divorce: what’s love got to do with it?

The Journal of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals

The

CollaborativeReview

winter 2014 / Volume 15, issue 1

DIVORCE: wHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO wITH IT? EXPANDING OUR THINKING ABOUT LOVE, FORGIVENESS AND COMPASSION IN OUR wORKBy Ron Ousky, JD

PEACE IN PLACE PROJECT: BUILDING HEALING SPACES By Deanna VanBuren, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP, NOMA; Yuval Berger, MSW, RSW and Kimberly Fauss, JD

NEw ROOTS FOR SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FOSTERING MORE RAPID GROwTH OF FORGIVENESS, GRATITUDE, AND COMPASSIONBy Sharon Strand Ellison

I

II

III

Special editionDivorce: What’s Love Got to Do With It? Love, Forgiveness and Compassion in Family Law

PUTTING A HEART INTO THE BODY OF LAw By Sue Cochrane, JD

CIRCLES SUPPORTING FAMILY COURTBy Elizabeth Vastine, JD

TALKING ABOUT LOVE wITH LAwYERSBy Pauline Tesler, JD

wHAT DOES LOVE MEAN IN FAMILY LAw PRACTICE By Linda Wray, JD; Talia Katz, JD; Jennifer Tull, JD and Kimberly Stamatelos, JD

IV

V

VIVII

IACP Board of Directors

PRESIDENTLinda wray, JD, Minnesota

PRESIDENT–ELECTShireen Meistrich, LCSw, New Jersey

PAST PRESIDENT Ross Evans, JD, Ohio

TREASURER J. Mark weiss, JD, washington

SECRETARY Barbara Kelly, PhD, Florida

DIRECTORSSuzan Barrie Aiken, JD, CaliforniaYuval Berger, MSw, Canada Kay K.w. Chan, LLB, Hong KongCathy Daigle, CFP, CaliforniaMichael Fancher, JD, washingtonChristopher Farish, JD, Texas Kimberly Fauss, JD, VirginiaCatherine Gale, LLB, Australia Karen Levitt, JD, Massachusetts

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERTalia L. Katz, JD

IACP Staff

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Colleen Zubrycki

COMMUNICATIONS & DESIGN SPECIALISTJessica Gutierrez

OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATORCassaundra Allison

CONFERENCE & MEETING COORDINATORMonica McQueen

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTLora Schmidt

Correspondence should be addressed to:IACP4201 N. 24TH STREET, SUITE 240PHOENIX, AZ 85016

[P] 480.696.6075 [F] [email protected]

Publication StatementTHE COLLABORATIVE REVIEw IS A PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS (IACP).

THE VIEwS EXPRESSED IN THE COLLABORATIVE REVIEw ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE IACP.

NO ENDORSEMENT OF THOSE VIEwS SHOULD BE INFERRED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE IACP.

THE IACP IS NOT ENGAGED IN RENDERING LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, PSYCHOLOGICAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.

IF LEGAL ADVICE OR OTHER EXPERT ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED, THE SERVICES OF A COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL PERSON SHOULD BE SOUGHT.

Table of Contents

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT ..................................................................... 3By Linda Wray, JD

A MESSAGE FROM THE FETZER INSTITUTE .............................................. 4By Linda Bell Grdina

I DIVORCE: wHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO wITH IT? .................................. 5 EXPANDING OUR THINKING ABOUT LOVE, FORGIVENESS AND COMPASSION IN OUR wORK By Ron Ousky, JD

II PEACE IN PLACE PROJECT: ................................................................... 11 BUILDING HEALING SPACES By Deanna VanBuren, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP, NOMA; Yuval Berger, MSW, RSW and Kimberly Fauss, JD

III NEw ROOTS FOR SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL .............................. 18 CHANGE: FOSTERING MORE RAPID GROwTH OF FORGIVENESS, GRATITUDE, AND COMPASSION By Sharon Strand Ellison

IV PUTTING A HEART INTO .......................................................................... 24 THE BODY OF LAw By Sue Cochrane, JD

V CIRCLE SUPPORTING ............................................................................... 28 FAMILY COURT By Elizabeth Vastine, JD

VI TALKING ABOUT LOVE ........................................................................... 31 wITH LAwYERS By Pauline Tesler, JD

VII wHAT DOES LOVE MEAN ....................................................................... 34 IN FAMILY LAw PRACTICE By Linda Wray, JD; Talia Katz, JD; Jennifer Tull, JD and Kimberly Stamatelos, JD

3

Letter from the PresidentBy Linda Wray, JD

T his special edition of the Collaborative Review concerning the powerful concepts of love, forgiveness and compassion is an exploration not commonly conducted by professional organizations. Love in particular, is a word we rarely, if ever, encounter or embrace, at least explicitly, in the provision of professional services.

