BUILDING A BLENDED FAMILY
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
Revolving-door relationships of the parents many times leave the children spinning out of control. While changing marital partners, live-in companions or casual lovers can be hard for the adults involved, It can also be confusing or even devastating for their chlldren.
There is a lot of talk these days about "blended families"--your, my and our children--all trying to survive together under the umbrella of a new adult love affair. The "Brady Bunch" picture of a happy and well-adjusted blended family does not begin to tell the real story.
The children are usually thrown into these new and complicated family situations without having any say in the matter. And, once there, they may feel helpless and abandoned as they are forced to share the spotlight with all the new members of the family. Trying to navigate through these uncharted waters and interact with all these strangers becomes quite a challenge.
The parents, meanwhile, are trying to show affection and caring for the new mate`s children, trying to impress the new mate and all the children with the appearance of evenhandedness--and trying to maintain the excitement of the love affair. These added stresses on the adults many time leave the kids feeling that they are on the outside looking in--the last to have their needs met.
Many times, kids see the parents` attempt at evenhandedness as shallow and insincere.
They may feel that if It came down to a choice between them and their new step-sibblings, the stepparent would choose his or her own children. Paradoxically, at the same time, their confidence that their own parent would choose them begins to wane, causing them to "act out" and test the parents love more frequently and intensely. This requires more support and attention from the parent, which puts even more pressure on the parent and the new love relationship. Conflicts between
the step-slblings themselves also escalate as the chlldren posture for attention and support from both parents.
So the spiral of conflict goes, leaving both the parents and the children frustrated and confused as to their roles in the new order of things.
In the midst of all this turmoil, many couples decide to have their "own" common child as a way of drawing the family together. They may believe that the new baby will be a catharsis that will cause. the family to coalesce. But, as you might guess, the new child may exacerbate the problem, complicating both the parents` and the children`s lives. The newborn may usurp the parents attention and energy, further fragmenting their allegiance to each other and their respective children.
The failure rate for second marriages is higher than that of first marriages. And while the success rate of third marriages is in the 90th percentile, only a small percentage (less than 10% of the original marriage pool), venture out a third time.
Many divorces that I have handled of remarried couples with children have been caused primarily by the inability of the parties to adjust to the step-sibling/parenting dynamics with which they were faced.
A "blended family" divorce, after new allegiance and relationships have been formed with stepparents and step-siblings, brings another degree of trauma to children. The courts do little to provide for stepparent visitation if either party is uncooperative.
Certainly, not everything that can go wrong in a blended family will go wrong--and it may work well from the beginning. This is especially true if the adults knew each other for an extended period of time before moving in with each other--spending time with each other and the children in family-like settings, and also spending time with the children of their prospective mate without their own children around.
This allows the kids to build confidence In their importance in the family-to-be, and for the parents to better assess what they are getting Into. Pre-move-in counseling for all the prospective family members is helpful.
There are also legal issues that should be addressed In "blending a family"--wills, structuring of the family finances, pre-nuptial and post- nuptial, agreements and cohabitatlon contracts. Couples may move in together for love, but once there, the relationship has very pragmatic needs.
The effect of the new famlly finances on previous wives and husbands can be significant also. Nothing causes more strife than the money you pay out to or recieve from a prior spouse as you budget your present relationship.
Up to this point, we may say that while the going may he (difficult, good people will work hard at the job of making the new family work, and the passage of time will bring the family together naturally. If counseling is necessary, they`ll get it. Love will triumph. All will end well.
But, what if one of the parties is not coming into the family in good faith? They my have only feigned an interest in parenting. They may only be looking for a meal ticket. Or, they may have even sought out the relationship to get to the children of the new mate. T have heard of one case where the man allegedly only married to have access to his new wife`s daughter.
Don`t be afraid to check up on a new partner. Look at their court divorce files. Obtain a credit report through TRW or another reputable company. Check criminal records. Get to meet a prospective partner`s family and friends. Watch for drastic mood swings, and notice their drinking pattern. Sometimes, a private investigator is, a very good investment.
I have had clients who remarried classic "gold-diggers" and out-of- control alcoholics, and I know of a case where a woman who was a drug adict had her new husband killed for his money. Don`t be embarrassed to be cautious. The trick is to do it in a way that is both effective and respectful and doesn`t undermine the trust of the relationship. A tall order, but worth the effort.
Needless to say, blended families are difficult in the best of circumstances. They require sensitivity, empathy, insight and hard work --not to mention an instinct for self-preservation.
CYBERDATING
RELATIONSHIPS
By Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law,
and Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
We did a quick tally of the responses: Overall, those who favored cyberdating outnumbered those who opposed it, but there were many important issues raised on both sides.
On the negative side, several people expressed concern about the opportunity for promiscuity, "cybercheating" and deceit. It seems that there are people who have used the bulletin boards to misrepresent themselves and cheat on their partners. Some members said they have had scary experiences or have heard of others who had. There were also reported incidents of child exploitation and other such horrors.
On the other hand, positive experiences about the development of lasting love relationships and cherished friendships online were also noted. Some writers said that they felt it easier to be honest through this medium of communication.
Doesn`t this sound like the typical mix of human experience? The bottom line is that we, as individuals, have the responsibility to exercise caution and protect ourselves and our children whether we are online or in a more conventional setting.
We are going to encounter people of all levels of maturity as we interact with others on the communication highway. It was mentioned in the bulletin board discussion that there may be an assumption that those who are computer literate have a higher degree of sophistication and/or integrity than others.
That may be true of many of us, but when it comes to the prospect of "mating," some people become primitive in a hurry, no matter how civilized they may be in other areas of their lives. The process has a tendency to trigger deep insecurities, many times launching some very bazaar behavior.
Men and women in our present society often find themselves single and looking for partners at several different ages and stages of their lives.
We`d like to think that we learn something as we go: that we gain insight and maturity. But, speaking as a lawyer and a counselor, it`s been our experience that not everyone does. It is not unusual for those whose relationships have failed to believe that the failure was due to bad luck in picking the wrong partner. These people are often unwilling to look at the part they themselves have played in the failure of their relationships.
As a society, we certainly need to have better, more "user- friendly" arenas for meeting friends and prospective mates--and computer networks have the potential to become that arena. The more options people have for meeting people, the better. Some people enjoy singles parties; some like answering "personals" (a process with a high potential for danger); others like the screening methods of dating services. Some participate in special interest groups and get exposure to others who are like-minded.
Each of these methods has the potential for helping people develop good relationships or of becoming sleazy and dangerous when used without integrity. There is no reason to expect anything else of "cyberdating." Any place where people gather, there is a need for a set of rules to govern the limits of behavior. This is true even among the most intelligent and sophisticated groups. It is up to the participants to behave with integrity and common sense.
One bulletin board comment suggested that you really get to know someone after communicating with them online. But there is a significant difference between words on a screen and looking someone in the eye as they speak.
While online networks will probably become an increasingly popular way for people to meet, you should consider anyone you meet online a stranger and proceed with the appropriate level of caution when arranging a face-to-face meeting. Follow the usual common-sense guidelines: meet in a public place, arrange to meet for the first time with a group of friends, drive your own car, etc. Happy "cybercruising."
CONQUERING JEALOUSY
RELATIONSHIPS
A dialogue between
Gerald L. Klein Attorney at Law, and
Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
He told me: "I can`t convince my wife I`m not cheating on her. I`m going crazy with her constant suspicions, her embarrassing scenes, her checking up on me. She calls my office five times a day just to make sure I`m there. I`ve tried everything. I can`t take it any more."
