Even the title of this Act is cumbersome and ill-conceived! I am trying to work out where I stand on this piece of legislation. I have no issues whatsoever with the sentiments behind this Act, on the contrary, looked at from one perspective it does not go far enough and frankly, even within its own terms it is not carefully thought through and will give rise to unnecessary litigation. This piece of legislation is well motivated and that makes it difficult to take a stand against it. I am essentially a liberal myself and, therefore, one of those well motivated people or just another namby pamby if you are at the other end of the spectrum. Essentially, though, I think that this legislation is misguided. Why should gay couples have separate legislation and separate arrangements? Why not treat them the same as all other couples? It is my view that same sex couples should be permitted to marry if they wish. It is ludicrous to suggest that society would be damaged by this, what on earth could be damaging about committed love relationships whatever their origin? And after careful consideration, I think opposite sex co-habiting unmarried couples should only start to have financial responsibilities to each other when they have children. I know there are arguments about people being together for 30 years and all of that but people have to be allowed some areas of personal freedom and responsibility. It is going to come as a shock to quite a few people when they discover that there are potential legal implications of a serious nature attaching to their cohabiting relationships and especially that potential obligations kick in quite quickly in the scheme of things. I am fairly sure that the vast majority of opposite sex co-habiting couples likely to be affected by this legislation have little or no notion of its impact. Correspondingly, I would imagine most gay couples are well schooled in the provisions of the act in so far as it affects them through their various organisations and because to some extent many gay people have been campaigning around these issues for many years now. I know of no campaign to regularise the affairs of unmarried cohabiting couples. It is unlikely that co-habiting couples being a disparate group will receive organisational information. The fact that the legislation allows for an “opt out” clause is probably going to escape the attention of many until it is too late.
I wrote previously about this piece of legislation when it was still a bill and that article is still accessible on my older posts. I made some criticism of provisions in the bill at that stage or lack of them. In particular, I criticised the fact that children residing with same sex couples for whatever reason were not protected by the legislation. This is a glaring omission and one which, in my opinion, is calculated to give rise to great hardship for those who are most vulnerable in our communities.
It was argued during the passage of this bill into legislation that the two parts of this act, namely, that part dealing with same sex relationships and that part dealing with opposite sex relationships, should be separated and treated under separate pieces of legislation. I agree with that submission. Regrettably, it was not picked up. Because gay and lesbian partnerships and opposite sex co-habiting couples were dealt with in the same piece of legislation, no proper thought or debate was given to the separate problems that each circumstance essentially presents. After all, opposite sex couples can marry if they wish and with divorce available, there is little reason of a compelling nature as to why they should do so if they are so minded. If they are not so minded, why are we forcing obligations on them, that the nature of their relationship suggests they do not want. Why don’t we have an “opt in” clause rather than an “opt out” clause for cohabiting opposite sex couples who want to have rights against each other in certain circumstances. Gay and lesbian couples are in a different situation as they cannot marry under current regulations and accordingly, the lack of rights accruing in their particular relationships can give rise to injustices of a severe nature.
From a gay and lesbian perspective, the Act creates a new legal relationship of civil partnership for same sex couples who choose to register their relationship. That relationship then ends only on the death of a partner or dissolution by a court of the partnership. Once the relationship is created, the Act sets out various provisions that may be availed of by the couple should the need arise. They are discussed in more detail in my previous article and they encompass property, financial provisions and other rights and entitlements consequent on civil partnership to include provision for maintenance, protection of shared homes, inheritance entitlements and pension provisions. Similarly to separation and divorce, the orders that may be made will depend on the circumstances of each particular case and what constitutes “proper provision in all the circumstances of that case. As in divorce legislation, the Act precludes “clean break” settlements. In my view, that is a mistake and I believe that there should be provision for clean break settlements just as I believe that facility should be available in marital breakdown which it currently is not. As well as being silent on the issue of children residing with and dependent on same sex couples, the Act is also silent on the tax and social welfare treatment of such couples.
For cohabiting opposite sex couples, as well as cohabiting same sex couples, who are unmarried or unregistered, the Act will impose certain rights and obligations upon those individuals unless the couple specifically choose to opt out of these protections. Choosing to “opt out” may in the first instance presuppose that such couples are aware of these issues and secondly, it may involve the expense of consulting with a solicitor in order to understand what exactly you are “opting out “of and how you go about doing just that. I personally think “opting in” is a much fairer way of doing things as people who are concerned about these matters tend to find out their situation and will willingly incur the expense to be protected. The provisions enabling the court to make certain redress, and/or provide a safety net for cohabiting couples, in order to protect an economically dependent or vulnerable party are not as extensive as the reliefs currently available to spouses and now to civil partners. They, nonetheless, mark a significant change in the current legal position. The fact that these reliefs are discretionary ie the Judge will decide what is appropriate rather than automatic, may afford some consolation though not much I should think. Those cohabitants who have resided together for 5 years come within the provisions of the Act and two years if they have children. The Act also defines what constitutes cohabitation for the purpose of the Act and recognizes officially, Cohabitant Agreements. This means that co-habiting couples can regulate their own joint financial affairs and they can specifically opt out of the redress scheme if they so wish. Provided both cohabitants have the benefit of independent legal advice then the court will consider such Agreements to be valid and enforceable.
