If you put two smart, equally powerful people together to solve a problem with no clear right or wrong answer, they will likely come up with at least two possible solutions, and will often disagree on which solution is the best. The conundrum then becomes, which solution will be chosen? Who gets to choose? What is the basis for making this particular choice? Must one solution win and the other lose? Now imagine that the two people trying to solve the problem are getting divorced. The problem solving process now is emotionally as well as cognitively challenging.
Collaborative Practice is founded on the idea that two smart and equally powerful people getting a divorce should be given the opportunity to create their own resolutions outside of court. But often the problems that need to be solved in a divorce do not have clear right or wrong answers. In an emotionally charged situation, it’s easy for even the most thoughtful people to become positional and fall into a win-lose mindset, which exacerbates conflict and adds to the emotional and financial expense of the divorce process.
Instead of encouraging clients to engage in positional thinking, Collaborative professionals use a process called interest-based negotiation which aims at creating win-win rather than win-lose solutions. Interest-based negotiation explores the interests, needs or values underlying positions. At this deeper level, people can often gain new insights into self and other that help them become more flexible problem solvers.
I have Collaborative clients who agreed I could share their story of how interest-based negotiation helped them reach a very creative resolution regarding parenting time.
These parents had agreed that a co-equal parenting time schedule would work well for their children. Based on their children’s ages, they were considering a developmentally appropriate 2-2-5-5 parenting time arrangement, in which one parent would be on duty every Monday and Tuesday night, the other parent every Wednesday and Thursday night, and weekends would alternate. But neither parent was really satisfied with this outcome. This co-equal resolution did not feel like a win-win solution; instead, both felt they were losing something important and thus couldn’t agree to this schedule. We needed to go deeper for resolution.
Below the surface of the co-equal schedule proposal, some of each parent’s core interests were not being addressed. Dad felt sadness at giving up two Friday game nights with the kids each month. Mom was unhappy about losing two Sunday worship services with the kids each month. These were special family times for each parent. As parents shared these concerns with each other, they reached an agreement that Dad could continue to have every Friday evening for game night, but would bring the kids to Mom’s house later on her parenting time weekends. Mom could bring the kids to church on the Sunday evenings they were scheduled to have weekends with Dad, and bring them to his house after church. These resourceful parents succeeded at reaching a unique and creative solution that would work for their family in the context of the broader parenting time arrangement. And best of all, the primary beneficiaries are their children.
If you put two smart, equally powerful people together to solve a problem with no clear right or wrong answer, they will likely come up with at least two possible solutions, and will often disagree on which solution is the best. The conundrum then becomes, which solution will be chosen? Who gets to choose? What is the basis for making this particular choice? Must one solution win and the other lose? Now imagine that the two people trying to solve the problem are getting divorced. The problem solving process now is emotionally as well as cognitively challenging.
Collaborative Practice is founded on the idea that two smart and equally powerful people getting a divorce should be given the opportunity to create their own resolutions outside of court. But often the problems that need to be solved in a divorce do not have clear right or wrong answers. In an emotionally charged situation, it’s easy for even the most thoughtful people to become positional and fall into a win-lose mindset, which exacerbates conflict and adds to the emotional and financial expense of the divorce process.
Instead of encouraging clients to engage in positional thinking, Collaborative professionals use a process called interest-based negotiation which aims at creating win-win rather than win-lose solutions. Interest-based negotiation explores the interests, needs or values underlying positions. At this deeper level, people can often gain new insights into self and other that help them become more flexible problem solvers.
I have Collaborative clients who agreed I could share their story of how interest-based negotiation helped them reach a very creative resolution regarding parenting time.
These parents had agreed that a co-equal parenting time schedule would work well for their children. Based on their children’s ages, they were considering a developmentally appropriate 2-2-5-5 parenting time arrangement, in which one parent would be on duty every Monday and Tuesday night, the other parent every Wednesday and Thursday night, and weekends would alternate. But neither parent was really satisfied with this outcome. This co-equal resolution did not feel like a win-win solution; instead, both felt they were losing something important and thus couldn’t agree to this schedule. We needed to go deeper for resolution.
Below the surface of the co-equal schedule proposal, some of each parent’s core interests were not being addressed. Dad felt sadness at giving up two Friday game nights with the kids each month. Mom was unhappy about losing two Sunday worship services with the kids each month. These were special family times for each parent. As parents shared these concerns with each other, they reached an agreement that Dad could continue to have every Friday evening for game night, but would bring the kids to Mom’s house later on her parenting time weekends. Mom could bring the kids to church on the Sunday evenings they were scheduled to have weekends with Dad, and bring them to his house after church. These resourceful parents succeeded at reaching a unique and creative solution that would work for their family in the context of the broader parenting time arrangement. And best of all, the primary beneficiaries are their children.
Divorce is a crisis in the life of a family. It is not actually a legal crisis, though it requires this expertise to ensure that legal resolutions are reached regarding financial matters. It is not a theoretical crisis. It is a genuine emotional crisis. What does this mean for children?
Some years after I began my therapy practice with children and families decades ago, a researcher named Judith Wallerstein published the results of her longitudinal study on the negative impact of divorce on children. The data were a wake-up call, shocking to some, sobering to all. Mental health experts responded by saying parents and social institutions needed to be more attentive to the impact of divorce on children. A book was written advocating bird nesting—parents rather than children transitioning to and from the homestead—as an alternative “custody” arrangement for families (an option we now know to be a temporary rather than permanent solution). Questions began to be raised on the impact of parenting time arrangements that essentially minimized otherwise healthy and loving relationships between parents and children.
At the time Wallerstein’s study was published, the options available for divorcing parents were largely adversarial in nature. The focus was “rights based,” not based on supporting co-parenting and keeping children out of the middle of the crisis. Many of the parents with whom I work attest to the emotional trauma they experienced when their own parents divorced. In fact, it is likely these divorcing parents were assured by their attorneys that “children are resilient—your kids will be fine.” But we know that children do not become resilient in a vacuum. They need adults to create environments of support and attention to their needs.
Collaborative team divorce offers a clear and powerful alternative for parents who love their children and want to envision a hopeful future for them. Families work with a multidisciplinary team of professionals with specific skills and experience. Mental health expertise is woven throughout the process, both to specifically support children and to provide parents with the best possible grounding for effective co-parenting. If you want to know more about how your family can weather the emotional crisis of divorce with the most dignity and respect for the needs of your children, please learn more about Collaborative team practice at this link to the website for the 
Peace is possible though we are surrounded by high conflict. In the recent words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “The world is a mess.” Messiness occurs when people are unable or unwilling to resolve differences without wars of words or weapons. This occurs not only globally but also on a personal scale. And for all the extraordinary human costs of violent conflict, the most deeply distressing is its impact on children.
The end of a marriage is not unlike the breaking up of a country based on sectarian differences. Is it possible to disconnect without civil war? Yes, but one must be mindful of the path one is choosing, and deliberately opt to not do battle. Though sometimes complicated, peaceful resolutions are possible if the focus remains the safety and wellbeing of children.
I do not believe conflict is inevitable, because for every cause of conflict there is an inverse possibility. In our day-to-day lives, we can choose a path of peace. We can elect to follow 
