By Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
and Ellen F. Kandell, Esq.
Mediators know all too well that their clients can take positional stances that are hostile and effectively block the creative thinking necessary to reach an equitable settlement. Positional stances taken by clients and their counsel are a natural result of the brain’s dual wiring for competition and cooperation. These processes are in-born; however, the competitive tendency is slightly stronger than the cooperative one and the parts of the brain used for each are protected in very different ways. The competitive instinct is well protected between the temporal lobe and cerebral cortex hidden in the fold. The cooperative tendency depends on the action of the prefrontal cortex. Historically, our survival has depended on our ability to compete by besting our perceived enemy. Numerous studies indicate that we are not content to just get ahead of the other; we want to demolish the opposition. These tendencies are at play whenever we must negotiate with another. The challenge is to shift your clients from these positional/ competitive mindsets to more cooperative/collaborative thinking where creative and mutually beneficial solutions can be generated. Developing keener listening skills will enable you to help your clients make this shift.
Listening is often confused with hearing. Hearing is a natural experience that happens spontaneously unless there are physiological deficits. While hearing can be measured by audiologists, listening cannot because of numerous subjective factors. Listening requires work: focused energy, choice, active screening, plus both aural and visual concentration. When we choose to listen, we act to screen out external stimulation that could be equally salient and internal stimulation as well. Our temperature and blood pressure increase slightly as we use our energy to concentrate. The majority of the information that we use as we listen is actually visual detail and not aural detail. In fact 93% of our communication is non-verbal. (1) Visual cues enable us to interpret what we hear and to make sense of the communication from the other person. Over our lifespan, our listening efficiency decreases significantly as we become more occupied with our own thoughts and internal dialogue. Being a good listener is hard work that requires specific training.
One factor that is responsible for undermining our listening ability is our biases and historical frames of reference. Our histories shape what we hear. In intimate relationships, we tend to handle conflicts in the same way that we did as toddlers with blame, denial, avoidance, sulking, and temper tantrums. The thing that makes a toddler so irresistible is the Grand Human Contradiction (2): our competing drives for autonomy and connection. Autonomy is closely tied to our tendency to compete and connection is a function of our desire to cooperate and align with others. The toddler wants to be independent and assert his own will and at the same time he wants to be intimately connected and dependent on those around him. As adults, our intimate relationships often mimic this contradiction. When we have conflicts, we get stuck in the toddler mode where our amygdala sounds the alarm of danger and alerts us to prepare to defend and protect ourselves. We get stuck focusing on the attack we perceive and we react only to the perceived danger. Take the example of the couple mediating a divorce settlement where the wife has initiated the divorce. The husband has a history of depression that can be traced back to a severely neglectful childhood. When his wife starts a sentence with “I want...” he is automatically thrown back into the distant past where he has experienced himself as insignificant and unimportant. He assumes that her “wants” will be unreasonable and calculated to injure him in some way. So when she completes the sentence with “I want to be fair and even generous because I know you do not want this divorce”, he fails to hear the most important part of the sentence and responds in an angry rage.
The ability to listen and rationally examine what is actually said requires the action of the adult brain - the prefrontal cortex, which is not fully developed until the mid-to-late twenties. In the adult brain, you can see both perspectives at once. You can feel your own fear and pain as well as your partner’s empathy and care. You can hold these two realities in mind at the same time and know that the person who is causing you so much grief can also be the person who can offer healing. In this advanced part of your brain, you have a chance of working out what is best for both of you and achieving what you both want - a sense of mutual caring. To move the husband from his toddler brain to his prefrontal cortex requires careful focused listening.
A second and related factor that undermines our listening is our own biases. Before we can listen to others, we must first listen to ourselves and be aware of our own biases and the automatic thoughts that interfere with our ability to hear what the client is saying. To surface your own biases, make a list of ten small or big traumas in your own life. Now ask yourself how each of these traumas has influenced the way that you think about relationships. You may have to list several possible implications before you can recognize the salient impact for you. Traumas influence how we experience relationships and attachments. Our attachment beliefs are a part of our automatic thinking causing us to respond to situations in certain ways before we even have conscious awareness of our response or attitude. Once these automatic thoughts have been identified, write out how they could bias your thinking about the couples and cases in your practice. Share your bias with a colleague who can help you remain accountable to identify the impact of these biases as you work with couples.
Next, use your new self-awareness to help your clients discover their biases. One of the keys to moving a client from competitive thinking to cooperative thinking is to slow their thinking so that they have time to examine their own biases. Be willing to ask your client to slow down and go back a few steps. Typically, the client is willing to have each aspect of their thinking repeated. In the example above, the angry husband who saw his spouse as hateful and vindictive would be taken back to each of these thoughts, slowly and with repetition. As you do this review with the client, the pace of your own voice should slow by 20% to 30% and your volume should be below your normal speaking volume. The slow pace and low volume serves to encourage the client to slow their own pace. The brain’s natural tendency to “mirror” experiences functions to reduce the adrenalin that accompanied the rage and encourage the production of oxytocin which calms emotions enabling the client to be more engaged in the conversation. The repetition of the client’s thoughts and feelings 2, 3 or 4 times enables him to reflect and to modulate his response. As you repeat, “you are angry and hurt by her request for a divorce and you expect to be cheated” in a slow calm voice, the client’s prefrontal cortex has an opportunity to actually consider this concept and compare it to other perceptions that he has of his wife. Repeating this several times exactly or with some modification in phrasing may feel awkward at first; however, when you understand what the brain is doing with this repetition, you will quickly embrace the low, slow repetition as a means of turning on the prefrontal cortex enabling the client to adjust his thinking to a more rational perspective. Once the angry client has modulated his thinking and shared more rational thoughts, he is ready to hear what his wife actually said. If you were to skip this step and just ask the wife to repeat her message, the husband would likely hold onto his bias and not trust what she is saying. Consequently, he would be focused on winning and competing rather than on cooperating to create a mutually satisfying settlement.
