, but this degree of engagement was on a whole other level all together. They had been moved by the film both as individuals and as a conflict resolution class and they were responding to it from a point of intersection between the two. The class discussion was more branched than linear, but I'll do my best to describe it.

One student said that "I kept waiting for the good guy to emerge ..." and later he explained that "people could see each perspective and decide for themselves." Essentially, to this student, the filmmaker had presented all sides equally. Others wholeheartedly agreed.

There were questions about what has since happened to the women who were featured in the movie. There were questions about the current state of Nepal, the country in which the documentary is filmed.

The students talked about the strong women who were highlighted in the movie, and wondered about the role of women in Nepal. One student referenced the readings we've been doing in the Handbook of Conflict Resolution edited by Deutsch and Coleman and explained: "it was interesting reading about different models of conflict resolution and particularly how the narrative model is about telling stories because that is what happens in this documentary. Even if it wasn’t part of the culture for women to have the strong role these women had, their stories have now been told and those stories are now part of the culture."

Many, if not all of the students agreed that the more violent scenes were filmed and edited with "tact" and "respect" for the people involved and to the conflict in general. A number of students were concerned that it might be hard to obtain justice for all the families whose loved ones were "disappeared."

Finally, they inquired as to when they might see the documentary become available to rent or buy. Many wanted to watch it again and to show it to friends, spouses, classmates and numerous others. They laughed when I explained that I had "negotiated" for an early copy of the documentary given that we had spent a good deal of class time developing their negotiating knowledge. I responded with well, you gotta use the skills you have.

This movie made real previous class discussions about negotiation, power, gender roles & conflict, justice, moral exclusion, caste and class based discrimination, revenge, forgiveness, human rights, oppression, intractable conflict and various other essential concepts for understanding conflict and conflict resolution.

This movie is important to the field of conflict resolution, but more importantly, perhaps, is that it's just a darn good film with relevancy across numerous contexts.

The Sari Soldiers: A documentary that every conflict resolution professional and student of conflict resolution needs to see

2008-05-06T19:18:00.008-06:00

According to the Butter Lamp Films, LLC website: “Filmed over three years during the most historic and pivotal time in Nepal’s modern history, The Sari Soldiers is an extraordinary story of six women’s courageous efforts to shape Nepal’s future in the midst of an escalating civil war against Maoist insurgents, and the King’s crackdown on civil liberties.” The website goes on to describe it in further detail, illustrating the complexities of the stories that were captured in this film. Yet there are ways in which writing about it cannot do this documentary justice. This is truly a film that needs to be seen – I’ve already seen it twice.

The first time I watched this documentary it was at an intimate screening that I attended with a filmmaker friend who is friends with the director and co-producer of The Sari Soldiers. I knew nothing about the film, had no expectations going into it, and just kept thinking while I was watching it this is huge for the field of conflict resolution. Unlike most documentaries -- particularly ones made by American directors -- I could find no hidden or outspoken agenda in this film. There were six interwoven stories seen through the eyes of six strong and unique women, all told with equal parts empathy. Combined, these stories revealed what conflict resolution professionals have known for years: there can be multiple truths to any conflict. My first viewing took place last fall and since then I have worked to bring this documentary into my graduate studies course in conflict resolution. With permission of the filmmaker and distributor, I will be showing this movie to my students in class next week.

The course I teach is essentially a survey of conflict resolution theory and application, yet I have pushed them toward learning some of the more complex concepts within the field. We began with some foundational learning and conflict resolution basics (win/win, integrative vs. distributive) but in recent weeks have moved on to discussions about culture and bias in conflict resolution, intractable conflict, and next week, international and religious conflict resolution. I believe that over the previous seven, pretty intense weeks, we have created a safe but challenging learning environment where each student has something valuable to contribute. I have warned them that The Sari Soldiers is intense and at times graphic but I am confident that together we can handle anything that comes up for them during and after the in-class screening.

I would not show this movie to every group of conflict resolution students in every possible context, yet I truly believe that every student of conflict resolution must see it. Therein lies a contradiction of sorts, but like with this documentary, seemingly opposite realities can be simultaneously true. Perhaps a documentary filmmaker and a conflict resolution professor or professional are not that different. Both must develop relationships and earn trust of participants, and both must know when to get out of their way. A project is oftentimes most successful when we create a space in which participants can safely speak for themselves. That is the gift that this documentary gives to the field of conflict resolution and it is something I hope to extend throughout the rest of this course.