Before proceeding with the divorce action, I suggested that he see a therapist to help him deal with his stress and to get a different perspective on the problem.
SARA: That was a good idea. These two have so much going for them, it would be a shame to see the marriage fail. Chronic jealousy is a condition that often has no basis in reality. Although there was apparently no unfaithfulness in this marriage, the woman might have been through a relationship in the past with a cheating partner. Most often, though, the roots of the jealousy are related to problems in the person`s family of origin.
Whatever the cause, to the jealous person, unfaithfulness is an ever-present and terrifying threat. And because it ISN`T based in reality, it`s even harder to deal with than a real threat would be.
Jealousy has long been called a "monster" and rightly so. Nothing can be so persistent and voraciously consuming as chronic jealousy. To the partner, life with a jealous person is like being surrounded by booby traps. You never know when a word or a glance in the wrong direction can begin an avalanche of questions, accusations and rage. And as carefully as you learn to tread with your own words and actions, you have no control over others, who may at any moment innocently say or do something to cause the volcano to explode.
GERRY: So even if this husband could account for every minute of his time every day, he would never be able to "prove" his innocence to his jealous wife.
SARA: Thats the way it works, and this scenario is not uncommon. Suspicion and jealousy are often a problem in relationships to varying degrees. Sometimes it begins with a real incident whent rather than working to resolve the hurt and rebuild trusts the injured party develops an obsessive preoccupation with trying to "control" the partner`s thoughts and actions. When this happens, the obsession takes on a life of its own and both the jealous person and the partner can find themselves powerless to stop it.
GERRY: Do you think therapy could help these two avoid divorce? For instance how would the wife react to her husband seeing a female therapist?
SARA: That`s a good point about a female therapist: The wife would probably be threatened. That issue would need to be addressed from the beginning. However, I think thereps a good chance the marriage can be saved if the wife`s willing to participate in getting help@.
GERRY: What if she refuses to go to therapy?
SARA: Then the husband should still go on his own. It`s possible that if the husband learns to deal more effectively with the situation, she might change her mind and go to therapy.
GERRY: How could the husband deal more effectively with this? What would you tell a client in his position?
SARA: I would tell him he needs to give up trying to convince her of his innocence. The very fact that he is putting so such effort into proving himself innocent reinforces the obsession. It is no longer only "her" obsession; he has developed an obsession of his own--of trying to convince her of his innocence. Someone has to step out of the vicious cycle. Therapy would give him some guidance in how to do it without anger and without emotional withdrawal from her, and also without being judgmental. If after spending some time in therapy, the problem was not resolved, however, I would refer him back to you.
GERRY: If he still wanted a divorce at that point, I would represent him. Sometimes just the filing for a divorce motivates one or both parties to make a final effort to save the relationship.
CALIFORNIA: DIVORCE WITHOUT FAULT
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
California is a "no fault" divorce state. (In fact, in California we call divorce a `dissolution of marriage` as part of the no-fault concept.) As it is now, a party may obtain a dissolution without proving either party was at fault. One must merely testify under oath that there are irreconcilable differences."
Despite this, it is still the public policy of the state to encourage families to stay together. This is shown in many ways. For example, there is a six-month waiting period between the date a party is served with divorce papers and the earliest date at which the marriage can be terminated. The intent of the waiting period is to give the parties time to cool off--to attend marriage counseling--to try to reconcile. When we go to court to "prove up" a divorce, we must ask the client: "Will the passage of time, further counseling or the assistance of the court help put the marriage back together again?"
There is even a procedure where divorcing couples can request marriage counseling in their court documents. Each county has a Conciliation Court that will meet with the couple at no charge regarding possible reconciliation, If both parties agree. The extent of such free services will vary from county to county depending on their policy and available resources.
Also, as attorneys we have a duty to learn whether a client really wants a divorce before taking the case. So we ask our clients why they want a divorce and how we might help them reconcile. We explain their options.
WHY PEOPLE DIVORCE: LET ME COUNT THE WAYS
The people who come to me have many different reasons why they are unhappy and frustrated with their relationship. They may or may not have had counseling for themselves or as a couple before seeking a divorce.
* Some say things have gone wrong since the children were born or that financial difficulties have interfered with the relationship.
* Many say, "It`s not like it was when we were first married," or that they are victims of domestic violence. (Previous columns have dealt with the separate topics of romantic love and domestic violence.)
Many people have waited until their children were grown before filing for dissolution after having felt trapped for many years.
* Some have "tried everything" to improve the relationship with their spouses but have simply reached the end of the road and want to get on with their lives.
Some clients believe that starting the divorce proceeding is the only way to motivate the other party to work on the relationship. Sometimes it works. I had one couple who reconciled in the courthouse hallway on the day of trial. One couple even remarried after a bitter divorce.
Some of my clients have had sad, unusual, even funny reasons for wanting to get divorced. In one case, I learned that both parties (in their 60s) belonged to a swingers club and could no longer be satisfied in a monogamous relationship. Another woman told me that her husband was a transvestite. When I learned she had been aware of her husband`s habits for many years, I asked, "Why get a divorce now?" She told me that her husband had bought himself a $1000 dress, and that he had never bought her a $1000 dress. For her, it was the last straw.
WHAT`S "FAULT"?
Most often there is one who leaves and one who is left behind, the latter usually being the most angry and the former feeling the most guilt. The one left behind, whether it is the man or the woman, always asks: "Why do I have to suffer? Its my spouse who wants the divorce."
It may appear to be a reasonable argument that the one who leaves should bear most of the resulting burdens. But what if the leaving party says: "I had to leave because of domestic violence," or "My spouse was cheating on me," or makes other allegations of wrongdoing he or she claims justifies the divorce?
At that point you have the beginning of a major courtroom battle over who`s most "at fault."
Since California is a no-fault divorce state, such an argument would fly in the face of the law and public policy. Present law precludes such evidence. Instead, the courts rely upon concepts of community property and the underlying body of law that describes child and spousal support obligations between the parties, without the placing of blame or fault.
The philosophy is that the effort of each party during the marriage is a community effort, no matter how unequal their financial contributions may be. The efforts of a "stay-at-home-with-the-children" spouse or the "working-out-of-the-house-part-time" spouse are given equal weight with a partner who works full time and pays the bills. They are considered complementary and integral parts of the marriage "community." Thus, all property and debts acquired or incurred during the marriage are divided equally (with some exceptions).
Child support is much easier to explain to people than spousal support (formerly called alimony). There is a statewide child-support guideline and most parents I encounter say they are willing to help pay for their children`s upbringing.
But spousal support is another story.
Again, based on the concept of the community, spousal support is ordered to give the stay-at-home or lesser-earning spouse an opportunity to catch up in the work place and replicate the standard of living experienced during the marriage. Unlike child support, however, there is no specific guideline, which leaves much to the discretion of the court, the manipulation of the parties and the advocacy skills of the attorneys.
So, what would happen if we were to put "fault" back into California divorces? It would reopen an era of chaos where the parties would make cross allegation of adultery, cruelty and who-knows- what else. It would make a bad situation worse, while driving up the cost of divorces to outlandish levels.
FAULT AND CHILD CUSTODY
In my experience, however, there is still one area where fault is used by divorcing parties in an attempt to gain an advantage over each other: child custody issues.