I have come across references in many blogs and articles that many of these provisions enabling people to “opt out” and so forth are “ unromantic”. I have already expressed my reservations about the legislation and my reason but I have little sympathy with the “romance” perspective. There is not much romance either in the divorce court. Just as it is important for couples getting married to try and get a handle on each other’s attitude to children, money, property, family, friends, loyalty, faithfulness and work to name but a few things, so too must all other couples have some understanding of each other or frequently pay a very high price. Such conversations can be used to deepen rather than weaken the relationship if they are properly handled. Collaboration offers such an opportunity as it enables delicate conversations to take place by structuring the choreography of the conversation, ensuring that the conversation takes place face to face even though each party is personally represented at the table and that it is handled by trained collaborative lawyers and mediators.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Collaborate? Or Not Collaborate ...
The collaborative model, particularly the full interdisciplinary model, is such a fantastic way for families to handle themselves in separation or divorce that it amazes me that disputing couples in Ireland are not breaking down the doors of collaborative professionals to find out more about this. There are many reasons for this, I suspect, among them, the large number of people who think it is too good to be true, it flies in the face of human nature, people want the row and all that sort of rubbish. Of course, there will always be some who want the row, no doubt about that, but the vast majority of people who come in the door of my office will identify to me in that all important preliminary consultation that they are not out for blood and that they want to be fair and civilised. However, it seems to me that a much more formidable hurdle for collaboration to overcome in Ireland is the recent nature of our divorce jurisdiction and indeed, the relatively recent nature of our separation jurisdiction. People forget that in Ireland we have only had legislation allowing for judicial separation since 1987 and divorce since 1997. Compared with Britain, Europe and the States that is very new indeed. The other relevant factor, I think, is that our family courts are held “In camera” ie, in private which seems like a blessing, and is in some ways, but it does mean that people for the most part do not know what goes on in courts unlike other countries where there is routine press reporting. The “in camera” rule has the unintended effect of preventing the community becoming knowledgeable about what happens in family court and the recent nature of our divorce jurisdiction has not yet percolated into a large anecdotal body of knowledge within families of just how bad things can get. Maybe as the recession bites deeper people will start to look at the alternatives.They could do an awful lot worse than look at the alternatives of collaboration and mediation.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Sudden loss of Gerry Ryan..
For many of us Gerry Ryan was part of our daily lives. His death more than anything else emphasises the fragility of our grasp on life. Over the past couple of weeks there has been saturation coverage of this sad, but hardly unusual event, to a somewhat over the top degree. I am conscious of not wishing to add to that. However, I do wish to thank Gerry Ryan and his family for being the living embodiment of all that I have spoken about in my articles and on my blog.
When Gerry and his wife of many years, Morah separated they did so with a great deal of dignity which was striking at the time. Neither of them became the subject of tabloid gossip. They made a quiet announcement and no one was any the wiser as to the cause or otherwise of their split, just that it had happened. Of course, we were all bursting with curiousity, I was no exception,as is always the case with celebrities, but Gerry and Morah managed to keep the whole sad business private and within the domain of their own family and perhaps close confidantes. That is some feat in a country as small as Ireland. Gerry had spent all those years talking about “Mrs Ryan” on the airwaves so that we all felt we knew her rather more intimately than I gather she liked or wanted though she seemed good humoured about it. It was quite clear that he loved her and was devoted to his children. Bearing that in mind, the separation must have hit his family hard but they kept their counsel and their dignity.
After he left the family, Gerry started a new relationship. He appears with Morah to have managed this with great delicacy to a point where after his death, his children visited with his girlfriend, Melanie, for lunch and she was subsequently welcomed into the family home for his wake. Everyone behaved with impeccable decency and it is to their great credit. Many were also struck by Morah’s mention of Melanie in her tribute to Gerry at his funeral.
It is precisely this dignity and civility that we are striving for in the collaboration process. Everyone wants their children to come through the process of separation and divorce without any long term damage. We know that heightened conflict has disastrous effects on the long term well being of children. We also know that heightened conflict will make future co-operative parenting nearly impossible and that like it or not the children will be caught in the middle. Therefore, if we want our children to come through the separation undamaged we have to choose a process that has some hope of delivering that result. The collaborative process emphasises the importance of communication between the couple going forward. Uniquely the process utilises the services of communication specialists or collaborative coaches who have a two- fold role. They help to re-establish good communication to enable co-parenting now and going forward and they help to balance the emotions so that each party is empowered sufficiently to deal with the decisions, financial and otherwise that need to be made in order to move forward. When parents are wrapped up in their own emotions, as they will quite naturally be, during the painful process of separation, the children’s emotional needs can often be overlooked. Quite often parents are not even aware that this is happening. In the collaborative process we employ the services of a child specialist who is a neutral, that is not aligned to any particular parent, and whose function it is to deliver the voice of the children into the process and to assist the parents by providing appropriate developmental education. The child specialist can also help the parents and the collaborative coaches when requested to formulate a parenting plan. The process is all about moving forward and no one is there to apportion blame or judgement.