Our competitive brain activity can be quite toxic. The competitive part of our brain uses more primitive defense mechanisms to keep us focused on winning. Those defenses include denial, interrogating, judging, accusing, counterattack, justification, withdrawal, betrayal and sabotage. Anyone who has helped a couple negotiate an issue will recognize these as very familiar processes that can easily undermine any negotiation. The cooperative part of our brain uses very different strategies: humor, brainstorming, reflection, questioning, investigation, experimentation and compromise. Obviously, the outcomes of any couple’s negotiations will be better served by the latter. Helping each party access the cooperative part of their brains is both a science and an art.
The science of accessing the cooperative, prefrontal cortex demands knowledge of brain anatomy and chemistry. We have already described the location of this part of the brain in the prefrontal cortex and noted that it is more vulnerable to injury. The prefrontal cortex is also easily distracted by internal and external stimuli. Our executive functioning is located here. Our clients may be prone to appear present in the room while mentally reviewing their grocery list or inventorying the home furnishings and jewelry. Such mental competition requires a process that uses “visual listening”. Remember that we noted earlier that 93% of listening is visual. Facial expression, eye position and clarity, muscle tension, breathing pace, body posture and movement are all visual cues that indicate the degree to which the client is productively engaged in listening. Changes in these cues are reasons to slow the process, review what has been said, take a break or seek the clients understanding of what is currently happening in the room.
In addition, the chemistry of the brain can be influenced by the physical arrangement of the room, the physical atmosphere, the available food and drink and even the number and types of breaks in the negotiation. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were really onto something with the room arrangement. We tend to feel more engaged and equal when seated at a round table. Pastel colors in the pink and green family are also calming as well as vistas with a lot of nature in them. Breaks that take the client outside rather than into the hall do a better job of resetting them. If you are offering food and beverage, be sure that water is the main attraction. Water fuels the brain making concentration and problem solving easier. Other beverages encourage digestion taking energy away from the brain to the stomach. When offering food, concentrate on nuts, chocolate and guacamole (for the avocado) and stay away from pastries, bagels, breads and cookies.
Our brains are highly plastic and are constantly being rewired. That means that even the most resistant client can benefit from expert listening skills and changes in thinking can result. When you are tempted to write someone off as too rigid, immature, or difficult, remember that all brains are malleable. Your listening skills could be the key to a successful negotiation. The tools for moving from competition to cooperation are easily accessible to all who will understand how the brain works and use that understanding in the negotiation room. Look for specific trainings in your area to build your listening skills.
1. Louder Than Words: Non-verbal Communication. Mele Koneya and Alton Barbour, Merrill, 1976, Columbus, Ohio.
2. Stosny, Steven, “ Anger in the Age of Entitlement: Do You Love in the Wrong Part of the Brain?”, Psychology Today, April 22, 2011.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
LISTENING, COMMUNICATION AND THE BRAIN: USING SCIENCE TO ENHANCE YOUR WORK WITH CONFLICT AND CHALLENGING CASES
Saturday, May 19, 2012 9 am – 4 pm
Hosted by Delaney McKinney, LLP
5425 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 401
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Workshop summary:
Professionals in law, mediation, mental health, finance and the courts often work with difficult people without the benefit of the most recent knowledge of how a person's brain functions and the impact of that functioning on how one listens to another to resolve difficult issues in the best way possible. The way in which we listen is an important part of triggering the brain of the receiver to respond in different ways.
Our brain based training is for a wide range of professionals who work with individuals and couples when the client is under stress which has a significant impact on how the brain will respond, what the brain is capable of doing and the eventual outcome of the work the professional is doing with that client. By learning how the brain functions and using specific listening skills, we as professionals can have a significant impact on reducing the influence of stress in our clients and helping them to function from their higher order brain than their primitive brain. This knowledge will also help us to identify and address ethical challenges.
Trainers’ qualifications
Ellen F. Kandell, Esq.
• Mediation trainer for Maryland’s administrative and circuit court judges
• Former litigator and Chief Assistant City Solicitor, Philadelphia, PA and Summit, NJ
• Served as an ombudsman for Johns Hopkins University’s Space Telescope Science Institute
• Adjunct college professor for courses on listening, conflict management and negotiation
• President of Alternative Resolutions, LLC
Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
• Collaborative Coach and Child Specialist
• Licensed Psychologist in Maryland and DC
• Former Assistant Professor of Psychology at Towson University
• A Diplomate in the American College of Forensic Psychologists
• Former President of Vanderhorst & Associates Former Director of Child & Adolescent Services at the Chesapeake ADHD Center of Maryland
Location:
Delaney McKinney, LLP in Chevy Chase, MD
Go to: http://www.delaneymckinney.com for directions and parking information.
Metro accessible: one block from Friendship Heights metro stop (red line).
Price: $279
Please arrive by 8:30 am for brain food before beginning the workshop. We will begin promptly at 9am.
Early bird discount, $229 if payment received by April 25th
Mail a check, payable to Dr. Gloria K. Vanderhorst at 8701 Georgia Ave., Suite 713, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or pay by credit card, with the information below
Registration information:
Name:___________________________________________________________________
Card Holders Name:________________________________________________________
Card Holders Billing Address:__________________________________________________
City:___________________________ State:_________ Zip Code:__________
Phone: Email address:__________________________________
( ) Am. Ex. ( ) VISA ( ) MasterCard
Account Number:_____________________________ Exp. Date:_____/_____/_____ (mm/dd/yyyy)
Three digit verification code on the back of your card:
(or for Am Ex this code is 4 digits and on the front)
Signature:________________________________ Date: __________________________
For more information contact:
Gloria Vanderhorst, 301-578-8760 or gkvanderhorst@gmail.com or Ellen Kandell, 301-588-5390 or ek@alternativeresolutions.net
Hosted by Delaney McKinney, LLP
5425 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 401
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Workshop summary:
Professionals in law, mediation, mental health, finance and the courts often work with difficult people without the benefit of the most recent knowledge of how a person's brain functions and the impact of that functioning on how one listens to another to resolve difficult issues in the best way possible. The way in which we listen is an important part of triggering the brain of the receiver to respond in different ways.