The Fetzer Institute, founded in 1962 by John Fetzer, seeks to break through barriers to expressing and incorporating these concepts in the public sphere. John Fetzer, born in 1901, was a pioneer in the broadcast industry, eventually amassing a broadcast empire, and a baseball enthusiast and one-time owner of the Detroit Tigers. He also was a keen intellect with interests that extended beyond the bounds of science, business and sports. Throughout his life, he studied philosophy, practiced various forms of meditation and prayer, and explored healing through a variety of mechanisms, including biofeedback, traditional Chinese medicine, and techniques used by Tibetan and Buddhist monks. He was interested in how the sacred and secular could be better integrated, and was convinced that to deal with the world’s greatest issues we must understand their psychological and spiritual roots, as well as their political, social and economic underpinnings. The Fetzer Institute, funded by the wealth Mr. Fetzer amassed from business, was established to explore his conviction and to create a better world. The mission of the Fetzer Institute as stated on its website is to “foster awareness of the power of love and forgiveness in the emerging global community.”

when IACP became aware of the plans of the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota to hold a symposium on the topic “Divorce: what’s Love Got to do with It?,” and the work of the Fetzer Institute, it welcomed the opportunity to support the symposium and explore these weighty concepts through participation in the three-day symposium which took place in May, 2014, and through this edition of the Collaborative Review.

I suspect most would agree with John Fetzer, that love, forgiveness and compassion are important, indeed vitally important, in our personal lives. And, I imagine there is some degree of comfort using these words, or at least drawing on the feelings they invoke, in instances of tragedy affecting the public sphere. The remarkable story of the surviving senior partner at Sandler O’Neill & Partners, a wall Street financial firm that lost 66 of its employees on September 11, 2001, is such an instance. Jimmy Dunne was the survivor. Dr. John woodall, a psychiatrist previously on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, met with him and described his emotional response as follows: “He grieved openly for the loss of dear friends and colleagues. … It was a proof of his love and care for those he lost. For him, this was the only manly and honest thing to do, weep for their loss.” Mr. Dunne chose to rise above his grief and anger, and chose not to hate and fear. In the face of the enormous loss of life and devastation to his business, Sandler O’Neill made a decision to pay salaries of its deceased employees to their families, and to establish a foundation to provide family health insurance coverage and pay for the education of children. Such a course on wall Street was clearly counter to the conventional wisdom of experts, who claimed that caring for families would undermine businesses. Yet, propelled by strong emotions that perhaps could be called compassion or even love, Jimmy Dunne and Sandler O’Neil stepped out on wall Street as a different kind of role model. See, http://www.johnwoodall.net/2011/#axzz3IgdhIcyj; http://fortune.com/2011/09/01/sandler-oneills-journey-from-ground-zero.

Many of us as Collaborative professionals have observed acts of forgiveness and compassion in our clients, and seen the powerful concept of love play out as parents consider the future for their children.

As you read through the thought provoking articles in this edition, I invite you to consider whether you believe it is appropriate to also apply these concepts to our work as professionals. Several articles in this edition look analytically at components of love, forgiveness and compassion and how these values can come alive in our work. Some of us, including me, took the plunge and agreed to share very personal stories about the place of love in our professional lives. Some at the Fetzer Institute concluded that use of the word love, to express feelings and values that perhaps are captured by terms such as empathy, compassion, support and caring, does not serve us well. Talia shares her personal story and concern about use of the word love in the context of our professional lives.

4

A Message from the Fetzer InstituteBy Linda Bell Grdina, Program Officer at Fetzer Institute

was a May 2014 symposium aimed at gaining a better understanding of how Collaborative professionals could use love and forgiveness as tools to resolve conflict in less damaging – and more lasting – ways.

As you will see in the articles that follow, the symposium participants achieved this objective, but they also broke ground in unexpected areas, including:

• drawing lessons from hospice about how to help divorcing couples deal with grief and loss; • tending to the effect that the physical environment of the law office and court room can have on clients’ mental perspectives and feelings of emotional safety; • examining the long-term impact of a worldview that emphasizes competition over relationship and reciprocity; and,• acknowledging the importance of authenticity, self-care, and self-compassion in maintaining a healthy professional practice.