I have been blathering on about this way of working and what it has to offer for some time however, many people have told me that it is too difficult or simply pie in the sky. Those who engage with this way of working often find it tough going. That is not to say that going to court is any easier, it is not but when you “do the right thing” you sometimes have a feeling of entitlement. Nothing works like a real life example. Now I can point to Gerry and Morah and say “See, it is not impossible. It may be difficult but it is not impossible.” Thank you Ryan family most sincerely on behalf of the collaborative process in Ireland!*
• Nothing in the above should be taken to mean that I believe that Gerry and Morah separated collaboratively. I don’t know how Gerry and Morah separated nor is that my point.
When Gerry and his wife of many years, Morah separated they did so with a great deal of dignity which was striking at the time. Neither of them became the subject of tabloid gossip. They made a quiet announcement and no one was any the wiser as to the cause or otherwise of their split, just that it had happened. Of course, we were all bursting with curiousity, I was no exception,as is always the case with celebrities, but Gerry and Morah managed to keep the whole sad business private and within the domain of their own family and perhaps close confidantes. That is some feat in a country as small as Ireland. Gerry had spent all those years talking about “Mrs Ryan” on the airwaves so that we all felt we knew her rather more intimately than I gather she liked or wanted though she seemed good humoured about it. It was quite clear that he loved her and was devoted to his children. Bearing that in mind, the separation must have hit his family hard but they kept their counsel and their dignity.
After he left the family, Gerry started a new relationship. He appears with Morah to have managed this with great delicacy to a point where after his death, his children visited with his girlfriend, Melanie, for lunch and she was subsequently welcomed into the family home for his wake. Everyone behaved with impeccable decency and it is to their great credit. Many were also struck by Morah’s mention of Melanie in her tribute to Gerry at his funeral.
It is precisely this dignity and civility that we are striving for in the collaboration process. Everyone wants their children to come through the process of separation and divorce without any long term damage. We know that heightened conflict has disastrous effects on the long term well being of children. We also know that heightened conflict will make future co-operative parenting nearly impossible and that like it or not the children will be caught in the middle. Therefore, if we want our children to come through the separation undamaged we have to choose a process that has some hope of delivering that result. The collaborative process emphasises the importance of communication between the couple going forward. Uniquely the process utilises the services of communication specialists or collaborative coaches who have a two- fold role. They help to re-establish good communication to enable co-parenting now and going forward and they help to balance the emotions so that each party is empowered sufficiently to deal with the decisions, financial and otherwise that need to be made in order to move forward. When parents are wrapped up in their own emotions, as they will quite naturally be, during the painful process of separation, the children’s emotional needs can often be overlooked. Quite often parents are not even aware that this is happening. In the collaborative process we employ the services of a child specialist who is a neutral, that is not aligned to any particular parent, and whose function it is to deliver the voice of the children into the process and to assist the parents by providing appropriate developmental education. The child specialist can also help the parents and the collaborative coaches when requested to formulate a parenting plan. The process is all about moving forward and no one is there to apportion blame or judgement.
I have been blathering on about this way of working and what it has to offer for some time however, many people have told me that it is too difficult or simply pie in the sky. Those who engage with this way of working often find it tough going. That is not to say that going to court is any easier, it is not but when you “do the right thing” you sometimes have a feeling of entitlement. Nothing works like a real life example. Now I can point to Gerry and Morah and say “See, it is not impossible. It may be difficult but it is not impossible.” Thank you Ryan family most sincerely on behalf of the collaborative process in Ireland!*
• Nothing in the above should be taken to mean that I believe that Gerry and Morah separated collaboratively. I don’t know how Gerry and Morah separated nor is that my point.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The place of grandparents in family breakups.
When parents are locked in dispute and/or separating the support of extended family can provide enormous comfort to the children and support for the parents. Grandparents, in particular, can be a great resource in this situation especially for children who are close to them. Children caught in parental conflict can be extremely disturbed by the withdrawal of their parents from them. This can happen simply because the parents are locked in their own misery and cannot see beyond it. From the child’s point of view this can sometimes mean that not only do they lose a parent to some extent when that parent moves out but the other parent may be so preoccupied in their own emotional trauma that they are virtually lost to the child as well. Often the parents themselves have no conscious awareness of this and can be overcome with guilt in later years when they realise that is what happened. Parents who are aware that this is a possibility can put in place certain safeguards such as the support and help of valued extended family to bring the children safely through this period.