Our brain based training is for a wide range of professionals who work with individuals and couples when the client is under stress which has a significant impact on how the brain will respond, what the brain is capable of doing and the eventual outcome of the work the professional is doing with that client. By learning how the brain functions and using specific listening skills, we as professionals can have a significant impact on reducing the influence of stress in our clients and helping them to function from their higher order brain than their primitive brain. This knowledge will also help us to identify and address ethical challenges.
Trainers’ qualifications
Ellen F. Kandell, Esq.
• Mediation trainer for Maryland’s administrative and circuit court judges
• Former litigator and Chief Assistant City Solicitor, Philadelphia, PA and Summit, NJ
• Served as an ombudsman for Johns Hopkins University’s Space Telescope Science Institute
• Adjunct college professor for courses on listening, conflict management and negotiation
• President of Alternative Resolutions, LLC
Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
• Collaborative Coach and Child Specialist
• Licensed Psychologist in Maryland and DC
• Former Assistant Professor of Psychology at Towson University
• A Diplomate in the American College of Forensic Psychologists
• Former President of Vanderhorst & Associates Former Director of Child & Adolescent Services at the Chesapeake ADHD Center of Maryland
Location:
Delaney McKinney, LLP in Chevy Chase, MD
Go to: http://www.delaneymckinney.com for directions and parking information.
Metro accessible: one block from Friendship Heights metro stop (red line).
Price: $279
Please arrive by 8:30 am for brain food before beginning the workshop. We will begin promptly at 9am.
Early bird discount, $229 if payment received by April 25th
Mail a check, payable to Dr. Gloria K. Vanderhorst at 8701 Georgia Ave., Suite 713, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or pay by credit card, with the information below
Registration information:
Name:___________________________________________________________________
Card Holders Name:________________________________________________________
Card Holders Billing Address:__________________________________________________
City:___________________________ State:_________ Zip Code:__________
Phone: Email address:__________________________________
( ) Am. Ex. ( ) VISA ( ) MasterCard
Account Number:_____________________________ Exp. Date:_____/_____/_____ (mm/dd/yyyy)
Three digit verification code on the back of your card:
(or for Am Ex this code is 4 digits and on the front)
Signature:________________________________ Date: __________________________
For more information contact:
Gloria Vanderhorst, 301-578-8760 or gkvanderhorst@gmail.com or Ellen Kandell, 301-588-5390 or ek@alternativeresolutions.net
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE: CHECK IT OUT
The following article appeared recently in the Washington Post and gives personal information from Regina DeMeo, a family attorney in Bethesda and a Collaboratively trained expert.
THE PROFESSIONAL
After a lawyer’s own split, a different approach to divorce
by Ellen McCarthy
It used to be all business for divorce lawyer Regina DeMeo. Her approach was always the same: “This is a partnership and the partnership is dissolving. What are the assets? What is the time-sharing arrangement you think is going to work best? Okay, come on,” she would think. “Get yourself together and let’s move on.” Then, after seven years of marriage, De-Meo went through her own divorce. “It was a very humbling experience,” she says. “All your dreams are shattered . . .
your whole world is rocked.” DeMeo began reading everything she could about what makes and breaks marriages, and she changed the way she practices law. Soon after the divorce, the
George Washington University Law School graduate became trained in a growing practice called collaborative divorce. Now when a potential client lands in her office, she asks to hear the story of the marriage and the reasons for divorce. When there’s even a hint of ambivalence
she’ll nudge the client toward a counselor. “If you can save this marriage, that’s what
you should try to do,” says DeMeo, 37. “Because I can tell you personally, I’ve been
down this dark path, and it’s not fun.” But if clients are sure that ending the marriage is the only solution, she’ll encourage them to consider collaborative divorce, a process that requires both spouses to agree not to go to court. Instead, they and their individual lawyers, along with
mental health professionals and a neutral financial adviser, meet to openly hash out
the terms of the divorce. The process requires that all relevant information be shared willingly — “so I don’t have to issue subpoenas to 50 different banks and waste time and money,” says DeMeo, a lawyer with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake in Rockville. The couple has to reach an agreement on every issue that needs to be addressed —including child-care arrangements, real
estate decisions and division of assets. And if they don’t reach a complete agreement,
both lawyers lose the case. The couple will lose all the money they’ve invested in the process and must start over with new attorneys. DeMeo, who is president of the Collaborative Divorce Association, a group that promotes the practice, says the process is less painful than a divorce that involves litigation. “There are no surprises,” she says. “And they feel like they own it because
they’re the final decision makers, as opposed to some person they’ve never met before who’s going to hear their case for six hours and make a decision for the rest of their lives.”
And maybe more important than that, she says, the collaborative divorce process forces two people whose lines of communication are broken to learn to work together and talk respectfully to each other. “Because if you have kids, you’re going to have to continue to communicate for the
next 20 years,” she says. About a quarter of DeMeo’s clients choose to conduct collaborative divorces, a percentage she hopes will grow significantly in the years ahead. But it’s not for
everyone, she realizes, and can run counter to what many lawyers are trained to do
regarding the protection of their clients’ information. Still, she remains in favor of anything
that can mitigate the emotional devastation that often accompanies divorce. But she knows as well as anyone that much of the pain has already been inflicted by the time clients reach her. “You can’t undo damage that’s been going on for the last five years,” she says. “Marriage is like a
plant, and if you don’t water it and give it sunlight, it’s going to die. You can’t just take it for granted.” DeMeo thinks her own experiences have made her a better, more empathetic
lawyer. “I really know what they’re going through,” she says. “But I would much rather have paid for the knowledge without having the pain.” mccarthye@washpost.com
THE PROFESSIONAL
After a lawyer’s own split, a different approach to divorce
by Ellen McCarthy
It used to be all business for divorce lawyer Regina DeMeo. Her approach was always the same: “This is a partnership and the partnership is dissolving. What are the assets? What is the time-sharing arrangement you think is going to work best? Okay, come on,” she would think. “Get yourself together and let’s move on.” Then, after seven years of marriage, De-Meo went through her own divorce. “It was a very humbling experience,” she says. “All your dreams are shattered . . .