As the funder of the symposium, the Fetzer Institute is inspired by the participants’ insight, passion, and

“Divorce: What’s Love Got to Do With It?”

we as a community have dealt to some degree with the concepts of forgiveness and compassion. They were an important part of the dialogue at the Vancouver Forum. Does the concept of love, as well as forgiveness and compassion, resonate for you as underlying our work? Are all three of these concepts deserving of more explicit discussion and exploration of their meaning in our professional lives? Do they have a place in how we relate to our clients or develop space for their relationships? Or, should one or more of these concepts be left for areas of our life outside of work?

A space on the Be-fulfilled website will be set up to dialogue about these questions. I hope you will consider sharing your reflections, stories and ideas as to how the concepts of love, forgiveness and compassion show up, or not, in your work as professionals and more generally in Collaborative Practice. Sincerely,

Linda K. Wray, JD

Letter from the President (continued)

commitment to their profession. Collaborative professionals are at the forefront of a small but growing movement within the legal profession that seeks to relieve suffering and promote healing as they resolve conflict. In a profession often rife with contention, they have created an approach that values love, compassion, and forgiveness.

Collaborative professionals are pioneers, yet they are not alone. As a foundation that works to investigate, activate, and celebrate the power of love and forgiveness as a practical force for good in today’s world, the Fetzer Institute is seeing similar changes arising in business, education, design, and the health professions. All of these endeavors are focused on respecting one another’s humanity, listening, and making human connections: love, in so many words.

we are grateful to the symposium organizers, Sue Cochrane and Ron Ousky, who were most ably assisted by Megan Yates. we applaud the transformative work of Collaborative professionals everywhere, affirming they will continue to share their wisdom with each other and the world.

5

Divorce: What’s Love Got to Do With It? Expanding our Thinking about Love, Forgiveness and Compassion in Our WorkBy Ron Ousky, JD

I

For three days in May, 2014, the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota, with funding from the Fetzer Institute and assistance from the IACP, hosted a three-day international symposium, entitled “Divorce: what’s Love Got to do with It?” It is my hope and belief that this event will be a catalyst to many insights for Collaborative practitioners and others. Before I describe the potential impact of this symposium, please allow me to step back to explain how this all came to be.

On January 20, 2012, Stu webb, the founder of Collaborative Law, forwarded an email to me from Sara Tollefson, a member of the Law Professions Advisory Council of the Fetzer Institute. I did not know Sara, but the Fetzer name drew my immediate attention.

The Fetzer Institute is a nonprofit organization located in Kalamazoo, Michigan, whose mission is to “foster awareness of the power of love and forgiveness in the emerging global community.” During the past forty years the Fetzer Institute has funded numerous projects worldwide, ranging from smaller initiatives, to the groundbreaking Emmy Award winning Healing and the Mind with Bill Moyers on PBS. I have known about the Fetzer Institute for many years and I had hoped that the time would come when the people at Fetzer might take an interest in Collaborative Practice. As it turns out, that day had arrived. Sara’s email stated that she had been learning about Collaborative Practice and that she thought that the Fetzer Institute might have some interest in funding a project relating to our work. Specifically, she said, the Fetzer Institute might provide funding if we could come up with a project that would “impart lessons about the practice of love, forgiveness, and/or compassion in the field of law.”

I let that statement roll around in my mind for a short while. I have always believed that much of our Collaborative work centers around love, forgiveness and compassion, even if we don’t often use those actual words. My definition of love is quite broad. For me, the greatest part of being a Collaborative practitioner is watching the transformation that can occur in people when you are able to help them see past the pain of

their current circumstances and onto the prospect of a brighter world. Understanding love and forgiveness has always been, in my opinion, at the very heart of that transformation. In my view, when truly meaningful change is happening for people, some kind of love is in the room, even when we give it another name.

So, could we develop a project that would “impart lessons about the practice of love, forgiveness, and/or compassion in the field of law”? I believed we could. I had no specific idea about how this “project” would look but I was interested in exploring it.

Sara suggested that we might consider hosting some type of symposium in which people would gather to explore these ideas. I liked the idea and during the next few weeks, cobbled together a proposal for a three-day symposium entitled “Divorce: what’s Love Got to Do with It?”

with Sara’s help, I submitted the idea, and, in the months that followed, Linda Grdina, a program officer at Fetzer, helped me refine the proposal. About a year later, Fetzer approved funding for the symposium.

It was clear from the objectives outlined by the Fetzer Institute that while the symposium would be centered on Collaborative Practice, it should include professionals from outside the Collaborative world as well, so that we could impact as many people as possible. In order to help the symposium include these broader objectives, I reached out to Susan Cochrane, a recently retired Judicial Officer of our local Hennepin County Family Court, who has been an amazing pioneer in bringing new ideas to family law for nearly two decades. Sue agreed to co-chair the symposium and help me form a small group of Minnesotans to plan this exciting event.