For grandparents to be truly effective in such circumstances, it is important that they do not lock themselves into the conflict on one side or the other. This is difficult but not impossible. The reality is that the less invested they are in the marital or relationship breakdown the more likely it is that their role as grandparents will continue uninterrupted. Support does not have to involve taking sides. It is amazing the number of people, particularly women, who comment to me that they never so much as received a call from the partner’s parents to ask how they were doing or to enquire about taking out the children or otherwise. The hurt that this causes , especially where there has been a long relationship, is immense. A simple phone call of enquiry and support does not amount to betrayal of the other party and is a long term investment in the welfare of grandchildren.
Many grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren as a result of separation and divorce. This does not need to happen. Grandparents have the right to go to court and seek contact with their grandchildren if they are not being allowed to see them. However, going to court to assert their rights as grandparents is an answer but not necessarily the best one. Sometimes, it may be the only option but mostly, that is not the case. If you have to go to court relations are most likely broken down with the custodial parent and any future relationships are going to be too strained for any except the most determined grandparents to sustain. Fights about children can be the most bitter and poignant all at the same time and tear everyone apart. Far better if you are a family member or grandparent to think carefully before getting stuck into the row and that is so whether you are the grandparent of the custodial parent or the non-custodial parent. Parents reconcile and if you have gone in for one side over the other, guess who will wind up losing? Sometimes, children vote with their feet and change where they live, sometimes courts make different orders than the ones originally made, sometimes people move away or decide to return to work or study and either share or change custody. All or any of the above could wrong foot you. Apart from those realities though there is the reality that all relationships if they are to be of any use are founded on trust and once lost it is very hard to regain. If you take a side you will lose the trust of the other parent. Realising how important trust is you should encourage everyone to try and resolve their issues with dignity and fairness and lead by example. Remember, the children won’t know why you have stopped calling or visiting or remembering their special occasions, they will just feel the gap in their lives and the attendant hurt. Think what you can do to help, focus on how you can be of use and concentrate on the most vulnerable people in a family breakup, the children. Doing this will keep you on the right side of everyone and don’t leave it too long to offer to help!
For grandparents to be truly effective in such circumstances, it is important that they do not lock themselves into the conflict on one side or the other. This is difficult but not impossible. The reality is that the less invested they are in the marital or relationship breakdown the more likely it is that their role as grandparents will continue uninterrupted. Support does not have to involve taking sides. It is amazing the number of people, particularly women, who comment to me that they never so much as received a call from the partner’s parents to ask how they were doing or to enquire about taking out the children or otherwise. The hurt that this causes , especially where there has been a long relationship, is immense. A simple phone call of enquiry and support does not amount to betrayal of the other party and is a long term investment in the welfare of grandchildren.
Many grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren as a result of separation and divorce. This does not need to happen. Grandparents have the right to go to court and seek contact with their grandchildren if they are not being allowed to see them. However, going to court to assert their rights as grandparents is an answer but not necessarily the best one. Sometimes, it may be the only option but mostly, that is not the case. If you have to go to court relations are most likely broken down with the custodial parent and any future relationships are going to be too strained for any except the most determined grandparents to sustain. Fights about children can be the most bitter and poignant all at the same time and tear everyone apart. Far better if you are a family member or grandparent to think carefully before getting stuck into the row and that is so whether you are the grandparent of the custodial parent or the non-custodial parent. Parents reconcile and if you have gone in for one side over the other, guess who will wind up losing? Sometimes, children vote with their feet and change where they live, sometimes courts make different orders than the ones originally made, sometimes people move away or decide to return to work or study and either share or change custody. All or any of the above could wrong foot you. Apart from those realities though there is the reality that all relationships if they are to be of any use are founded on trust and once lost it is very hard to regain. If you take a side you will lose the trust of the other parent. Realising how important trust is you should encourage everyone to try and resolve their issues with dignity and fairness and lead by example. Remember, the children won’t know why you have stopped calling or visiting or remembering their special occasions, they will just feel the gap in their lives and the attendant hurt. Think what you can do to help, focus on how you can be of use and concentrate on the most vulnerable people in a family breakup, the children. Doing this will keep you on the right side of everyone and don’t leave it too long to offer to help!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Horses for Courses.
Who are the people in our communities engaged with matrimonial breakdown? In general it is the therapist/counsellor and the lawyer. In Ireland, the lawyer is still the first port of call for the person in trouble and in Ireland, while we are suspicious of lawyers as a breed just as in other countries, we tend to trust our own lawyer. In Ireland, we are also wary of the whole therapy thing seeing it as an import from America and only for people who are a little mad which we certainly are not.
Lawyers and Therapists are, therefore, the people in our communities who have training and experience in family breakdown and who are the custodians of a great deal of knowledge in this area. Is it not, therefore, blindingly obvious that the public would be better served at this crisis point if both professions were to combine their knowledge and experience? Would that be possible and if it was how would it work? Would these two groups be able to talk to one another? With the goal in mind of combining our knowledge and experience lawyers and a variety of mental health professionals (psychologists, therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, and mediators) attended a training led by Dr. Susan Gamache from Vancouver, Canada in Dublin recently. One of our first tasks was to overcome what each group thought about the other because such assumptions tend to blind us to possibilities.