your whole world is rocked.” DeMeo began reading everything she could about what makes and breaks marriages, and she changed the way she practices law. Soon after the divorce, the
George Washington University Law School graduate became trained in a growing practice called collaborative divorce. Now when a potential client lands in her office, she asks to hear the story of the marriage and the reasons for divorce. When there’s even a hint of ambivalence
she’ll nudge the client toward a counselor. “If you can save this marriage, that’s what
you should try to do,” says DeMeo, 37. “Because I can tell you personally, I’ve been
down this dark path, and it’s not fun.” But if clients are sure that ending the marriage is the only solution, she’ll encourage them to consider collaborative divorce, a process that requires both spouses to agree not to go to court. Instead, they and their individual lawyers, along with
mental health professionals and a neutral financial adviser, meet to openly hash out
the terms of the divorce. The process requires that all relevant information be shared willingly — “so I don’t have to issue subpoenas to 50 different banks and waste time and money,” says DeMeo, a lawyer with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake in Rockville. The couple has to reach an agreement on every issue that needs to be addressed —including child-care arrangements, real
estate decisions and division of assets. And if they don’t reach a complete agreement,
both lawyers lose the case. The couple will lose all the money they’ve invested in the process and must start over with new attorneys. DeMeo, who is president of the Collaborative Divorce Association, a group that promotes the practice, says the process is less painful than a divorce that involves litigation. “There are no surprises,” she says. “And they feel like they own it because
they’re the final decision makers, as opposed to some person they’ve never met before who’s going to hear their case for six hours and make a decision for the rest of their lives.”
And maybe more important than that, she says, the collaborative divorce process forces two people whose lines of communication are broken to learn to work together and talk respectfully to each other. “Because if you have kids, you’re going to have to continue to communicate for the
next 20 years,” she says. About a quarter of DeMeo’s clients choose to conduct collaborative divorces, a percentage she hopes will grow significantly in the years ahead. But it’s not for
everyone, she realizes, and can run counter to what many lawyers are trained to do
regarding the protection of their clients’ information. Still, she remains in favor of anything
that can mitigate the emotional devastation that often accompanies divorce. But she knows as well as anyone that much of the pain has already been inflicted by the time clients reach her. “You can’t undo damage that’s been going on for the last five years,” she says. “Marriage is like a
plant, and if you don’t water it and give it sunlight, it’s going to die. You can’t just take it for granted.” DeMeo thinks her own experiences have made her a better, more empathetic
lawyer. “I really know what they’re going through,” she says. “But I would much rather have paid for the knowledge without having the pain.” mccarthye@washpost.com
Monday, September 14, 2009
Are You Divorcing?
ARE YOU DIVORCING?
CHOOSE A WAY
Your marriage is in trouble and you want out. The first thing that you think about is finding a lawyer and battling your way through the process. Don’t be so quick to open the Yellow Pages. First, do some research. Divorce can be done in at least 4 ways: Pro Se, Litigation, Mediation or Collaboration.
Pro Se means that you and your spouse sit at the kitchen table and work through all of the issues of sharing custody, changing living arrangements, dividing property, setting up two new households and sharing time with the children. Once you have decisions on all of these issues, you can write down your plans, research the law in your area and petition the court for a divorce decree. The kitchen table has the advantage of keeping things low key, working cooperatively and maintaining a good relationship with the other person as you reconfigure your lives. The disadvantages of this method are that a power imbalance could put one party at a disadvantage, unfamiliarity with the law could result in some poor choices for the future, and incomplete processes could lead to litigation in the future.
Litigation is the most familiar and probably the most contentious method of divorce. Each party hires a lawyer to advise them and represent their interests. Most litigated cases end of settling without going to court; however, the process leading up to that point is generally one of battle, hostility and acrimony. Many times the family, extended family and even friends are injured in the battle. Often there is little or no recovery from the process. When a case does go to court, the decision making power is ceded to the judge and both parties may end of very unhappy with the outcome.
Mediation is a more civil process of using one trained mediator to help you work through all of the issues and develop a settlement agreement. This agreement is then taken to a lawyer for review prior to signing and filing for divorce. A skilled mediator can keep you focused on the issues at hand and reduce emotional conflicts in the room. However, the mediator is there to work toward resolution of the issues and is not trained in facilitating a change in the emotional dynamics. Because of this, mediation can feel more like the kitchen table with a guide.
Collaborative is a transformative process whereby a team of professionals assists in working through the practical and emotional issues. The team generally consists of a lawyer for each person and a coach for each person. The lawyer advises on aspects of the law as you consider different options and solutions. The coach addresses the emotional dynamics and assists in learning new ways to communicate your needs and resolve issues with the other person. For custody issues and shared parenting, an expert in child development acts as a neutral advisor to the entire team so that the children’s needs are presented objectively for everyone to consider as they problem solve. For financial issues, an expert in financial planning can develop projections and plans as a neutral advisor to the team. The collaborative process is focused on transforming the historical model of divorce as a battleground to a more realistic model of divorce as a reconfiguration of the family where relationships will continue in a new form. The couple retains control of all decision making and decisions are based on mutual interests and common goals and not on power dynamics.
By now my bias toward the Collaborative Divorce should be obvious. Reshaping the family is a difficult process. Even the most mature individual will report that during their divorce they were a bit insane at times. The stress of ending a marriage and making dramatic changes in the life style of your children and yourself is a major emotional event. The team approach can give you the best opportunity to make choices that are legally sound, financially wise and emotionally healthy. For more information on Collaborative Divorce visit the web site of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals: www.collaborativepractice.com
CHOOSE A WAY
Your marriage is in trouble and you want out. The first thing that you think about is finding a lawyer and battling your way through the process. Don’t be so quick to open the Yellow Pages. First, do some research. Divorce can be done in at least 4 ways: Pro Se, Litigation, Mediation or Collaboration.