While the parties are not allowed to blame each other for the divorce, they can make accusations about the other party regarding how they treat the children. The children thus become pawns in their power struggle.
Only when this loophole is closed will we truly be a "no-fault" divorce state. Better-trained judges specialize in child custody matters, binding child custody mediation and tougher penalties for parents who use their children as pawns in their power struggle would go a long way toward solving this problem.
Then I can retire.
Every case is different. Consult with your own attorney to be sure of the law that applies to your particular case.
ABOUT OUR EXPERTS
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L. Klein Attorney at Law, and
Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
Gerald L. Klein, Esq., is a divorce trial attorney and mediator with 18 years experience. His officers are in Orange County. He has been a Judge Pro-Temp in both the Juvenile and Municipal Courts and has been an advocate for victims of domestic violence and child abuse.
Gerry and Sara conduct divorce workshops and support groups and are in the process of developing a non-profit program to help children and families affected by divorce.
POWER AND CONTROL IN RELATIONSHIPS
RELATIONSHIPS
By Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
Trying to control the other person does not work--we simply end up in power struggles that damage the relationship. But through the practice of certain skills, we can learn to manage the way we affect each other.
A mutually agreed upon system of "managing" the relationship is the healthiest approach. This allows a couple to address issues as "relationship concerns," rather than as faults and shortcomings of the individuals involved.
It`s not easy building a mutually satisfying relationship. The two people in a love relationship usually have distinctively different personalities and are often from different backgrounds or cultures. Also, the partnership begins in a highly intense, emotional state that we call "being in love." We place on this budding partnership the burden of satisfying our deepest, most primitive emotional longings--and we expect it to happen with very little effort.
Then when things go wrong, our first reaction is, "He (or she) doesn`t love me!" The problem of course, is not a lack of love, but a lack of communication and negotiation skills for the practical, day-to- day management of life together.
Because being loved and included in a family represents survival to children, when a relationship is threatened and we are afraid we are losing love, we often regress to the emotional level of a child. We then revert to trying to get what we need through a great variety of childish, acttng-out behaviors, such as arguing and shouting, hysterical crying, pouting . . . in general, doing and saying things to hurt back or get even with each other.
Often we deny our primitive feelings and with our most sophisticated adult brain, we rationalize and manipulate to get what we want. But emotionally we feel as though we are engaged in a fight for survival and we employ whatever tools we have learned to use in life --ranging from cool, calm intellectual strategies to physical battering--to try to hold on to love by controlling the other partner. Whatever the style, it`s a panicked child who is running the show.
It`s important to use methods of communication and negotiation that strengthen the relationship, not tear it down. Effective management--in a business or in a love relationship--encourages teamwork. If effective systems of management are not developed, then panic sets in when
Conflicts arise, and either consciously or unconsciously we struggle to gain power over our partner with destructive methods of control.
Both partners need to agree to work as a team. The fundamental owl-is to develop and maintain a strong relationship that supports each individual`s needs and concerns as well as the couple`s common goals and interests. The relationship itself is an "entity" that mist be developed through the joint efforts of each partner. It needs regular and consistent attention.
One way to do this is to decide on a time at least once a month to meet with each other and work out issues that need attention. Make it a top priority and don`t let anything interfere. You need a time when you`re both rested and free from distraction. The end of a hard work day is not usually the best time.
It may be difficult to make this happen, but it is possible. Between meetings, it`s a good idea to keep a notebook in a central location where you can both make notes of things that will need to be discussed during the monthly meetings. On the first page of the notebook, make a list of the major categories you will be working with.
The list would contain basics such as: finances, family issues (her family, his family and "our family"), birthdays and special events, social and recreational activities, household chores, special projects. Also, keep a calendar handy so that you can schedule events and plan projects.
Your list will vary somewhat according to your individual situation. Even if you don`t live together but are in a committed relationship, it`s still important to develop these negotiation skills. Holding regular discussions will help you learn a lot about your basic compatibility and your potential as a couple.
When you reach agreement on the issues before you, write it down.
You may question the need for written agreements in a love relationship but I`m sure you can easily think of examples where you thought you are in agreement about something you had discussed with your partner, only to discover later that your memory of the discussion does not match your partner`s. This usually leads to a heated argument about whose recollection is correct.
Most people already have these management skills in other areas of their lives. After all, when you join another person or a group of. people in your work or in organizations you belong to, you expect to put a lot of time into laying out plans and coming to agreements. Those plans and agreements are usually put in writing, so that everyone involved is clear about the goals and, procedures and what each person`s responsibilities are.
Some couples have even found it helpful to tape record their meetings. The key is to use whatever tools will help you.
Even though you love each other--and because you love each other--take allowances for your individual "humanness." Take care to protect your relationship from the stress of poor management.
PUT KIDS FIRST, POWER STRUGGLES SECOND
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L, Klein, Attorney at Law
While there are insoluble cases--mostly those involving parties with severe personality disorders manifesting in physical and emotional abuse- -most cases should be simple. After all, both parents presumably love their children or they wouldn`t want custody--right? And neither parent would ever do anything intentional to hurt their children--would they?
Well, one does begin to wonder after 20 years of negative experiences with otherwise positive people.
As I mentioned in a previous column, child custody may be the last bastion for finding fault in a no-fault divorce state (California), thereby allowing one party to gain an advantage over the other in the divorce proceedings.
Being awarded custody can yield many perceived advantages that have nothing to do with the "best interests" of the children, which is the basic legal standard:
* Fighting for custody can be pure vindictiveness against the other parent.
* Also, because the time-share between the parents is a material element in calculating the statewide child-support guideline, money can be a primary motivation.
* If there is a family residence that one parent would like to retain, sometimes having custody of the children will have an impact on its disposition in the divorce.
* And there may be other, more subtle, intricacies.
Before the Family Law Act, the so called "tender years" doctrine was followed by the judges. That doctrine basically stated that young children should be taken care of by their mothers. In recent years it`s been a fight between fathers` rights and mothers` rights groups, each claiming that they are the victims of prejudice in the court system.
Can custody be resolved simply by well-meaing parents despite differences in opinion and the inevitable acrimony of the divorce process? It should be possible.
I believe that parents should deligate the parenting duites between them based on their own strenghts and weaknesses, and base their custodial arrangment on the most practical use of their time as they strive to meet the needs of their children. Since the availability of the parents and the needs of the children are constantly changing, the parents should be as flexible as possible to maximize the advantage to themselves and the children.
What if we have two good parents who are not particularly caught up in the disarray of the moment and who have no ulterior motives, but who honestly disagree on the custody arrangement. Can there still be a relatively simple solution?
If one parent wants to have the children most of the time and the other wants to see them on a periodic basis, deciding on the schedule should be simple: After all, the parent who wants the kids full- time gets them. You would think that it would be easy for that parent to let go a little in arriving at a visitation schedule.
If both parents want the children to live with them most of the time with the other parent visiting periodically, that should be relatively simple, too. All things being equal, the court will not take the children away from one parent in favor of the other. Thus, the parents should be willing to accept a custody-sharing arrangement that is the healthiest overall compromise of the competing interests of both the parents and the children.
Well, what happens when all these "shoulds" are ignored? The parties begin a classic power struggle using "high-powered" (I guess that means expensive and uncompromising-at-any-cost) attorneys, dueling psychological experts and any trick in the book. When the battle is over and these basically equal parents hear the court`s decision, many times you`ll hear them scream "gender bias"
My experience is that If the father does not strenuously assert his desire to have a more-than-alternating-weekernd role and the mother is not shunning custody, mom gets primary physical custody by default.