The Therapists thought that the lawyers were task driven, aggressive, obsessive, money orientated and arrogant and the lawyers thought that the therapists were airy fairy, tree hugging, vegetarian yogis. The purpose of the three day training was to dismantle these assumptions and to provide both groups with a new language that would enable them to communicate with one another. That first exercise – what we each thought about the other – caused much laughter and broke down some barriers. Over the remaining days, we worked together so that we could supply the professional members of the collaborative team and having done so that we had a common language and goals enabling us to gel together as a team.
The collaborative process is extremely flexible. On one end of the scale, it allows lawyers and clients to work together to find solutions outside of the court system. In the middle of the scale, it allows for coaches (mental health professionals are called coaches in collaboration) to be brought into the process as needs be and the clients will work with those coaches to assist their communication and to manage emotions enabling them to work more effectively with the lawyers. Similarly in this model, financial specialists, or child specialists can be referred to when necessary. On the further end of the scale, all professionals work together at the same time to deliver resolutions to a family in crisis. It was to enable us to work in the middle to the end of the scale that we attended the training.
Different clients will have different needs and all three models are viable ways of working. The full team way of working is, however, very exciting in its possibilities for families. First of all, it enables us to work with families whose communication dynamic is very fractured or where there are some serious difficulties. Such family situations would be very difficult to manage with just lawyers and clients as lawyers are not therapists and will find it extremely difficult to manage highly charged emotions. They may unwittingly inflame them rather than dampen. Where there is a large amount of suspicion and positioning between the couple bringing everyone into the room and doing all the work together enables everyone to see what is happening at the same time and reduces the possibilities of misunderstandings. When a range of people work together sharing a common language, (the language of collaboration) and common goals, a synergy comes into play which inspires a kind of creativity that is not available in any other way of working, in short the team is greater than the sum of its parts. Finall, when a team works together from their diverse professional backgrounds they demonstrate communication at its most effective and this is enormously empowering for the couple in transition.
The team model allows lawyers to offer collaboration to a broader range of clients than we might otherwise feel competent to do. And even though having a full team complement is going to prove more expensive than say lawyers and clients working together, it is still more cost effective than going to court and that includes financial as well as emotional costs.
Lawyers and Therapists are, therefore, the people in our communities who have training and experience in family breakdown and who are the custodians of a great deal of knowledge in this area. Is it not, therefore, blindingly obvious that the public would be better served at this crisis point if both professions were to combine their knowledge and experience? Would that be possible and if it was how would it work? Would these two groups be able to talk to one another? With the goal in mind of combining our knowledge and experience lawyers and a variety of mental health professionals (psychologists, therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, and mediators) attended a training led by Dr. Susan Gamache from Vancouver, Canada in Dublin recently. One of our first tasks was to overcome what each group thought about the other because such assumptions tend to blind us to possibilities.
The Therapists thought that the lawyers were task driven, aggressive, obsessive, money orientated and arrogant and the lawyers thought that the therapists were airy fairy, tree hugging, vegetarian yogis. The purpose of the three day training was to dismantle these assumptions and to provide both groups with a new language that would enable them to communicate with one another. That first exercise – what we each thought about the other – caused much laughter and broke down some barriers. Over the remaining days, we worked together so that we could supply the professional members of the collaborative team and having done so that we had a common language and goals enabling us to gel together as a team.
The collaborative process is extremely flexible. On one end of the scale, it allows lawyers and clients to work together to find solutions outside of the court system. In the middle of the scale, it allows for coaches (mental health professionals are called coaches in collaboration) to be brought into the process as needs be and the clients will work with those coaches to assist their communication and to manage emotions enabling them to work more effectively with the lawyers. Similarly in this model, financial specialists, or child specialists can be referred to when necessary. On the further end of the scale, all professionals work together at the same time to deliver resolutions to a family in crisis. It was to enable us to work in the middle to the end of the scale that we attended the training.
Different clients will have different needs and all three models are viable ways of working. The full team way of working is, however, very exciting in its possibilities for families. First of all, it enables us to work with families whose communication dynamic is very fractured or where there are some serious difficulties. Such family situations would be very difficult to manage with just lawyers and clients as lawyers are not therapists and will find it extremely difficult to manage highly charged emotions. They may unwittingly inflame them rather than dampen. Where there is a large amount of suspicion and positioning between the couple bringing everyone into the room and doing all the work together enables everyone to see what is happening at the same time and reduces the possibilities of misunderstandings. When a range of people work together sharing a common language, (the language of collaboration) and common goals, a synergy comes into play which inspires a kind of creativity that is not available in any other way of working, in short the team is greater than the sum of its parts. Finall, when a team works together from their diverse professional backgrounds they demonstrate communication at its most effective and this is enormously empowering for the couple in transition.