Pro Se means that you and your spouse sit at the kitchen table and work through all of the issues of sharing custody, changing living arrangements, dividing property, setting up two new households and sharing time with the children. Once you have decisions on all of these issues, you can write down your plans, research the law in your area and petition the court for a divorce decree. The kitchen table has the advantage of keeping things low key, working cooperatively and maintaining a good relationship with the other person as you reconfigure your lives. The disadvantages of this method are that a power imbalance could put one party at a disadvantage, unfamiliarity with the law could result in some poor choices for the future, and incomplete processes could lead to litigation in the future.
Litigation is the most familiar and probably the most contentious method of divorce. Each party hires a lawyer to advise them and represent their interests. Most litigated cases end of settling without going to court; however, the process leading up to that point is generally one of battle, hostility and acrimony. Many times the family, extended family and even friends are injured in the battle. Often there is little or no recovery from the process. When a case does go to court, the decision making power is ceded to the judge and both parties may end of very unhappy with the outcome.
Mediation is a more civil process of using one trained mediator to help you work through all of the issues and develop a settlement agreement. This agreement is then taken to a lawyer for review prior to signing and filing for divorce. A skilled mediator can keep you focused on the issues at hand and reduce emotional conflicts in the room. However, the mediator is there to work toward resolution of the issues and is not trained in facilitating a change in the emotional dynamics. Because of this, mediation can feel more like the kitchen table with a guide.
Collaborative is a transformative process whereby a team of professionals assists in working through the practical and emotional issues. The team generally consists of a lawyer for each person and a coach for each person. The lawyer advises on aspects of the law as you consider different options and solutions. The coach addresses the emotional dynamics and assists in learning new ways to communicate your needs and resolve issues with the other person. For custody issues and shared parenting, an expert in child development acts as a neutral advisor to the entire team so that the children’s needs are presented objectively for everyone to consider as they problem solve. For financial issues, an expert in financial planning can develop projections and plans as a neutral advisor to the team. The collaborative process is focused on transforming the historical model of divorce as a battleground to a more realistic model of divorce as a reconfiguration of the family where relationships will continue in a new form. The couple retains control of all decision making and decisions are based on mutual interests and common goals and not on power dynamics.
By now my bias toward the Collaborative Divorce should be obvious. Reshaping the family is a difficult process. Even the most mature individual will report that during their divorce they were a bit insane at times. The stress of ending a marriage and making dramatic changes in the life style of your children and yourself is a major emotional event. The team approach can give you the best opportunity to make choices that are legally sound, financially wise and emotionally healthy. For more information on Collaborative Divorce visit the web site of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals: www.collaborativepractice.com
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
VOTE ‘TIL THE COWS COME HOME
Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
8701 Georgia Avenue
Suite 713
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
In the 1960’s family meetings were the latest technique for including the children in the process of family decision making. I remember the experience in my own family with some fondness. Four children, two parents and the occasional “live in” school friend would participate in planning weekend activities and the family vacation with some parameters determined by the family budget. At times we were even privy to some budget discussions in an effort to get all of us to care about turning off the lights as we left the room. The promised savings were to be used for the ice cream truck when it came through the neighborhood. During one of our family meetings, the discussion was getting lively and we decided that this democratic process should be used to determine what we would have for dinner. As steak and veal were being bandied about, my mother rose from her chair with, “You can vote ‘til the cows come home, we are having meatloaf for dinner!”
Mother was a farm girl. Most contemporary families have not seen a cow except for the Turkey Hill ads and have no idea of the work involved in milking them. Mother knew when to take charge and assert her authority as the parent doing the work. Today’s families face social pressure to not just share authority but to often times abdicate to their children. Modern social pressures can be disorienting. When the sexual experimentation comes home at 10 years of age and the marijuana experiment begins at 12, the family meeting to empower the children is way out of its league. The modern family may require very different tools to stop the onslaught of contemporary life from undermining the family completely. The psychologist working with today’s family is also working with a very different configuration. The two parent household can easily be two moms or two dads. Many families are headed by single adults or singles with non-parenting live-ins.
The first part of treatment with families today requires gaining a sense of the goals and priorities of these families. To accomplish this task, I like to borrow a process from the collaborative law model whereby the parents develop a mission statement. The mission statement enables the parents and the therapist to clarify what this family is all about. Some simple questions (1) to answer are listed below:
What is the purpose of our family?
What are we all about in life?
What kind of family do we want?
What is our identity as a family?
What are the things that are truly important to us as a family?
What are our unique talents, gifts, and abilities?
What are our responsibilities in caring for one another?
How do we want to make a difference to our community?
As the adults are addressing these questions, the children may be working on their responses to the following questions:
What kind of home do you want to invite friends to?
What is embarrassing to you?
What makes you feel comfortable at home?
What makes you want to come home?
What qualities in your parent(s) are important to you? And cause you to be open to my/our influence?
How can your parent(s) improve?
The mission statement developed by the parents serves to anchor the family and leads to the development of an active and positive parenting plan. As situations arise in the family, the mission statement becomes a practical tool for decision making. With the mission statement clearly in hand, the children can see that their parent’s are thoughtful and not capricious. The mission statement also serves as an anchor that enables the parents to provide guidance and make decisions with confidence and without guilt.
In the course of designing a mission statement, the parents examine their social, moral, ethical and religious positions in order to develop succinct, measurable criteria for tracking their parenting. While this process would be valuable for any family, the ADHD family benefits in particular ways. The mission statement gives the parent who tends to be impulsive a place to check their impulse and the ADHD child benefits from the consistency and care that follows as Mom or Dad go back to the mission statement for clarity and support. The following case will illustrate the process of forming a mission statement and the value of it in the ADHD family.