The Sari Soldiers will be having its North American Premiere at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival in New York City in June, and is going to be the "Center Piece" Film for the festival. Go to www.hrw.org/iff/2008/ny for more information. The Sari Soldiers will soon be released on DVD through Women Make Movies.

I will post a follow-up after the in-class screening.

remembering a friend and colleague

2008-04-11T07:02:00.004-06:00

Most mediators probably didn't know Sherri Bilinski. She had been mediating for less than 4 years. We had started mediating custody and visitation cases for the courts in Chicago within weeks of one another in the spring of '04. While I had been mediating for some time, Sherri had been a therapist previously and mediation was new to her. You wouldn't have known it, though. After going through an outside 40-hour training and some internal training, Sherri got the process deep down in her bones. More importantly, she was damn good at it.

At the age of 53, Sherri died in her sleep of natural causes either late on Friday, March 28th or in the early morning hours of the 29th. She had been having escalating health issues, but nothing that appeared life threatening. While I had been worrying about her for some time, her death still came as a major shock. Perhaps most difficult was that I received the news from a friend at my old workplace, Sherri's employer, 1 hour before I was to attend a wake for my closest childhood friend's father. There's just nothing that can prepare you for that.

In addition to being a wonderful therapist, mediator, and friend, Sherri was also an artist, although she hadn't painted for some time. She had recently been able to read again as her pain finally lessened enough for her to concentrate on written words. I had given her the book Kite Runner two years ago and she called me sometime in February to tell me that she had finally read it and to exclaim over what a gift it had been -- both the act of reading and the brilliance of the book itself.

Sherri's home and office were decked in shades of purple with lavender in its various forms throughout. She had hoped to be able to dance again one day. She went out for a drink after work with a few of us one time, something that took a lot out of her. It was nice to see the sparkle it brought her, though, despite the effort it took. I think of her when I am cooking, because there were many evenings when we'd talk on the phone while I was making dinner ("What is Miss Laura cooking tonight?" she'd ask. She never did get a taste of my homemade bread). I miss her when I smell lavender. When I hear someone laugh, I realize I will never again hear hers. Her sense of humor was vast and it sustained us both through some shared, and some individual, personal and professional challenges. There were days when we talked on the phone for hours.

I didn't get to say goodbye to Sherri -- we had exchanged voicemail virtually every day the week leading up to her death -- but I had spent a day with her a few weeks earlier helping her get to and from a medical appointment. Her strength that day, and every day that I knew her, was subtle, beautiful, and human. She felt things deeply and spoke with honesty. She showed kindness and respect to others but could also be like "a lioness protecting her cubs" as she sometimes put it, when someone did her, or someone she loved, wrong.

There's no way to fill the space left by Sherri's death. Many of us lost a great friend. The field of Conflict Resolution lost a terrific mediator. I feel like I should close with something funny, but that was always Sherri's role. Instead, I'll close my eyes, smell some lavender, and think brilliant purple thoughts in her honor.

"Man up": What's Gender Got to Do With It?

2008-02-27T07:47:00.010-06:00

I've been hearing people say "man up" for about a year now. Well, not "people" exactly as in lots of them, but more like twenty or thirty-something men and women. It reminded me of the phrase "be a man" that I often heard as a kid, so I became curious and did some "research" via Google.

According to Urban Dictionary, an online site where anyone can post a slang word or phrase along with its definition and then have it approved or disapproved by users (with potentially competing definitions) the following are the top 4 definitions for "man up":

1)Don't be a pussy, brave it, be daring.
Example:
"Hey man, finish this bowl."
"No dude, I'm baked as it is."
"Come on pussy, man up."

2)to fulfill your responsibilities as a man, despite your insecurities and constant ability to place yourself in embarrassing and un-manly scenarios.
Example:
Paul forcefully imposed the bet on everyone, yet he was the first to fail miserably on the very challenge he had conjured up.
Paul must now man up and meet his own challenge.