And If the father does assert his parental desires, he must make a much stronger and more persistent effort than would be required of the mother in the same role, in most cases.
I do not believe that this dilemma is a conscious or purposeful act of bias, on the part of the judiciary, but is merely the rest of how our society has been structured in recent generations. And I find judges are more and more willing to give eager dads a greater role in raising their children over the somtimes very proprietary protestations of mom.
At the same time, there are moms who would be delighted Ii the dads took a more active role in their childrens lives, but who cannot get the courts to force the dads to visit, let alone pay their court- ordered child support.
There has been some hint of a backlash against moms, in recent news reports, as well as on electronic bulletin boards (see the "Marcia Clark" subject on the Timelink board). The feeling is that "working moms" such as Marcia Clark are being denied "their" children because they have successful careers. It`s probably true if you consider that the courts are looking more at the availability of both parents in awarding custodial time to either parent. And this is especially true where the dad is pressing for a more equal share of the parenting.
However, it should be reallzed by the parents that both benefits and burdens go along with greater custodial responsibility. This means to mom that if dad has more responsibility, she may have in opportunity to spend more time pursuing her own life, which could be a welcome relief from the "supermom" syndrome. And, dad will probably find that if he takes greater responsibility that he had previously been exposed mostly to the joys of parenting, and not the daily doldrums.
While I believe that the courts and divorcing parents still have a long way to go before they will be able to deal with the parenting issue on a purely gender-blind basis, I do see more evenhandedness emerging-- the chagrin of many people of both genders.
HELPFUL--OR CO-DEPENDENT?
RELATIONSHIPS
Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
Teri knows that her husband works hard, so she tries to shield him from much of the stress and strain of family responsibilities. She knows all about the personal problems of her friends and associates and can always be counted on for a listening ear and a helping hand.
Many people would say that Teri is a wonderful person. Her husband would probably say the same to anyone who asks--but would rarely say it to her. He has come to expect and take for granted the fact that everything goes smoothly at home. He has very little awareness of the time and energy Teri puts in to keep it that way.
Teri is a classic example of a "co-dependent." She doesn`t know she`s co-dependent. She prides herself on her ability to do the work of two people at the office, run an efficient household and still participate in her children`s activities. Few people would suspect that the motivating factor driving Teri`s performance is fear. And Teri doesn`t know it. She never stops moving long enough to notice what she`s feeling. That`s part of the problem. She knows what everyone else is feeling but not herself.
If you ask, Teri might tell you she`s very happy, but some part of her would know it isn`t true. She may at times be aware of an emptiness, but she has learned that if she gets busy enough, the feeling subsides for a while.
RUNNING ON FEAR
"Co-dependency" has been called a buzzword of the `90s. It is often dismissed because of its overuse, and because of the extensive list of personality characteristics used to describe it. The common perception is that these descriptions could fit anybody. And they could-- to some degree. But there is a definite difference in the overall profile of the co-dependent person.
The most significant difference is that these behaviors (which are otherwise very positive characteristics) are fear-based In the co- dependent person. Co-dependent people are afraid not to be superhuman because that`s how they have learned to gain approval. They have defined themselves by what they do for others. They chronically neglect their own needs in order to serve the needs of others.
The key word here is "chronic." There are times when we are all called upon to set aside our own needs for others--but it is not our only way of relating to people.
In a relationship, the behavior of the co-dependent person encourages the other partner to be less responsible and less appreciative. When you insist on carrying more than your share of the load, you often unknowingly undermine the ability of others. When you rush in with unsolicited advise in a compulsive need to take care of things, it can be experienced by the other as "controlling."
The typical response to feeling undemined and controlled is resentment. The same behaviors that on one hand are seen as competent, reliable, generous and helpful, when done to an extreme and done for approval, actually bring the opposite result. They push people away. And when fear of disapproval causes you to let others take advantage of you, the result is loss of self-respect and the respect of others.
Because most of the behaviors defined as co-dependent are considered admirable, it is sometimes thought that the opposite of co- dependency is selfishness. This is a misunderstanding that causes many to disregard the problem altogether. No one wants to become a selfish and self-centered person. The co-dependent person is especially offended by the idea.
The opposite of co-dependency is having a healthy sense of yourself. This includes many things, such as making good choices about when to help someone and when not to help, being aware of and respecting your own limits and being aware of and respecting boundaries (yours and others).
Recovery often involves looking back over your life at all your relationships, beginning with Mom and Dad, to see how these patterns of relating developed. Co-dependents usually discover that for whatever reason--they had to grow up too fast. They had to assume adult responsibilities at a time when they needed to be just a kid.
Recognizing these patterns doesn`t have to mean criticizing your parents. In most cases, parents were doing their best, but unusual life stresses or circurmtances in their own childhood caused them to lack the resources for effective parenting.
RELATING TO SUBSTANCE-ABUSERS
The term co-dependency was first used to describe the patterns of relating that occur when a family member has a substance-abuse problem. The obvious and the not-so-obvious lack of responsibility on the part of the addicted person causes the mate to develop an over- responsible role and to become obsessed with trying to "fix" the problems created by the addicted spouse as well as trying to "fix" the alcoholic or addict, too.
Children of the addicted person may also learn these patterns of relating and may tend to attract mates later in life who are substance abusers or in some way are not able to carry their share of responsibility.
Since the first recognition of co-dependency in the 1970s, it has been recognized, as having roots in a variety of family-related dysfunction--from mild to severe. You don`t have to have alcoholic parents or an alcoholic spouse to be affected. And it doesn`t mean that your parents had to be abusive or that they didn`t love you. There doesn`t need to be any "blame" involved with learning about the problem.
WHERE TO FIND HELP
There is a lot of help available for people with co-dependent relationship patterns. One of the most popular books on the subject is titled, "Co-Dependent No More," by Melody Beattie. It can help you determine if your life has been affected by simililer patterns of relating and to what degree. Although my case example described a woman, co- dependency affects both genders.
Alanon is a 12-step program available for people who are currently involved with an addict or alcoholic. It may be a spouse, family member, friend, coworker or anyone who may be addicted and who is affecting your life. The Alanon program teaches you how to gain a clearer perspective on what you can do and what you cannot do to help substance abusers. But the main focus of the program is on learning what you can do to help yourself.
Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACA) is another 12-step program for adults who grew up with an alcoholic parent and are finding that their lives are still being affected by the ways they learned to relate to others.
Co-dependence Anonymus (CODA) is for anyone who has chronic relationship problems and who can identify with the symptoms of co- dependency.
Co-dependency is an extensive subject. This column can only serve to point a direction for follow-up to more information.
THE SPOUSE`S BEHAVIOR WAS THE CLUE
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
Maybe they can learn to be a little more open and introspective... more tolerant of each other . . . more willing to experience growth as they end their marital relationship and restructure their parenting relationship.
Divorce lawyers, despite their (sometimes deserved) bad rap, usually work hard to help clients achieve such positive goals and work toward a healthy relationship in divorce.
This is especially important where there are minor children involved. Divorcing parents need to recognize that they most likely will have a lifelong relationship as parents and eventually as grandparents. If they continue to fight, they way be forced to choose between restructuring their roles as parents and grandparents and forgoing or spoiling many important family events that would normally bring them face-to-face in the future.