Carol and Dennis came to therapy when their son Derrick was in second grade. Derrick had been diagnosed with ADHD at the beginning of first grade and was currently being treated with time release Ritalin. The parents had become comfortable with the medication regimen but also tended to give weekend and summer medication holidays. They had one other child, a girl, who was in kindergarten and did not have any of the signs of ADHD. The mother reported that she saw herself as having ADHD as well but had never been formally diagnosed or treated. As the family went through the process of assessing Derrick, the mother’s history and current behavior emerged as very similar to Derrick’s. The father did not seem to have any of these characteristics though he reported that his mother would probably fit the diagnosis. He remembered growing up in a pretty disorganized household and was hoping to spare Derrick some of his early experiences.
Derrick had a love/hate relationship with his sister. They could play together for brief periods of time before the play deteriorated into shouting matches or tears. Derrick’s school performance was generally above average though he tended to lose materials and misplace completed assignments. Derrick seemed to be in constant need of stimulation even with the medication. He moved quickly from one activity to the next without finishing anything. In the classroom, he tended to get into the space of others, often called out in class, and had designated himself as the playground monitor for directing all forms of play and settling disputes between players. Of course, much of this self proclaimed oversight was not welcomed by his peers.
The parents were overwhelmed and sought therapy to try to gain some control over the household and hoped to provide better guidance for Derrick in school.
Carol and Dennis spent about 6 therapy hours developing their mission statement. In the course of those sessions, Carol decided to educate herself on her own ADHD and began to read Understanding Women with ADHD by Kathleen Nadeau, Ph.D. and Patricia Quinn, M.D. (2) Dennis identified his negative judgmental attitude as harmful to the family. Since he lived with two people with ADHD, he decided to reframe his experience and learn more positive language for relating to his wife and son. He found The Gift of ADHD by Lara Honos-Webb, Ph.D. (3) to be a valuable resource as he practiced more reframing. Dennis’s negativity is a fairly common problem. Most of us have trouble using positive language and doing the work of looking for the positive aspect of a difficult situation.
As Carol and Dennis began to come together with a vision for their family, they were struck by the power that they had ceded to current social pressures and dynamics. Video games, television, reality shows, rap music, even clothing had more sway over their children than they did. This realization led to one of the most powerful parts of their mission statement. They wanted to be the primary influences in the lives of their children before any contemporary social or cultural entities including the school. Their commitment to that vision led them to think more clearly about how to order their home life.
Their mission statement is as follows:
Recognizing the power of modern culture to undermine family connections and the tendency of ADHD to welcome this rapid paced stimulation, we purpose to strengthen our individual and joint connection to each of our children such that they will experience us as their primary relationship and seek out our counsel frequently and consistently. We desire to encourage thoughtful, compassionate characteristics in our children and to nurture the creative, inspirational aspects of our son’s ADHD. To accomplish these goals we commit to the following:
Daily individual time with each child of at least 30 minutes face to face.
Daily meal time with no TV, Radio or media devices of any kind and we purpose to use table time to share positive character qualities in our children and learn more about how they think and view the world.
Weekly family time of at least 2 hours of face to face activity in a noncompetitive format that enhances the quality of life for one of us or others that we may choose.
A monthly focus on a creative project generated by Derrick or his sister.
Once the mission statement was clarified, Carol and Dennis saw how afraid they had been to lead their family. This realization energized them to implement their mission and actually enjoy their role as parents. They were excited about their focus on relationship but knew that they had to confront old habits and routines that had been undermining their family. They decided to try some family meetings. Carol and Dennis needed to take back their position of influence in their family and not be afraid to confront the pull of the media culture that had taken their place. They had to stop being afraid of the cultural influences that were more lively, more exciting and more rapid paced than they could ever be. Their decision to not compete was critical to regaining parental authority and being able to nurture healthy relationships with their children.
Step 1. Carol and Dennis set aside 10 minutes each morning to read their mission statement out loud to each other. This focus on their positive goal strengthened their bond with each other and energized them for the parenting challenges of the day. They used this time to plan their daily “face time” with each child.
Step 2. Carol and Dennis used break time at work to write down the positive character qualities of each child with specifics that were relevant to the past few days and imaginings that could be applied to the next few days ahead. This prepared them for meal time. They brought their notes to the table to show their children that they were seriously working on rebuilding relationship and authority through respect.
Step 3. After dinner they required Derrick and his sister to spend 10 minutes together to read the family mission statement and to plan their monthly creative project. Carol and Dennis accepted that for the first few weeks their children would probably just argue with each other. However, they trusted Derrick’s creative side and their daughter’s emerging compassion to eventually help them to design a project.
Step 4. At the beginning of each week Carol and Dennis called a family meeting to discuss possible activities for the 2 hour non-competitive family time. They were pleasantly surprised by how their children responded and they allowed wild and zany ideas to morph into more practical possibilities. Derrick’s initial trial balloon of “let’s save an endangered species” evolved into exploring the neighborhood creek and bringing home some weird water creatures to identify.
Carol and Dennis have redefined the family meeting. Instead of the 1960’s notion of empowering the children, their family meetings have become a means of restoring their authority and influence as parents. They are no longer afraid of coming home to chaos. The old tool has become a new resource to help families reorder their lives. My mother would be proud of them even though they don’t own any cows.
References
Tamara Rounds, L.C.S.W. Creating the Mission Statement, Collaborative Divorce Team Trainings, 2008.
Kathleen Nadeau, Ph.D. & Patricia Quinn, M.D., Understanding Women with AD/HD. Advantage Books, 2002.
Lara Honos-Webb, Ph.D. The Gift of ADHD. New Harbinger Publications, Inc. 2005.
Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
8701 Georgia Avenue
Suite 713
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
In the 1960’s family meetings were the latest technique for including the children in the process of family decision making. I remember the experience in my own family with some fondness. Four children, two parents and the occasional “live in” school friend would participate in planning weekend activities and the family vacation with some parameters determined by the family budget. At times we were even privy to some budget discussions in an effort to get all of us to care about turning off the lights as we left the room. The promised savings were to be used for the ice cream truck when it came through the neighborhood. During one of our family meetings, the discussion was getting lively and we decided that this democratic process should be used to determine what we would have for dinner. As steak and veal were being bandied about, my mother rose from her chair with, “You can vote ‘til the cows come home, we are having meatloaf for dinner!”