3)A reminder, usually to a man, to maintain or resume his assigned place within patriarchy. A reminder to a man never to show uncertainty, express feelings or emotion, display lack of skill, give any indication of empathy, give voice to pain or suffering, or otherwise act like a human being rather than an automaton.
Example:
Sergeant: Kill those people, Private.
Private: But they're all unarmed civilians - mostly women, old people, and children!
Sergeant: MAN UP, Private!
Private: Yes sir! *opens fire*

4)Be strong
Take control, take control of a (the) situation, be strong, rise to the moment

I found these definitions pretty interesting and consistent with the context in which I had been hearing them. Yet I was still curious about the origins of the phrase. I dug a little deeper and found additional information about "man up", even a book with the phrase in the title. The book: Man Up: Nobody is Coming to Save Us by Steve Perry is described on Amazon as: "...a hard hitting, introspective look into what the Black community must do to save itself. Finally, a voice speaks to the complex relationship between personal and community responsibility." I also found "Man UP Sweepstakes" offered by Mike and Mike on ESPN and an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled "It's time to 'man up' from Friday, February 08, 2008. The article reads in part:

I had a conversation with Lee Davis a few nights ago. Lee, 35, is an outreach coordinator with Community Empowerment Association. He works with about two dozen young people and their families to try to keep the youth on track. After last week's horrific violence, I wanted to get some perspective from someone has a nonstop close-up view of what's happening with our youth. It was just a conversation; I wasn't interviewing him for a story. But when I asked him where the fathers are in these kids' lives, his answer went straight into my heart, with no need to take notes: "The men are hiding," he said ... I've received at least three copies of an email from CEA head Rashad Byrdsong that reads in part: "Now, more than ever, we need Black men to 'Man Up', 'Take Your Place' and begin to address this issue of black on black violence in our community. There needs to be a collective strategy and purpose on how best to engage black youth and men who continue to perpetuate genocide against one another.

Instead of answering all of my questions, however, this research has only led to more questions. For example, when I've heard the phrase "man up" used by white twenty-somethings it has sounded more like the "be a man," of my childhood and somewhat like the definitions provided on Urban Dictionary. The book and the post in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, however, seem to use the phrase as a rallying point for black men, a different context and usage. Perhaps that is where the phrase has its origins, within the black community, as it seems is so often the case with "slang" that becomes mainstream. Maybe readers could clarify this.

Keeping all of the definitions in mind, I began to think about the ways in which any of this relates to mediation. Undoubtedly, gender plays a big role in court-related disputes, particularly custody and visitation disputes. While many argue that the court system has caught up with the times and judges are no longer biased against men, others will argue equally hard that judges always favor women. There are "father's rights" attorneys who share this very perspective that women are always favored. Such attorneys offer fathers something that they argue will not be an inherent part of the process but instead is something for which an attorney must fight on behalf of a client. As a mediator, I'm going to choose to stay neutral on this part of the discussion. I bring it up, however, because it fits into a larger conversation about gender and its relationship to mediation.

The increasing popularity of the phrase "man up" raises some questions of which mediators should be aware. There seems to be a blurry line between "man up" as a plea for one --usually a man -- to take ownership or responsibility for his actions or the actions of his community, versus the expectation of a man to be without feelings of fear or self-doubt (anger is okay) and/or to preserve his position at all costs.

What expectations or bias will the female disputant have within the context of the mediation process and how do we balance that during the course of the mediation? That is, what if the mother keeps throwing things out there like: "I carried this baby for 9 months and you didn't" or "A child needs to be with his mom." How do we as mediators create the space for other perceptions without appearing biased toward one party or the other? What if a father believes that if he doesn't fight for exactly 50% of the time with his child then he is not being man enough? Do we as mediators need to address gender perceptions that enter the room not just by remaining neutral ourselves, but also by somehow contextualizing the clients' experiences and assumptions? If so, how do we do that without appearing as though we are taking sides? How do we do it without actually taking sides?

Given that mediators ourselves are human, and that we don't live in a vacuum, we need to understand the foundation for our own perceptions so that we may be aware of where we sit in this continuum of expectation regarding male behavior. We need to understand this in order to better understand our clients. Do we expect men to "brave it" and "be daring" at all times? Do we believe men should always be "strong" and "in control?" Whether we are conscious of it or not, the way in which we were raised and the relationships we have with both men and women, inform our perceptions and expectations. If a man cries during a mediation session, will a female mediator have to respond differently than would a male mediator in order to keep from appearing biased? How might that inform the experience for both parties?