The best choice is for the couple to start now to learn to work together in the best interests of their children. Lawyers can and should help their clients achieve a settlement that will be supportive of such long-term goals.
Divorcing couples are sometimes amazed when I describe to them characteristics of their marital relationship with only limited information available to me. Many times I am right on, other times (fewer times) I`m right off the mark. But repetitive patterns do jump out at you-- patterns your clients have been unwilling or unable to see.
An example of a case where it did not jump right out at me is a case involving allegations of alcohol abuse and the effect of these allegations on child custody.
My client described herself to me as a moderate drinker with "no alcohol problem." Her spouse, however, who appeared to me to be very controlling, complained that my client was an alcoholic who was dangerous to the children. My client denied it.
There wes no corroborating evidence one way or the other: There were no drunk driving arrests, no employment problems and no domestic violence, all of which would have leant credence to the accusation that the wife was an alcoholic.
I spoke with my client about the allegations, saying that I had insufficient information to make a judgment. I recomended an expert evaluation. Then new information about the husband came to my attention. The husband had a new lover-- who was a reported alcoholic, based upon a record of past DUIs and witnesses` accounts of seeing her under the influence of alcohol.
That clinched it for me.
I confirmed my suspicion with my partner in this column, who is a counselor. She agreed that my client was probably an alcoholic, albeit, a high-functioning one.
I told my client, "Your spouse`s behavior, not yours" answered the question. A co-dependent spouse who leaves one relationship with a drinker and goes right into a new relationship with an alcohol abuser says it all.
My client was appreciative of the manner in which the facts were presented and voluntarily obtained professional help.
The outcome was that the basis for restricting my client`s periods of custody with the minor children was eliminated. The children will now have a parent who is "in recovery," rather than "in-toxicated."
We`re not always that lucky. In that case, we were able to get to the root of the problem in a positive and healthy manner even though there was a palpable degree of dysfunction in both parties.
I thought that there were lessons to be learned from this little vignette from the life of a divorce attorney. Sometimes lawyers can do more good than the harm they are sometimes perceived to cause.
And it helps when a divorcing party has an attorney with whom he or she connects. When a client feels that connection, I believe the client is more likely to follow the advice of the lawyer--and less likely to engage in destructive behavior.
Happy Valentine`s Day.
Every case is different. Consult with your own attorney to be sure of the law that applies to your particular case.
DO YOU LISTEN AS WELL AS YOU HEAR?
RELATIONSHIPS
By Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
When couples come to me for help with their relationship, my first step is to teach them communication skills. I always ask in the beginning if either partner has had training in or read about communication. Some of them have had a few seminars at their job on communication in the workplace, but few have investigated the art of communicating with a love partner.
When I tell couples that listening is the most important part of communication, it usually produces confusion. The typical response when I first begin to focus on listening is, "Of course I heard what she said, but. . . ." The "but" at the end of the sentence is usually followed by a list of objections that discredit the partner`s perception of the problem.
Listening is more than being a passive receiver of information. The kind of listening that`s required to hear your partner correctly and to open the door to effective problem resolution is not an easy task.
There are differences in the internal realities of two people. Each one of us, with our own unique family history and life experiences, has developed an inner world of perceptions, associations and emotional reactions that can cause us to misunderstand our partners. We make assumptions about other people based on how things look in our own internal reality.
Becoming an active listener means becoming interested in and respectful of a partner`s inner world. The most destructive thing to a relationship is the persistent struggle to "win." Many hurtful things are said and done in an effort to prove a point and thereby wipe out the subjective inner world of the partner.
The way to develop the skill of active listening is to practice. It seems that most people understand the need to practice when learning any other skill, but have strong resistance to practicing relationship skills. There is a broad misconception that we should be able to relate successfully without working at it. People practice golf or tennis regularly but place a low priority on practice sessions designed to develop relationship skills.
When couples tell me they didn`t have time to practice, I ask them to recall all the activities of their week. Without fail, I will hear a list of activities that, in my opinion, don`t come close to having as much effect on the quality of life as their relationship with each other.
The listening exercise is incredibly simple. It is so simple that the usual first impression is that it`s a waste of time. After all, when you have these earth-shattering problems, Who wants to sit for 30 minutes or an hour and play silly word games?
But I cannot adequately describe the power of this one simple exercise to transfom the quality of a relationship. There is no way to recognize its benefit other than to do it--consistently on a daily basis over a period of several weeks.
This is how it`s done:
* Chose a time with your partner when you won`t be interrupted.
* Sit facing each other.
* Ask your partner to tell you about a problem he/she has. Begin with a situation that does not involve your relationship conflicts. (You might use a work situation or anything that is not likely to trigger a defensive response from you.)
* Focus your full attention on what your partner is telling you.
* Your partner should use short, simple statements. For the benefit of the exercise avoid getting into complex detail.
* After each statement, paraphrase what you heard and ask if you heard it correctly.
* After your partner confirms that you heard the statement correctly, move on to the next statement or switch positions as listener.
Although the exercise is simple, it is not as easy as it might sound. It becomes even harder when you are listening to your partner`s complaints about your own behavior. The idea is to try to understand your partner`s experience of the problem. You should listen without interrupting and without offering solutions, or "correcting" or attempting to change your partner`s perspective in any way.
Listening is only one step in communication--but until you learn to effectively listen, nothing else works.
It is common for the person expressing the problem to feel such great relief at having their partner`s full attention, that much of the stress will melt away before anything else happens. And the benefit for both of you is that you will find yourself learning more and more about each other on a more intimate level.
BACK TO COURT WITH YOUR EX-SPOUSE
RELATIONSHIPS
By Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
Sara and I have written about the state of "temporary insanity" that many divorcing couples experience during the early stages of divorce. The mental health of the parties involved is usually measured not by whether people act irrationally during divorce, but by how long it takes them to return to the state of normalcy they would otherwise experience. (Of course, many ex-spouses would say of their counterparts that they were never normal in the first place!)
Even after a passage of time following the divorce decree, many parties still cannot negotiate with one another and are not emotionally able to utilize the services of a mediator. That puts them right back into the courtroom relying upon the efforts of strangers, i.e., lawyers and judges, to-resolve their conflicts. Depending upon the degree of dysfunction of either or both parties, such returns to court may be even more emotionally and financially devastating than the original court appearances.
People use these opportunities in court to continue their agendas of harassment, revenge and control. For some, taking the "ex" back to court may be the only way they can get to see or talk to them. Some hope, paradoxically, that this new legal barrage will convince their ex- spouse to return-home.
Sometimes parties returning to court after the divorce attempt to represent themselves to save attorney`s fees and because they believe that the process will be simpler this time around. But the depth of legal issues and the hidden costs, both emotional and financial, may not be readily apparent.
I am the first to admit that some lawyers will take on any case, at any cost, without considering the chances of victory or the financial or emotional impact on the parties and their children. And, in many cases, clients go from attorney to attorney looking for one who will take their case blindly. I have always said that people choose lawyers the way they choose dogs as pets: they look for personalities that reflect their own, e.g., bulldogs, pit bulls, Chihuahuas or fluffy poodles. Watch out for the pit bulls.
I encourage clients with post-divorce legal problems to negotiate with their ex-spouses where possible or use an experienced family law mediator before hiring an attorney. But I never recommend that they represent themselves. After seeing an experienced family law attorney represent himself against a revengeful ex-wife represented by an experienced "pit bull," there is no question of the wisdom of that advice.