The team model allows lawyers to offer collaboration to a broader range of clients than we might otherwise feel competent to do. And even though having a full team complement is going to prove more expensive than say lawyers and clients working together, it is still more cost effective than going to court and that includes financial as well as emotional costs.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Taking the War Out of Our Words by Sharon Strand Ellison: A Review.
We say that we won’t allow words to hurt us and yet they hurt us all the time. Sharon Strand Ellison in her book Taking the War out of our Words says “I was appalled by the amount of needless conflict and pain in people’s lives”. This was the motivation for her to write this book. In doing so she offers us a new way for people to talk to one another and she calls that Powerful Non-Defensive Communication (PNDC). The first one third of the book is devoted to an exploration of how we actually speak to one another. Her thesis is that we communicate on what she calls a War Model. She maintains that most if not all of our communication is on this footing and this is the explanation for all the conflict we have in our lives.
Sharon believes that we operate from a position of Defensiveness because we believe that we need to protect ourselves all the time even from our friends and family. Our defensiveness is our way of protecting ourselves. We believe that to be open is to show vulnerability and to show vulnerability is to be weak. Sharon identifies this as our War Model of Communication. She maintains that this mode of communication is virtually global. All our communication with few exceptions is modelled on War ie attack, defend, retreat, protect, counter attack and so forth. She proposes a new model namely PNDC. In proposing this she says that she believes that we have the capacity for phenomenal change as beings and in that regard she comments on our Technological Advancements. The question she then poses is do we have the wisdom to contain the destructive potential of our technology? She believes as the says in her introduction that learning to communicate non-defensively is our next evolutionary step, an essential key to our survival.
Her book is peppered with anecdotes and powerful examples of how we might change conversations that we frequently have. She identifies 3 forms of communication
1. Questions
2. Statements
3. Predictions.
Sharon says that our questions are very seldom asked from a position of genuine curiosity or openness. We usually ask questions to catch people out or as covert statements, to make a point indirectly or to attack? Seldom do we actually ask for the joy of learning the answer. We lawyers can identify with this given our training,which is to never ask a question to which we don’t know the answer. She suggests that we try asking questions about the topic under discussion, genuine open questions of enquiry, so that we can get the story straight. Questions should be innocent open and neutral and inviting. A non defensive question helps people to crystallize what they think, feel and believe. A genuine question is disarming. Enquiry or content questions which are questions asked to get the story straight, would usually start with Who What When, Where, How and Why. However, the questions need to be framed in a particular way to make them non defensive. We also need to enquire a particular tone and to ensure that our body language does not send a contrary message to our professed intention. Sharon suggests what she calls a musing tone and dropping your voice down slightly at the end rather than raising it which can sound querulous. Looking at the way of framing questions , if we ask “Why didn’t you do that”? it is likely to sound accusatory as opposed to “Why did you decide not to do that “? Of course the tone has to managed in asking this question too. Because tone and body language is very hard to convey in a book, I would recommend that those of you interested in this, should listen to the book in CD form as well as having the hard copy which is a very useful reference book for your library. To make a question sound clear, gentle and non-judgemental she suggests that we might use “what” instead of “why” depending on the circumstances and so “What made you decide not to do that”? Of course speaking like this and thinking about how you are going to ask things, adopting a particular tone and so forth takes enormous practice. There is a great deal of information and analysis of different types of questions and how to ask the questions to elicit genuine honest information and so respond accordingly. At the end of each section there are handy summaries which are very useful as references and also help to imprint the ideas and information into your mind.
The second broad category of questions are process questions ie looking behind the scenes. These focus on a person’s involuntary reactions which they may be having quite apart from the content of what they are saying eg tone of voice and body language. For example, Why did you grimace when you said “Ok”? Secondly there are questions about attitude. For example “Do you believe you know how to do this better than I do? There are also questions about motivation and intention ie what caused a person to react in a certain way or what the person is seeking to accomplish in the interaction.
As well as question, there are statements. Statements should be open and direct. A fully open statement is vulnerable and unguarded and has no hidden facets. Directness means that we state needs goals and desires directly. Statements should also be subjective. Expressing ourselves through non defensive statements is a very different way of living from concealing information as if we were holding back a trump card. With non defensive statements we gain power by providing as much information as possible. Formats for making non defensive statements are:
a. Describe in your own words the speaker’s conscious or over message. She criticizes the use of “I hear you saying...” She says that many people use this phrase as an automatic response to what someone else says, rather than first asking sincere questions. She believes that our feedback sounds much more natural when it uses phrases like:
What I think you are telling me is....