A Different Kind of Gatheringwhile I had been involved in helping host conferences in the past, this planning experience was quite different than anything I had ever encountered. Most of those other conferences have primarily had an educational purpose, in which the participants attend plenary talks and workshops for the purpose of learning

6

Divorce: What's Love Got To Do With It? (continued)

new things. with this symposium, the participants were to be invited to a working group gathered for the purpose of generating ideas that might lead to differences in the future.

During the twelve months that followed, our group recruited and identified fifty participants, recruited two keynote speakers, located space for the conference, identified a method of running the conference, engaged two facilitators and hired an evaluator. It was an exhilarating (and sometimes exhausting) experience leading up to a symposium that has left a permanent impression on me and, I hope, will lead to changes around the world.

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014: The Participants Gather at Oak Ridge. On the afternoon of Tuesday, May 13, 2014, we sat in the lobby of Oak Ridge Conference Center, anxiously waiting for the arrival of participants to attend a conference that was more unusual (and maybe more risky) than anything I had ever done. we had been able to attract a talented and diverse group from five different countries, including attorneys, judges, psychologists, mediators, authors, law professors, and an architect for three completely unpredictable days. Oak Ridge Conference Center is a comfortable, resort-style center in a wooded area of Chaska, Minnesota, approximately 35 miles from the airport. In order to make our out of town guests feel as welcome as possible, and to start building a retreat-like atmosphere, we had members of the Collaborative Law Institute greet each person at the airport and drive them to Oak Ridge, where they were welcomed with a “goodie bag” filled with, among other items, locally made chocolates and hand-painted cards. By around 5:30 pm, most of the attendees were gathered at tables in the beautiful Oak Ridge dining area getting acquainted (or reacquainted) before our opening gathering.

At 7:00 pm, we all gathered in our large meeting room where we would spend much of the next three days. Fifty chairs were set up in a circle with a large “shrine” of flowers, candles and other warm symbols at the center. During that gathering, the participants were introduced to each other and to our facilitators, Barbara McAfee and Patrick O’Brien. From the very first moment of that simple introductory gathering, it was becoming increasingly clear that this was not going to be quite like any other conference we had ever attended.

In addition to being a world class conference facilitator, Barbara is a gifted singer and songwriter who has written an amazing number of songs that seemed to be perfect for occasions like this. Throughout the week, Barbara would start

our sessions by playing her keyboard and singing an original song that seemed to capture, with humor and insight, the very essence of our thinking. From the very first meeting on that Tuesday evening, Barbara took us out of our comfort zones and put us on the edges of our seats, only to bring us around to moments of comfort and warmth that reminded us that we were among the rarest of friends.

Barbara’s style was perfectly complemented by our other facilitator, Patrick O’Brien, who was quieter, slightly older, and punctuated Barbara’s musical energy with the calming words of an old sage. His calm, steady manner, coupled with Barbara’s boundless energy, set an engaging tone for the conference from the time of our first “get to know each other” gathering on Tuesday evening.

Wednesday, May 14: The Symposium Officially BeginsAt 9:00 a.m. the next morning, after breakfast (and group meditation for some), we gathered in that same large room, shared some songs and a few more words of welcome and were introduced to a new concept called Open Space Technology.

Modified Open Space TechnologyOne of the great challenges faced by our planning committee was determining the best method of hosting that would help us achieve our goals. we knew that we could not use the typical methods of having lectures and workshops but needed to find a suitable hosting alternative. After looking at many fascinating models, we decided on using a process called Open Space Technology. I hope that one of the things that will come out of the symposium is an awareness of Open Space Technology (or at least a modified version) and application of it in our work. In Open Space Technology, the participants make and manage their own agenda. People gather for the purpose of solving a particular problem or to develop an idea, and the participants decide how they want to go about working on the problem or idea. we used a modified version of Open Space Technology that inspired innovative thinking throughout the three days.

Defining the Problemwe started by spending some time as a group going over the overall purpose of our gathering, the focus of the funding from the Fetzer Institute and some defining questions, which were developed in our work with the Fetzer Institute, to help focus our thinking.