Mother was a farm girl. Most contemporary families have not seen a cow except for the Turkey Hill ads and have no idea of the work involved in milking them. Mother knew when to take charge and assert her authority as the parent doing the work. Today’s families face social pressure to not just share authority but to often times abdicate to their children. Modern social pressures can be disorienting. When the sexual experimentation comes home at 10 years of age and the marijuana experiment begins at 12, the family meeting to empower the children is way out of its league. The modern family may require very different tools to stop the onslaught of contemporary life from undermining the family completely. The psychologist working with today’s family is also working with a very different configuration. The two parent household can easily be two moms or two dads. Many families are headed by single adults or singles with non-parenting live-ins.
The first part of treatment with families today requires gaining a sense of the goals and priorities of these families. To accomplish this task, I like to borrow a process from the collaborative law model whereby the parents develop a mission statement. The mission statement enables the parents and the therapist to clarify what this family is all about. Some simple questions (1) to answer are listed below:
What is the purpose of our family?
What are we all about in life?
What kind of family do we want?
What is our identity as a family?
What are the things that are truly important to us as a family?
What are our unique talents, gifts, and abilities?
What are our responsibilities in caring for one another?
How do we want to make a difference to our community?
As the adults are addressing these questions, the children may be working on their responses to the following questions:
What kind of home do you want to invite friends to?
What is embarrassing to you?
What makes you feel comfortable at home?
What makes you want to come home?
What qualities in your parent(s) are important to you? And cause you to be open to my/our influence?
How can your parent(s) improve?
The mission statement developed by the parents serves to anchor the family and leads to the development of an active and positive parenting plan. As situations arise in the family, the mission statement becomes a practical tool for decision making. With the mission statement clearly in hand, the children can see that their parent’s are thoughtful and not capricious. The mission statement also serves as an anchor that enables the parents to provide guidance and make decisions with confidence and without guilt.
In the course of designing a mission statement, the parents examine their social, moral, ethical and religious positions in order to develop succinct, measurable criteria for tracking their parenting. While this process would be valuable for any family, the ADHD family benefits in particular ways. The mission statement gives the parent who tends to be impulsive a place to check their impulse and the ADHD child benefits from the consistency and care that follows as Mom or Dad go back to the mission statement for clarity and support. The following case will illustrate the process of forming a mission statement and the value of it in the ADHD family.
Carol and Dennis came to therapy when their son Derrick was in second grade. Derrick had been diagnosed with ADHD at the beginning of first grade and was currently being treated with time release Ritalin. The parents had become comfortable with the medication regimen but also tended to give weekend and summer medication holidays. They had one other child, a girl, who was in kindergarten and did not have any of the signs of ADHD. The mother reported that she saw herself as having ADHD as well but had never been formally diagnosed or treated. As the family went through the process of assessing Derrick, the mother’s history and current behavior emerged as very similar to Derrick’s. The father did not seem to have any of these characteristics though he reported that his mother would probably fit the diagnosis. He remembered growing up in a pretty disorganized household and was hoping to spare Derrick some of his early experiences.
Derrick had a love/hate relationship with his sister. They could play together for brief periods of time before the play deteriorated into shouting matches or tears. Derrick’s school performance was generally above average though he tended to lose materials and misplace completed assignments. Derrick seemed to be in constant need of stimulation even with the medication. He moved quickly from one activity to the next without finishing anything. In the classroom, he tended to get into the space of others, often called out in class, and had designated himself as the playground monitor for directing all forms of play and settling disputes between players. Of course, much of this self proclaimed oversight was not welcomed by his peers.
The parents were overwhelmed and sought therapy to try to gain some control over the household and hoped to provide better guidance for Derrick in school.
Carol and Dennis spent about 6 therapy hours developing their mission statement. In the course of those sessions, Carol decided to educate herself on her own ADHD and began to read Understanding Women with ADHD by Kathleen Nadeau, Ph.D. and Patricia Quinn, M.D. (2) Dennis identified his negative judgmental attitude as harmful to the family. Since he lived with two people with ADHD, he decided to reframe his experience and learn more positive language for relating to his wife and son. He found The Gift of ADHD by Lara Honos-Webb, Ph.D. (3) to be a valuable resource as he practiced more reframing. Dennis’s negativity is a fairly common problem. Most of us have trouble using positive language and doing the work of looking for the positive aspect of a difficult situation.
As Carol and Dennis began to come together with a vision for their family, they were struck by the power that they had ceded to current social pressures and dynamics. Video games, television, reality shows, rap music, even clothing had more sway over their children than they did. This realization led to one of the most powerful parts of their mission statement. They wanted to be the primary influences in the lives of their children before any contemporary social or cultural entities including the school. Their commitment to that vision led them to think more clearly about how to order their home life.
Their mission statement is as follows:
Recognizing the power of modern culture to undermine family connections and the tendency of ADHD to welcome this rapid paced stimulation, we purpose to strengthen our individual and joint connection to each of our children such that they will experience us as their primary relationship and seek out our counsel frequently and consistently. We desire to encourage thoughtful, compassionate characteristics in our children and to nurture the creative, inspirational aspects of our son’s ADHD. To accomplish these goals we commit to the following:
Daily individual time with each child of at least 30 minutes face to face.
Daily meal time with no TV, Radio or media devices of any kind and we purpose to use table time to share positive character qualities in our children and learn more about how they think and view the world.
Weekly family time of at least 2 hours of face to face activity in a noncompetitive format that enhances the quality of life for one of us or others that we may choose.
A monthly focus on a creative project generated by Derrick or his sister.