When you`re an attorney representing a client, you are objective. You are able put on your client`s case responsibly, objecting to inappropriate actions on the part of the other attorney and appraising the way your case looks to the judge.
But when you represent yourself, all these jobs become muddled and inextricably intertwined with your own emotional ties to the case. You become ineffective both as an attorney for your "client" and as a client who would otherwise be able to assist the attorney.
Someone once said (I`m paraphrasing): "One who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client." And the attorney ain`t too bright either.
The ordeal of the family law attorney I observed representing himself reinforces the concerns most lawyers have about the trauma divorce litigants experience.
The attorney in question could think of nothing else throughout the week that the matter was pending before the court. His law practice come to a standstill. Old wounds with his ex-wife were reopened. He was demoralized as he criticized his own performance as a lawyer in an environment where he could not possibly function rationally or objectively.
While the court`s decision in this case is not yet in, the emotional and financial toll on both parties is painfully obvious. It reminds me of how painful trials are for all litigants. I ask myself, "What can I do as an attorney to protect my clients from such trauma?" and "Have I ever allowed myself to be caught up in my client`s `stuff`, thereby unwittingly perpetuating the pain?".
There are very few situations worth the pain of litigation, whether you are ultimately perceived to be the victor or the loser. The harm is irreparable for both parties--and many times for the children as well, as the trauma spills over at home.
Unfortunately, you con only control the decisions that you make yourself. The other party may be so emotionally caught up in the situation that they say, "Going to court is worth every penny," regardless of the pain inflicted.
My best advice: When you can, negotiate, don`t litigate. Use experienced family law mediators or hire an attorney who is knowledgeable and is an effective and caring negotiator to work on your behalf.
And avoid the pit bulls. Many times, they turn around and bite you when you`re not looking.
ROMANTIC LOVE
RELATIONSHIPS
By Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
This blissful state of being--romantic love--has been referred to by some experts in psychology as a psychotic state. It is in fact an altered state of consciousness where we are high on natural hormones and chemicals released by our own body. This condition is a powerful force that has driven human beings to set aside all that is important to them in the pursuit of the idealized other.
In studies of the unconscious mind, we get a glimpse of what happens during the romantic phase of a relationship. The strong attraction we feel to a particular person has its roots in our childhood interactions with primary care-givers. In a complex blend of the positive and negative experiences of our early years, we construct a profile and write a script that determines our adult mate selection.
To the degree that we have disowned and buried painful, unresolved experiences from the post, we will select a likely candidate on which to project these unconscious images. The possibility of fulfillment of these deep unconscious longings produces a euphoria that is not unlike that induced by drugs. In a trance-like condition, we can gaze in wonderment into the eyes of our beloved for hours.
With this some intensity we will react with hurt and disappointment when the magic begins to fade. We will feel shocked and betrayed to discover that a `monster` has one day invaded the body of our perfect vision of love. Then we plead, coerce and threaten to try to get our partner to behave according to our image.
In neither of these conditions--when we are "in love" and when love begins to fade--are we seeing a realistic picture of our mate. There is distortion and exaggeration created by the unconscious forces at work. To make it all the more impossible to resolve the conflict, the person we are in love with is also living out his/her own private version based on the projections of another family history.
And so begins the maddening repetition of behavior that can become a predictable cycle going nowhere.
I`m sure that you`ve all heard about or read similar scenarios involving romantic love and I`m sure some of you have engaged in enough self-examination to understand the truth of this description--but many intelligent, creative and successful adults live a long time not realizing they are stuck in a cycle of self-deception.
And some intelligent, creative and successful adults still call this scenario "psycho-babble."
Gerry and I recently received a question on the TimesLink Relationships Bulletin Board that used the term "Momism." to describe what happens when a man turns his mate into his "mother" and then becomes a resister. Without knowing any further details, my first response was to say, "So, what else is new?" It happens in some way and to some extent with all of us.
We all need to spend time understanding more about what`s behind our own projections--and looking for mates who are doing the some. If the mate you`re with isn`t interested in this kind of introspection, that shouldn`t stop you from learning as much as you can about yourself. It`s knowing yourself that will make it possible to build a healthy relationship. Self knowledge is more important in the long run than knowledge about your potential partner.
Why is it that more divorcing couples ore not inclined to use mediation instead of engaging in the painful and costly process of divorce through legal battle? It`s mostly because mediation requires the ability to negotiate with another person, instead of just reacting emotionally to every situation that comes up. Most couples (or at least one of the partners in most couples) have not come to terms with what these intense reactions are really about, so all they can do is keep on fighting.
In many cases, if not most, there might not even be a divorce if the partners understood themselves and the basis of their relationship better.
Gerry will be writing more on divorce mediation soon. We look forward to your response to this and other issues involving relationships.
CHOOSING THE RIGHT DIVORCE
RELATIONSHIPS
A dialogue between
Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law, and
Sara Daudna, M.F.C.C.
Special to TitesLink
Most times, when the couple is married, their first thought and fear is that they will have to go to an attorney--that attorneys are expensive and that the whole legal process will make them enemies. Gerry, what is your experience and suggestion in this area?
GERRY: It is scary to be facing both the loss of the relationship and the great unknown of the court system. But it doesn`t have to be that bleak--there are choices.
Its important to identify,the different types of divorce needs, the different kinds of people seeking the divorce and the various methods available to obtain the desired result. Then you match up the right people with the process best capable of solving the problems at a cost they can afford.
SARA: OK, I`ll bite, what do we look for when trying to evaluate clients and guide them in the right direction.
GERRY: First, we have to decide what the legal issues are and how complicated they are to resolve. If the couple has been married for less then five years, has no children and virtually no debts--and they are cooporative--they can utilize the statutory "summmary dissolution" in California. It requires payment of a filing fee to the court, but the papers are simple enough for the parties to complete themselves.
The other end of the spectrum is where the parties may have been married for 20 or 30 years but still have relatively young children. They have accumulated significant property and debts. One spouse does not work and the other owns a large business making "nice money." Not an unusual scenario.
Here, the legal as well as the practical issues can be extremely complicated. An experienced family law attorney, a forensic accountant, property appraisers investment counselors psychological evaluators and vocational evaluators may be required--and this cadre of "experts" may be "times two" if the parties choose an adversarial method of dissolving their marriage.
In between these two extremes, you have every possible variation of property, debt, children, earnings and potential earnings issues.
SARA: Are there choices for the people at all of these levels of complexity or are some people "just out of luck"?
GERRY: There are probably some people who may fall through the proverbial (legal) cracks. But I think the availability of solutions for most people is only limited by the people themselves.
Let`s look at some of the different kinds of people who might be looking for a divorce. I will break them down into emotional and experience or sophistication profiles.
At one extreme, if you have one or both parties who have serious emotional problems; are "devastated" by the thought of the break up; who have alcohol or drug addiction; or if there has been a history of domestic violence, your options are going to be somewhat limited.
In such cases, each party is going to need much closer attention and "hand holding." This is especially true where one of the parties probably cant be trusted to act in good faith or be completely forthcoming.
The trauma of the breakdown of the relationship, the addiction or one party`s having been "victimized" over a long period of time may make that party incapable of taking care of themselves in the divorce without extensive assistance.
At the other extreme, you may have a very successful, well- educated spouse who is not incapacitated by his or her emotions and who is very capable of pressing forward with minimal hand holding.