The main idea that resonates for me in considering the phrase "man up" is that more than anything it is a reminder. It reminds me that I grew up at a time when boys -- not just men -- were told to "be a man" and perhaps that was positive at times and perhaps at times it was harmful. It's a reminder that things haven't changed a whole lot. Also, probably most importantly, it reminds me that whatever exists out in the world always enters the mediation room in some form or other. Understanding "man up" seems essential to fully comprehending, challenging, and balancing expectations of men, particularly when it comes to parenting disputes.

"Digital image content © 1997-2007 Hemera Technologies Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Jupiter Images Corporation. All Rights Reserved".

Ignoring Expectations and Limitations in Relationships: The Sleeping Bear Dunes Metaphor

2008-01-08T14:52:00.003-06:00

Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan is a pretty amazing destination. I haven't been there in a while, but I got to thinking about it again. I found myself walking down a long flight of steps to the lake during yesterday's particularly balmy January weather. After about an hour of observing the water, clouds, and sand crashing and whistling against one another, with a storm just on the horizon, I finally made the trek back up those stairs to the street. Going down had been easy. It's going up that made me sweat. This reminded me of Sleeping Bear Dunes.

When I went with my partner to Sleeping Bear Dunes over 3 years ago we drove and then hiked a short way on a relatively flat trail to find ourselves at the top of a dune with a magnificent view of the lake. I can't recall the exact trail* or the location, but it was stunning and we were up rather high. We didn't notice it at first but after some time had passed and the sky had begun to darken, we walked further across the top of the dune and could see it in its entirety from another angle. It was then that we realized people had climbed down the steep dune to the lake, and many were now struggling to get back up. People were at various stages of climbing, some sitting in exhaustion very close to the top, some kicking with all their might at the bottom, slowing their pace as their struggle upward made almost no progress. We were a distance away from them, comfortably standing at the top of the dune, the light slowly fading, and it appeared as though there were people of all ages and physical conditions attempting to climb back up. No one at this point was climbing down.

We stood there for a long time, fascinated. What would happen if they didn't get to the top before the sun completely disappeared? There was only one way out unaided, and that was to climb back up the dune. The only other way out, I overheard someone saying, was to be rescued by boat, something that would cost the stranded hiker or hikers a significant amount of money.

I thought about the joy they must have felt running, rolling and sliding down that dune to the lake. How wonderful and freeing. How very much like falling in love. And like falling in love, once the falling part was over suddenly, it all just got harder. They couldn't stay at that fallen place. It was not a destination point. Yet I would bet that none of them thought that the hike back to the top would be that challenging or considered how long it might take to get back up (hours for most folks, I was told). Few, if any, had probably trained for it. Most probably expected that it wouldn't be that hard. They merely fell, and enjoyed the quick fall, until they stopped, looked back, and discovered there was a mountain suddenly between them and living. They had to climb up that dune or pay the price for a rescue.

Often when meeting with clients in mediation it becomes immediately clear that they met, fell in love, got married or moved in together, all very quickly, and were surprised to find themselves in my office, discussing the dissolution of the relationship. I often ask clients if they ever discussed the expectations they had for their lives together both as an individual and as part of a couple prior to making a commitment to be together forever. The answer is always no. It just happened, they tell me. They fell in love. They decided to be together. They thought they were on the same page about things. They weren't. Assumptions were made. Then they dug their feet further and further into the sand, neither of them making any progress upward.

Of course the relationship didn't work, I tell them. Even the kindest, most thoughtful, smartest people in the world cannot be successful in anything involving another person without first being honest about one's own limitations, the limitations of the other person, and the expectations both individuals have of each other. At the very least, even if a couple fails to communicate honestly about this at the beginning of their relationship, it has to happen somewhere along the way and adjustments have to be made accordingly. It's fun to slide down a sand dune, but if your calves aren't strong enough to get you back to the top, what do you really think is going to happen?

Falling is easy. It's also quick. It's in the climbing that we struggle and grow (or we pay lots of money to a mediator, attorney, or other professional to get us out of this sandy mess, to whisk us away in a boated rescue).

*The trail I'm referring to should not be confused with the "Dune Climb." In that climb the parking lot is situated at the bottom of the dune so the hike up is first and coming down returns one to one's car. The hike I'm describing was the opposite of that where the cars/parking were at the top of the dune with a trail along the top. For those who decided to go down the dune, there was no way to get back to your car (or to civilization) except to climb back up to the top.