Once the mission statement was clarified, Carol and Dennis saw how afraid they had been to lead their family. This realization energized them to implement their mission and actually enjoy their role as parents. They were excited about their focus on relationship but knew that they had to confront old habits and routines that had been undermining their family. They decided to try some family meetings. Carol and Dennis needed to take back their position of influence in their family and not be afraid to confront the pull of the media culture that had taken their place. They had to stop being afraid of the cultural influences that were more lively, more exciting and more rapid paced than they could ever be. Their decision to not compete was critical to regaining parental authority and being able to nurture healthy relationships with their children.
Step 1. Carol and Dennis set aside 10 minutes each morning to read their mission statement out loud to each other. This focus on their positive goal strengthened their bond with each other and energized them for the parenting challenges of the day. They used this time to plan their daily “face time” with each child.
Step 2. Carol and Dennis used break time at work to write down the positive character qualities of each child with specifics that were relevant to the past few days and imaginings that could be applied to the next few days ahead. This prepared them for meal time. They brought their notes to the table to show their children that they were seriously working on rebuilding relationship and authority through respect.
Step 3. After dinner they required Derrick and his sister to spend 10 minutes together to read the family mission statement and to plan their monthly creative project. Carol and Dennis accepted that for the first few weeks their children would probably just argue with each other. However, they trusted Derrick’s creative side and their daughter’s emerging compassion to eventually help them to design a project.
Step 4. At the beginning of each week Carol and Dennis called a family meeting to discuss possible activities for the 2 hour non-competitive family time. They were pleasantly surprised by how their children responded and they allowed wild and zany ideas to morph into more practical possibilities. Derrick’s initial trial balloon of “let’s save an endangered species” evolved into exploring the neighborhood creek and bringing home some weird water creatures to identify.
Carol and Dennis have redefined the family meeting. Instead of the 1960’s notion of empowering the children, their family meetings have become a means of restoring their authority and influence as parents. They are no longer afraid of coming home to chaos. The old tool has become a new resource to help families reorder their lives. My mother would be proud of them even though they don’t own any cows.
References
Tamara Rounds, L.C.S.W. Creating the Mission Statement, Collaborative Divorce Team Trainings, 2008.
Kathleen Nadeau, Ph.D. & Patricia Quinn, M.D., Understanding Women with AD/HD. Advantage Books, 2002.
Lara Honos-Webb, Ph.D. The Gift of ADHD. New Harbinger Publications, Inc. 2005.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Educating the Child about his Brain - Understanding is the first step in taking charge
By Gloria Kay Vanderhorst, Ph.D.
Neurocognitive Psychotherapy is a brain-based treatment approach that is a unique blend of cognitive-behavioral therapy and cognitive rehabilitation. This approach is a team approach based in the most recent research on brain functioning and ADHD. This article is the first in a series that will illustrate how neurocognitive psychotherapy is applied in treating children with ADHD.
The key to building a treatment plan is to understand how the brain works in general and to discover how the brain of a particular child is functioning specifically. This brain based approach starts with a neuropsychological evaluation that enables us to measure various aspects of executive function, memory function, and processing abilities. This evaluation may also examine emotional strengths and resources that the child has been using to cope with the stress of learning and living.
Once a diagnosis of ADHD has been made, educating the child about the specific strengths and weaknesses in their brain is the next step. I will use a variety of techniques to help the child see and understand how his or her brain is functioning. Pictures of brains from web sites showing fMRIs have been very helpful. With the fMRI, we can see different areas of the brain light up as one thinks and problem solves. You may want to log on to www.amenclinic.com to take your own tour of different brain images. We may also use brain models, or build our own using found objects in the office. Sometimes we will make drawings or abstract art that represents the various functions of the brain and how they interact with each other.
As a child comes to understand how his own brain is working, he is encouraged to present his understanding in a family session as a means of educating others in the family. In this way, the child is given power over the ADHD. The stigma that has been associated with inattentive or hyperactive behavior is replaced by knowledge that empowers the child to take more control over his life. The earlier this empowering process can begin, the more opportunity the child has to build compensating strategies, make changes in his environment and develop supportive relationships. Educating the child about his own brain, how it works, and how he can help make it work best is a central part of neurocognitive psychotherapy - de-stigmatizing the brain patterns we refer to as ADHD and giving the child a sense of understanding and control.
Neurocognitive Psychotherapy is a brain-based treatment approach that is a unique blend of cognitive-behavioral therapy and cognitive rehabilitation. This approach is a team approach based in the most recent research on brain functioning and ADHD. This article is the first in a series that will illustrate how neurocognitive psychotherapy is applied in treating children with ADHD.
The key to building a treatment plan is to understand how the brain works in general and to discover how the brain of a particular child is functioning specifically. This brain based approach starts with a neuropsychological evaluation that enables us to measure various aspects of executive function, memory function, and processing abilities. This evaluation may also examine emotional strengths and resources that the child has been using to cope with the stress of learning and living.
Once a diagnosis of ADHD has been made, educating the child about the specific strengths and weaknesses in their brain is the next step. I will use a variety of techniques to help the child see and understand how his or her brain is functioning. Pictures of brains from web sites showing fMRIs have been very helpful. With the fMRI, we can see different areas of the brain light up as one thinks and problem solves. You may want to log on to www.amenclinic.com to take your own tour of different brain images. We may also use brain models, or build our own using found objects in the office. Sometimes we will make drawings or abstract art that represents the various functions of the brain and how they interact with each other.
As a child comes to understand how his own brain is working, he is encouraged to present his understanding in a family session as a means of educating others in the family. In this way, the child is given power over the ADHD. The stigma that has been associated with inattentive or hyperactive behavior is replaced by knowledge that empowers the child to take more control over his life. The earlier this empowering process can begin, the more opportunity the child has to build compensating strategies, make changes in his environment and develop supportive relationships. Educating the child about his own brain, how it works, and how he can help make it work best is a central part of neurocognitive psychotherapy - de-stigmatizing the brain patterns we refer to as ADHD and giving the child a sense of understanding and control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