It sounds like you are saying
It seems to me you are saying
How I understand what you are telling me is
She says that when we initially begin our feedback format we should focus solely on the overt statement rather than address any covert or double message. When we react to covert messages we just respond to the covert message and often ignore the overt one.
b. Share covert messages – your perspective. This would include discrepancies between his words and non verbal communication and behaviour. When describing a person’s covert message we are better of with
I see
When I look at you
It seems to me
What I perceive
I notice that
c. Describe what you perceive as the cause or motivation for other person’s reactions ie your interpretation. Stating our interpretation of another person’s motives aloud can be difficult. Even when we do so meticulously and sincerely we are taking the risk of exposing our misunderstanding. However if we do not verbalise directly, we may do so covertly. We should present the interpretation respectfully. To do this we should speak only in terms of the specific issue at hand rather than making a generalized statement, avoid repeating yourself and if the other person does not want to hear, stop.
d. Describe your own reactions, thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviours. This should be done with integrity and passion. We need to stay focussed on ourselves because when we emotionally focus on the other person we usually become defensive and attack. The initial goal is clarity and not solution.
Predictions. The nature of this is protective and firm. They are foretelling and neutral. They create security through predictability, establish clear boundaries.
Third category. Using “if-then” construct which tell the person how you will respond to various choices he or she might make in a given situation (ie limit setting)
Using “if-then” to tell the person what consequences you believe he or she will experience in live as a consequence of certain choices (challenge- choice).
Using a variety of examples and situations she demonstrates how to use these formats. She acknowledges that the use of these skills may be time consuming and awkward at first but suggests that the time investment is much less than time spent in conflict.
Sharon says that the Non Defensive mindset is consistent focus on being more sincere and open. The most difficult part of the practice is to unlearn old habits. We have to recognize and understand our own reactions. She suggest that we should slow down and pace ourselves and remember that learning how to recommunicate may be a life long process “one that will result in less suffering and more clarity”.
Sharon believes that we operate from a position of Defensiveness because we believe that we need to protect ourselves all the time even from our friends and family. Our defensiveness is our way of protecting ourselves. We believe that to be open is to show vulnerability and to show vulnerability is to be weak. Sharon identifies this as our War Model of Communication. She maintains that this mode of communication is virtually global. All our communication with few exceptions is modelled on War ie attack, defend, retreat, protect, counter attack and so forth. She proposes a new model namely PNDC. In proposing this she says that she believes that we have the capacity for phenomenal change as beings and in that regard she comments on our Technological Advancements. The question she then poses is do we have the wisdom to contain the destructive potential of our technology? She believes as the says in her introduction that learning to communicate non-defensively is our next evolutionary step, an essential key to our survival.
Her book is peppered with anecdotes and powerful examples of how we might change conversations that we frequently have. She identifies 3 forms of communication
1. Questions
2. Statements
3. Predictions.
Sharon says that our questions are very seldom asked from a position of genuine curiosity or openness. We usually ask questions to catch people out or as covert statements, to make a point indirectly or to attack? Seldom do we actually ask for the joy of learning the answer. We lawyers can identify with this given our training,which is to never ask a question to which we don’t know the answer. She suggests that we try asking questions about the topic under discussion, genuine open questions of enquiry, so that we can get the story straight. Questions should be innocent open and neutral and inviting. A non defensive question helps people to crystallize what they think, feel and believe. A genuine question is disarming. Enquiry or content questions which are questions asked to get the story straight, would usually start with Who What When, Where, How and Why. However, the questions need to be framed in a particular way to make them non defensive. We also need to enquire a particular tone and to ensure that our body language does not send a contrary message to our professed intention. Sharon suggests what she calls a musing tone and dropping your voice down slightly at the end rather than raising it which can sound querulous. Looking at the way of framing questions , if we ask “Why didn’t you do that”? it is likely to sound accusatory as opposed to “Why did you decide not to do that “? Of course the tone has to managed in asking this question too. Because tone and body language is very hard to convey in a book, I would recommend that those of you interested in this, should listen to the book in CD form as well as having the hard copy which is a very useful reference book for your library. To make a question sound clear, gentle and non-judgemental she suggests that we might use “what” instead of “why” depending on the circumstances and so “What made you decide not to do that”? Of course speaking like this and thinking about how you are going to ask things, adopting a particular tone and so forth takes enormous practice. There is a great deal of information and analysis of different types of questions and how to ask the questions to elicit genuine honest information and so respond accordingly. At the end of each section there are handy summaries which are very useful as references and also help to imprint the ideas and information into your mind.
The second broad category of questions are process questions ie looking behind the scenes. These focus on a person’s involuntary reactions which they may be having quite apart from the content of what they are saying eg tone of voice and body language. For example, Why did you grimace when you said “Ok”? Secondly there are questions about attitude. For example “Do you believe you know how to do this better than I do? There are also questions about motivation and intention ie what caused a person to react in a certain way or what the person is seeking to accomplish in the interaction.
As well as question, there are statements. Statements should be open and direct. A fully open statement is vulnerable and unguarded and has no hidden facets. Directness means that we state needs goals and desires directly. Statements should also be subjective. Expressing ourselves through non defensive statements is a very different way of living from concealing information as if we were holding back a trump card. With non defensive statements we gain power by providing as much information as possible. Formats for making non defensive statements are:
a. Describe in your own words the speaker’s conscious or over message. She criticizes the use of “I hear you saying...” She says that many people use this phrase as an automatic response to what someone else says, rather than first asking sincere questions. She believes that our feedback sounds much more natural when it uses phrases like:
What I think you are telling me is....