SARA: I have had clients who cover the spectrum. Which methods of obtaining a divorce are best for which kinds of person or problem?
GERRY: I`ll list them--let`s see if it becomes obvious. The most common approaches to divorce are as follows:
1. Do it yourself., Use only if there are no other choices.
2. Use a paralegal: Use only in the simplest cases where the other party either wonrt contest you or where you are both in agreement and there is equal bargaining power between the two of you. Even if you are "doing it yourself" or using a paralegal, however, always have a consultation with a family lawyer before you sign a final agreement.
3. Divorce mediation between the parties. This process is potentially the best, but it, too, has limitations. If there is no dysfunctional behavior, if each party trusts the other and believes they will negotiate in good faith, the process will be quick, much less expensive than hiring adversarial attorneys and will yield the most fulfilling result for both parties--a "win-win" situation.
SARA: How does it work, exactly?
GERRY: In divorce mediation, both parties utilize the services of a single experienced family law attorney, who serves as a mediator rather than as an attorney representing either spouse. (Remember, an attorney can not represent both the husband and wife in a divorce.)
The attorney/mediator may also work with a therapist or psychologist as a team to provide a safe and informative environment in which to facilitate the divorce through structured negotiations.
A major consideration is always the education, experience and sophistication of the spouses in financial and parenting mat ers. Mediators equalize the sophistication of the parties.
As a fail-safe element, each party is strongly urged to have any agreements they reach reviewed by their "own" attorney before they sign it. And the parties are always free to consult with attorneys outside of the mediation process at any time.
SARA: It sounds perfect. Is there any downside?
GERRY: Yes, there`s one practical drawback. The process requires two people who may be going through the most traumatic experience of their lives to confront each other emotionally as they negotiate every aspect of their family and financial issues. This takes pretty strong character.
However, the cost of mediation is going to be about one-half the cost of hiring two lawyers in a relatively "friendly" divorce and only a fraction of what it would cost for a hotly contested court battle. This is true even if forensic property evaluators and other expert consultants are hired to provide information to the mediating couple.
As a fall back, if either party feels too uncomfortable with mediation, either due to emotional issues or to concerns about having sufficient knowledge or trust, there is what I call "attorney mediation".
4. Attorney mediation is where the parties each hire experienced family law attorneys to represent them in negotiations at four-way meetings, with both spouses and their attorneys present. This,can be a very cost-effective method. The spouses have the benefit of representation along with a personally negotiated result.
5. Finally, there`s hiring the "pit bulls." When all else fails, usually because of the limitations of the parties, heavy-hitting trial lawyers are hired and the expensive emotional, time-consuming battle begins. Even then, however, good lawyers can work to resolve the issues while minimizing the battle by, properly advising their clients. Unfortunately, however, you cannot always control your client,and you certainly cannot control the actions of the opposition.
SARA: Well, gee, I feel a lot better. All I need to do is size up my client and his or her spouse and plug them into the right divorce cubbyhole. Right?
GERRY: If only it were that easy. Parties going through divorce are any times very volatile and unpredictable. What might seem right for them today might change next month. I guess it`s their stability that must be evaluated before choosing the right "cubbyhole," as you call it.
Many times I`ll receive calls from men regarding divorce mediation. They want to come in with their wife right away and settle the case quickly and cheaply. While those goals are laudable, there`s more to the story!
As I talk to them, I sense that they are accustomed to controlling the situation at home and they believe they will be able to do the same thing in mediation. After I describe the structure and safeguards o mediation to them, I don"t hear from them again.
SARA: It sounds-like you`re in strongly in favor of mediation.
GERRY: I am when it`s appropriate for the couple. In a divorce, if you leave the decisions to the judge, you leave the anguish with the family and the money with the lawyers. If I had to choose between that alternative and mediation, I would do everything I could to make mediation a viable option for me.
THE GIFT THAT COUNTS
RELATIONSHIPS
By Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
This is a time of year when I`m often called upon as a therapist to help people deal with the foelings--good and bad--that surface from the experiences of years post.
Projection of those feelings can cause a lot of anxiety and stress as people try to select a gift for their significant other. Sometimes feelings of disappointment, resentment and financial insecurity make giving more of a burden than an expression of love. We`ve all heard the phrase, "It`s the thought that counts"; it makes us hope that if we blunder in our choices, our blunders will be forgiven.
Some people have a knack for choosing the right gifts. Some of that may be intuitiveness, but I think it`s mostly a developed skill like- any other relationship skill. It takes effort, attentiveness and commnunication on a regular basis to know what pleases another person.
Choosing gifts under pressure, in a panic, or begrudgingly because the calendar says "it`s that day again," doesn`t quite fill the bill. You can`t give an expensive gift on one occasion and expect it to compensate for 364 days of inattention and lack of concern for your loved one`s needs.
The lack of an intimate connection with another human being is a painful condition. It`s what underlies most relationship problems. And gifts bought thoughtlessly are a poor substitute for the kind of giving that touches the heart.
When you think back on gifts you have received in the post, which ones do you most remember with good feelings? For most of us, it`s usually ones that mirror us--our values, our tastes and our idiosyncrasies. The price tag has little to do with it. When we receive a gift that touches us, what makes that gift different from others is that in order for the giver to have chosen it, they had to know something about who we are inside and have same understanding of what pleases us.
It`s the experience of being understood that`s touching. The gift is a symbol of our own specialness recognized and mirrored back to us by the person whom we most want to see it.
As for us (Sara and Gerry), we had an especially eventful holiday season, one we would not have chosen and one that called for an extra measure of teamwork.
Most of our time and energy was spent with a family member in crisis. We didn`t do the usual exchange of gifts. Our priorities were clearly established for us and there wasn`t much time to attend to the usual holiday activities. But there was no deprivation of what really counts. There was sensitivity to special needs and appreciation for the efforts made in dealing with the situation.
We usually celebrate Dec. 22 as the anniversary of the day we met. I spotted a great card in the course of my day, so I bought it for Gerry. He had not had time to get a card, but the next morning, by my plate at breakfast, was the same card I had given him the night before with his name lined through and my name written on the envelope. Inside, he rearranged the words to address me. He said it was a card he would have chosen for me. Talk about "mirroring"!
Needless to say, this is an anniversary we will remember as special. We found a way to get the message across under the most difficult of circumstances. We both felt loved and appreciated.
"A LAWYER AND A THERAPIST"
RELATIONSHIPS
By Sara Doudna, M.F.C.C.
Gerry and I developed our private relationship much the some way most people do. We met at a party, we danced, we hit it off and the story from there is quite predictable.
A lawyer and a therapist: Some might think we would be incompatible, given the typical perceptions of the temperaments needed for our respective professions and the goals of our work. He helps couples divorce and I help them stay together. That perception, of course, is quite superficial, and not always true.
Much of our dinner conversation as we were getting to know each other consisted of sharing the frustrations involved in working with troubled couples and with families. I have discovered that Gerry has a sharp intuitive sense of what goes on with people. He is a strong believer in the principles of mediation and has a lot of experience in mediation, working with other therapists.
While we may have different approaches to solving problems, we do have similar relationship values.
We particularly share sadness and frustration at seeing children affected when parents are caught up in the all-consuming emotional storms of divorce. On and on, year after year, ex-spouses continue to struggle with support, visitation and custody, influenced by new partners, their children and ex-spouses. The complexity of our family system is exceeding our wildest imaginations. Remember when we thought it was such a hassle to coordinate holidays with the wife`s family and the husband`s family? That`s a piece a cake in today`s blended family environment.