Britney Mania: Let's Stop Pretending It's About the Kids

2008-01-04T18:37:00.000-06:00

I've never paid much attention to Britney Spears. It's been virtually impossible not to know about her recent deterioration, however, upon which the media so gleefully reports. The questions and statements are made: "What's led to Britney's strange behavior?" "Will she lose custody of her kids?"

Mostly I've ignored the hype. To me, she's a kid in trouble struggling with raising kids of her own. To the media, she's gossip, a way to make a buck or two, or more simply put: "entertainment." Today things have been taken to a whole other level and I just can't ignore it anymore because, well, kids are seriously being harmed. Since turning on the news at 5PM I've seen reporting that has been virtually non-stop Britney. Sorry, Barack, but your Iowa caucus success has just been bumped.

If you don't know why there's been so much focus on Britney today, then just turn on the TV or Google her name. You'll get more than enough information as to what happened last night, something to which I do not want to contribute.

What I will contribute is this: stop the Britney madness people ("people" meaning "the media" and all those consuming what is being spewed)! At the very least please understand the seriously negative impact this sort of press is having on our children ("our" meaning children being raised in the United States). Britney may be in emotional trouble. She may have a substance abuse problem. To me it is a chicken and egg question. Is the media merely reporting on her problem, or is the media contributing to it?

I strongly believe that children benefit from having a relationship with both of their parents with the exception of those parents who have physically, sexually, and/or emotionally harmed them. "Emotional abuse" is one of those challenging and subjective concepts parents use when they're angry at each other and they're slinging dirt in both directions. I believe it also actually exists at times but I'm not going to get into that right now. At any rate, in my admittedly limited observations, I have seen no indication that Britney has been abusive to her children in any of the aforementioned ways. Yet her ex, Federline, and his attorneys recently filed to keep Britney from having ANY contact with her children.

Yes, she has made stupid decisions. It appears as though she may need professional help of some kind. Yet threaten to take children away from almost any parent (male or female) and watch the sparks fly. What's going on with her strange behavior? Need that question seriously be asked?

Federline might be a better parent. So be it. I don't know. It's not for me to decide. Yet better or worse, aren't both parents important? I do know this: the kids are losing, over and over again. When will parents get it? It's destructive conflict that destroys all of us in the end.

A custody battle is ugly. A custody battle being broadcast daily across every possible media outlet inflicts irreparable harm not only upon Britney's children, but upon every child over whom parents are fighting in court. Just stop! There are alternatives. Please just stop it already!

Add a "t" to "mediation" to get "meditation"

2007-11-29T12:57:00.001-06:00

I don't think it's merely coincidence, semantics, or alliteration that has people frequently confusing meditation with mediation. On more than one occasion upon learning the nature of my business, individuals have asked me if I offer yoga. Now that would be interesting. I stop myself from imagining clients stretched out on yoga mats doing downward facing dog pose in my office pontificating on why they would be the better residential parent for the children. On the other hand, perhaps that is worth imagining:

The client takes a deep breath ... "because they've always been with me ..." stretches further ... "because I understand them and am better equipped to care for their needs ..." sigh ... " and because ..." a release of air so as to remove the weight of the world from his or her shoulders ... "what was I saying?"

Creative visualizations and alphabet soup aside, I do believe there are some important and fundamental similarities between mediation and meditation particularly from the standpoint of being the mediator. Both meditation and mediation require one to be fully present while also remaining somewhat removed and not emotionally invested in an outcome. A mediator must be conscious and observant of her thoughts and emotions without acting upon them, as one must do while meditating. Meditators and mediators must exist on a higher level of consciousness without judgment of oneself or others, at least for the duration of their practice or session. Given all of that, it seems that meditating and mediating would be complementary practices. So why, I have recently begun to wonder, did I stop meditating upon becoming a full-time mediator?

Both my practice of mediation and meditation evolved gradually, over a lifetime. Meditation probably began with a childhood anxiety-related belly ache being eased by soft breaths of relaxation blown toward my abdomen by my mother. She was less subtle at times, leaving meditation tapes on my desk or books about stretching on my bed. Eventually all the relaxation, creative visualization, stretching, and yoga I learned evolved into an unstructured but relatively successful practice of meditation.