It sounds like you are saying
It seems to me you are saying
How I understand what you are telling me is
She says that when we initially begin our feedback format we should focus solely on the overt statement rather than address any covert or double message. When we react to covert messages we just respond to the covert message and often ignore the overt one.
b. Share covert messages – your perspective. This would include discrepancies between his words and non verbal communication and behaviour. When describing a person’s covert message we are better of with
I see
When I look at you
It seems to me
What I perceive
I notice that
c. Describe what you perceive as the cause or motivation for other person’s reactions ie your interpretation. Stating our interpretation of another person’s motives aloud can be difficult. Even when we do so meticulously and sincerely we are taking the risk of exposing our misunderstanding. However if we do not verbalise directly, we may do so covertly. We should present the interpretation respectfully. To do this we should speak only in terms of the specific issue at hand rather than making a generalized statement, avoid repeating yourself and if the other person does not want to hear, stop.
d. Describe your own reactions, thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviours. This should be done with integrity and passion. We need to stay focussed on ourselves because when we emotionally focus on the other person we usually become defensive and attack. The initial goal is clarity and not solution.
Predictions. The nature of this is protective and firm. They are foretelling and neutral. They create security through predictability, establish clear boundaries.
Third category. Using “if-then” construct which tell the person how you will respond to various choices he or she might make in a given situation (ie limit setting)
Using “if-then” to tell the person what consequences you believe he or she will experience in live as a consequence of certain choices (challenge- choice).
Using a variety of examples and situations she demonstrates how to use these formats. She acknowledges that the use of these skills may be time consuming and awkward at first but suggests that the time investment is much less than time spent in conflict.
Sharon says that the Non Defensive mindset is consistent focus on being more sincere and open. The most difficult part of the practice is to unlearn old habits. We have to recognize and understand our own reactions. She suggest that we should slow down and pace ourselves and remember that learning how to recommunicate may be a life long process “one that will result in less suffering and more clarity”.
Monday, February 15, 2010
COMMUNITY MEDIATION...
Some years ago before I had trained as a mediator, I was consulted by an elderly man who was in the throes of a dispute with his neighbours. The neighbours were a youngish couple with children and the family dog. The dog constantly visited my client’s garden and destroyed his pride and joy, his garden. Complaints had given way to hostility and now the children were engaged in name calling when the elderly man was sighted by them. My client felt under siege and came in to see me to establish his legal rights. However, the assertion of legal rights between neighbours does not improve relations and only serves to ensure that they deteriorate beyond recall. Subsequently, the elderly man decided to sell his house and move elsewhere. I know that this decision pained him greatly. I look back with regret on that encounter. At the time, I did not know enough about mediation so suggest community mediation. My knowledge, such as it was, extended only to family mediations. Community mediators work with neighbourhood disputes such as I have described above, boundary issues, works to be carried out to fences, roofs, walls encroaching trees and such like. They will also work in disputes about noise, animals and the upkeep and maintenance of property and the locale.
Just as in the best run families, so too in the community, disputes break out. It is in no one’s interests to resort to Solicitor’s letters or court appearances. Yet such conversations are delicate. Many people suffer in silence far too long and by the time they raise the issue that is bothering them with their neighbour or other member of their community, they no longer have the resources of patience or tolerance to broach the subject with the tact and diplomacy required. In such circumstances quite often the approach makes matters worse rather than clearing the air.
Think of mediation as a facilitated or highly structured conversation. The skill of the mediator is to facilitate a necessary conversation for example between landlord and tenant , between neighbours or between local communities and those foreign nationals now residing in their midst. Cultural diversity can lead to much positive development in a community but it is also a happy hunting ground for misunderstandings to arise.
Community conflicts not only impact on the parties in dispute but their ripples go deep in to the community. Training mediators within the community as well as helping resolve community disputes by way of mediation, has extraordinarily positive effects in any community. It encourages self- reliance and leads to power and creativity.
Just as in the best run families, so too in the community, disputes break out. It is in no one’s interests to resort to Solicitor’s letters or court appearances. Yet such conversations are delicate. Many people suffer in silence far too long and by the time they raise the issue that is bothering them with their neighbour or other member of their community, they no longer have the resources of patience or tolerance to broach the subject with the tact and diplomacy required. In such circumstances quite often the approach makes matters worse rather than clearing the air.
Think of mediation as a facilitated or highly structured conversation. The skill of the mediator is to facilitate a necessary conversation for example between landlord and tenant , between neighbours or between local communities and those foreign nationals now residing in their midst. Cultural diversity can lead to much positive development in a community but it is also a happy hunting ground for misunderstandings to arise.
Community conflicts not only impact on the parties in dispute but their ripples go deep in to the community. Training mediators within the community as well as helping resolve community disputes by way of mediation, has extraordinarily positive effects in any community. It encourages self- reliance and leads to power and creativity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)