My observation is that conflict between ex-spouses has increased since custody has become more shared between the parents. It`s a big step forward that there is more equality in the parenting responsibilities of divorced couples. However, as a society, we are not dealing with the challenge placed on us to learn to co-parent our children with dignity. It`s scary to think of the new generation of children being raised in a family system where there is so much conflict and hostility and where the children often may believe themselves to be the problem.
It has become a rare case in my therapy practice when the only issues being confronted are the relationship dynamics of a couple or a family. Most often there are added conflicts involving ex-spouses and children and the associated ongoing legal battles.
THE ISOLATION OF A BATTERED SPOUSE
RELATIONSHIPS
By Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
I have worked with victims of domestic violence and their batterers in both the family and criminal courts, in battered women`s shelters and in various domestic violence assistance programs for almost 20 years. During that time, I have heard many stories of ongoing violence where the victim`s self-esteem had been worn down by the cunning use of conditioning through violence and fear.
A frequent technique of the batterer is to cut the victim off from her family, friends, employment and church. I have been amazed at how many abused clients I have represented who have never seen their spouse`s paycheck, are not on the checking account and have no credit cards and virtually no assets in their name.
The most controlling abusers may never let their white out of their sight--even following them to the bathroom. They may unplug and take the telephone with them to work. The abuser may threaten his mate, saying: "If you leave me, I`ll kill you (or your family) (or myself)." They may say: "You`ll never see your children again--you`ll have nothing."
I had a case where the husband was so jealous and controlling that he would not allow his wife to shop in their own neighborhood. He would drive her out of the area, making her crouch down on the floor of the car so that she could not see or be seen by the men in the neighborhood.
One client described how she would do something that she knew, would anger,her husband, so that he would beat her and get it over with. She explained that she found the anxiety of anticipating the next incident devastating. She felt that by provoking an attack, she could at least choose when it happened--and maybe she would even end up with a less severe beating.
Getting the victim to take action is not always easy. After an extended period of such economic and personal isolation coupled with escalating violence and threats of violence, the victim is often left with no resources, emotional or tangible, with which to escape.
Paradoxically, sometimes even after leaving, the domestic violence victim is inexplicably drawn back to the abuser. I have had clients who have escaped during the night from battered women`s shelters while still braised from the last beating, after swearing that they would never go back. I have been asked by a black-and-blue woman while at the courthouse to defend her husband--who was in jail for beating her.
Battered spouses sometimes make difficult clients. Understandably, they don`t trust easily, and may not trust anyone of the abuser`s gender. In the cases I am drawing from for this column, the victims were all women. As a male attorney, it took some work on my part to convince them that I was on their side and that help was available.
While victims of domestic violence may also sometimes be men, the overwhelming number are women, children and the elderly. It has been reported that over 40% of all women murdered in the U.S. are killed by their lovers.
Thankfully, legislatures, courts, low-enforcement agencies and lawyers have become more aware and educated in the phenomena of domestic violence. Laws and procedures have been enacted that significantly expand the domestic violence victim`s choices and access to resources and expedited court procedures.
If you see yourself being drawn into a cycle of violence, even if you`re "just" being threatened or "only" being pushed, you should act immediately. Contact a battered women`s hotline or shelter. Contact the police, a therapist or a hospital for referrals. Obtain restraining orders from the court.
Get out, even if only for a short time, while you obtain professional help and begin to objectively evaluate your situation. And remember, children exposed to domestic violence are very dramatically affected--wny times inadvertently being taught to be a victim or abuser. Even if your spouse promises to get help, you mutt still take immediate action to protect yourself and your children.
In a future article, I`ll look at how the criminal and civil laws have changed in recent years to protect victims of domestic violence, and the advent of new resources that increase the victim`s chances to escape and build a normal life--free from fear and violence.
DIVORCE--LET ME COUNT THE WAYS
RELATIONSHIPS
Gerald L. Klein, Attorney at Law
When I ask this question of a prospective client, many times the answer I get is that they tried a few sessions of counseling but the spouse either wouldn`t go at all or had only gone once or twice. Sometimes they tell me the sessions always ended up with my prospective client "being in the wrong."
I find that usually each partner couches their efforts to work on the marriage in a way that directly or indirectly blames the other party. But whatever answer I get, it`s usually obvious that counseling was never given an opportunity to work.
This is a shame. It`s not that counseling can fix all bad marriages; sometimes it makes the need for divorce even clearer. But when that happens, counseling can help the partners proceed in the least destructive manner.
Once a divorce is decided on--and depending on how well I perceive my client to be coping with the breakup of the family--I sometimes recommend "divorce counseling." This helps my client deal better with me as I take him or her through the divorce process, and can save the client timej money and emotional distress. It can also improve his or her relationship with the estranged spouse and with their children as they navigate through this very emotional process.
In many cases, problems in the marriage have been festering for a long time, and the parties have become very angry and hostile toward each other, causing them to come to me looking for revenge or pleading for protection from a vengeful spouse. I recommend counseling in either case.
Sometimes potential clients are unsure whether they want a divorce and come to me, only for informtion to help them better understand their options. Often they are in counseling and trying to decide whether to divorce.
Typical questions include:
*Which proceeding is appropriate: divorce, legal separation or nullity?
*Will I be able to keep the house?
*Will I get custody?
*Now much support will I receive or have to pay?
*How do I actually leave the marriage and still protect myself both physically and financially?
*What do I take with me?
With the answers to these and many more questions unique to each case, they can return to their counselors and consider their options again with a better understanding of the legal implications of their decision.
Once the decision to separate is made, the most appropriate process has to be chosen. This decision is many times inappropriately decided for the parties because of a lack of funds. While more people are "representing themselves" in divorce to save money, it can be a false economy: Property and support entitlements may be lost that would have more than compensated for the cost of some professional assistance.
Divorce law has become highly technical, requiring more than merely a knowledge of community property law. Parties going through divorce rarely have the emotional fortitude and training to enable them to obtain an appropriate result without some professional assistance.
Depending on the length of the marriage, whether there are children, the nature and degree of property, financial and support issues, the parties` emotional state and their ability to communicate and trust each other, the following options should be considered:
* Representing yourself: In this case, you would utilize divorce workshops, paralegals or short consultations with an attorney, and have your final paperwork reviewed by an attorney.
* Divorce mediation: Use a family law attorney, a mediator or a mental health professional team. This can be economical and effective, but it requires communication and trust as you negotiate in the protective environment of the mediation sessions.
* Individual representation by an attorney: Anticipating settlement, the attorney negotiates with the spouse`s attorney directly or has a meeting where all parties are present. This can be as effective as mediation--without the emotional confrontation many experience in mediation. It is less expensive than a court battle. There may be minimal court involvement as the parties narrow the issues and make compromises.
* Individual representation with the intent of heavy litigation. This should only be the last resort. It`s expensive, leaves the outcome to strangers and the anger with the parties.
There are many reasons a relationship breaks up and many options available to the parties as they decide to stay or leave. I advise my clients to consider their options carefully--especially since, unless they improve how they choose relationships in the future and how they act once the romance subsides, they may not see any real improvement the next time around. Many times, if the parties worked as hard on their marriage as they do on their divorce, there would be no divorce.
(And don`t forget the prenuptial agreement before the next marriage, even though you intend to stay married forever--again.)