I began mediating early too. My parents owned a Jeep Cherokee before car seats, seat belts, and booster seats were proven to save lives. My mom and the mothers of my two best friends, Brad and Jeff, would alternate driving the three of us to and from preschool. When my mom picked us up at the end of the (undoubtedly) long (3 hour?) school day, we'd race into the Jeep to the "way back" and clamor for a seat on the "bumps." While on the exterior of the Jeep these bumps were the rear wheels, on the interior they created perfect chairs for two of us. The last one in had to sit on my dad's metal toolbox, a most undesirable position.

On the fateful day about which I write, Brad and I landed "the bumps" and a very unhappy Jeff got stuck with the toolbox. Jeff immediately grabbed Brad and attempted to pull him off his bump seat. This was against the rules. Whoever got there first got the seat. That's how it had always worked. For whatever reason, Jeff wasn't having it that day. The boys struggled and I yelled at them to stop, jumped off my seat, and pulled them apart. Disgusted, I told Jeff to take my bump and Brad to return to his. I was also secretly proud of myself. I had gotten them to stop beating on each other.

Then as now, truth and justice have always been important to me and I believe this drove my quest to become a mediator. Justice is elusive and slippery, but through my role as a mediator I get to participate in a process that allows for an unfolding of what those in conflict come to define for themselves as fair, good, and right. Like justice, inner peace is larger than our individual selves; it is something with no clear beginning or end. Yet we all know it when we feel it, if only for a fleeting moment.

So why did I stop meditating about 3 1/2 years ago, right around the time I began mediating custody and visitation disputes full-time? I can't say for certain. Perhaps it's because "neutrality hurts my psyche" as I blogged about previously. In having to create a neutral space for others, perhaps it has become more difficult to create the same space for myself via meditation. Or maybe I'm just afraid of what I'll hear when I'm silent, like our clients are so often afraid of the truths of which the other party might speak. Once we hear something and know it, aren't we then required to act upon this knowledge? An empty space with no judgment is scary because when we have no reason to defend ourselves we become vulnerable.

All I know for certain is that I miss it. It's time to break out those relaxation tapes (now where did I store the Boom box?) and evolve my practice of meditation once more.

Calendars: how else would we remember that another year has passed?

2007-11-15T17:06:00.001-06:00

It's November and calendars are making their yearly appearance in abundance. There's the small flip calendar I keep on my desk with its handy reminder to reorder. When I walk into Borders or Barnes & Noble or any bookstore chain, plastic wrapped calendars of kittens climbing trees or Bart Simpson flipping Homer the bird remind me that 2008 is almost here. Then there's the over-sized calendar I keep to use with clients. It's large so parents can see it without having to sit too close together when deciding who will spend what holiday where.

Calendars make me think of 3 important things: 1) holidays 2) unfinished business 3) new beginnings. Halloween gets a good amount of airtime in stores and on the television. Thanksgiving definitely tops Halloween. Christmas takes the cake. New Years? It does pretty well for itself. Holidays make me think of family, festivities and food. When it comes to mediating with clients, however, holidays elicit thoughts of change, pain and loss. For most of my clients, this is THE FIRST. It's the first Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc., without everyone together. It is often the first time they have to spend a holiday without their child. Holidays are complicated because, regardless of how well you get along with your family, how much you all love and appreciate each other, how many years have passed since so and so disappointed/betrayed/hurt/ignored so and so, family stuff runs deeper than words even as we take the good with the bad. For newly separated or divorced families, life is raw and holidays are the open wound.

There also seems to be an amazing amount of pressure to finish things by December 31st. It's in November and December that we begin reflecting on our year. What did I say I would accomplish this year? What exactly did I accomplish? For those who feel they've done pretty well in fulfilling personal goals, November and December allow for that extra push: it's all gravy, so to speak. For those of us who haven't even come close to accomplishing what we had hoped for the year, November and December become a haunting nag.

The good news is that January is right around the corner -- 3) new beginnings -- allowing us every opportunity to further screw-up or improve upon that which we will believe matters in January but no longer does by December. The truth is, none of us have that much control over how our year will turn out. Goals are great. Sometimes, however, realizing which goals to let go is even better.

Digital image content © 1997-2007 Hemera Technologies Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Jupiter Images Corporation. All Rights Reserved.