The defined objective of the symposium was to create a “broader and deeper understanding of the current state of

7


fostering love and forgiveness as part of family law practice.”After the method and some of the principle questions were discussed, the actual open space “market place” began. During that phase, we were each invited to step forward, introduce an idea, and assign that idea a meeting room. During our first Open Space Session, groups were formed to discuss the following four topics:

1. Designing Space for Love and Forgiveness2. Systems Changes3. what Does Love Look Like in Family Law?4. what Can Judges Do to Incorporate Reconciliation and Forgiveness into Family Court?

Each of these ideas was assigned a room and posted on a large board, along with any other ideas that popped up around the room. Once all of the topics were identified and assigned a room, the real fun began. we were given the complete freedom to go into any room we wanted and to become a part of that conversation. we were encouraged to stay in the room as long as we were interested and contributing. As soon as we found we were no longer interested in the topic, or if we felt we had contributed as much as we could, we were free to go to any other room. In fact, we could go in and out of rooms as often as we wanted and we could even go out in the hall and pull aside two or three others and have a separate conversation of our own.

Having that freedom to let our imaginations and energy run wild was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my professional lifetime. Here I was, in a building with 50 of the most fascinating people I had ever known, invited to talk about some of the most interesting topics that I had ever learned about, in whatever manner I wanted. I was like a kid in a candy store. I wanted to sit in on every session, and sometimes I did exactly that.

when I first heard about the Open Space idea, I thought it would be mass chaos, with people wandering aimlessly without focus. In fact, it was the opposite. The participants, able to align their time and energy with their strongest interests, were very focused and all of the rooms were full of energy. It was quite fascinating. I remember wishing that every committee meeting I had ever attended had operated under these rules.we had five Open Space sessions throughout the symposium. At the end of each, one of the members of the group would summarize the key points and give them to our evaluator, who would then condense these main points into a summary document that was circulated to all of the participants. In addition to the five topics above, we had discussions on a wide range of ideas including: child safety, conditions that enable forgiveness, defusing defensiveness, marriage

hospice, movement building, taking back the legal profession, and diversity.

Our SpeakersThe pure Open Space model does not have speakers. However, we decided on a modified version of Open Space which featured two special guests/speakers to help inspire our work; Cheri Maples and Tara Brach.

Cheri Maples is an attorney and a former police officer from Madison, wisconsin, and founder of the Center for Mindfulness and Justice. Cheri gave us an overview of her work and took us through some fascinating exercises that left a deep impact on all of us. She also provided specific ideas and insights about love, forgiveness and compassion in our work that inspired many of our discussions during the Open Space portions of the symposium. Cheri also stayed around for most of the symposium and contributed ideas and insights during our Open Space discussions.

Our second speaker, Tara Brach, psychologist and best-selling author of Radical Acceptance and True Refuge helped us maintain a tone for the symposium through several meditation exercises. Tara’s teachings on acceptance, mindfulness and forgiveness, and her “RAIN” technique of meditation (an acronym describing its four simple steps) also provided us with many specific methods that can be used in our professional practices. Tara also participated in some of the Open Space sessions.

The HarvestFriday, the final day, was spent primarily “harvesting” ideas and outlining future action. we had one last Open Space session in which the focus was on taking the ideas that had emerged from the symposium and determining actions going forward. Again, as with the other Open Space sessions, the “market” was open and each member was allowed to identify something that he or she wanted to work on and that project was assigned a room. Once the ideas were identified and assigned to rooms, each person could go to a room and work on the action plan that suited them.

As we approached this last session, I could feel the energy in the room shift a bit, from a warm confidence that we were all moving to a greater purpose, to a sense of fear that we may not have time to develop the specific plans necessary to help us create the great reforms that had been discussed throughout the symposium. This is, perhaps, where the idea of a true Open Space may have challenged us a bit. In a true Open Space conference, nothing needs to evolve. whatever happens as a

8

result of the meeting is exactly what is supposed to happen and each of the participants must take their own responsibility for taking the ideas forward in whatever manner they see fit. However, this was a modified Open Space, and there were some expectations, at least by the Fetzer Institute, if not by all of us as individuals.

Writing Articles: Widening the CircleOf course, the most likely stepping stone between the ideas generated at the symposium and the actions that will make a difference in the world is in writing. Part of our focus, following the symposium, has been to encourage people to follow up on the ideas that meant the most to them and to begin writing about those ideas, either individually or in groups, so that these ideas might grow and continue to spread. This edition of the Collaborative Review, which has focused on collecting and disseminating these ideas, is the first major step in expanding on some of the wisdom that emerged from the symposium and on spreading the enthusiasm for this great work to a wider body.

Members of the IACP, the first people to read and consider these ideas through this edition of the Review, are in my view, the perfect bridge between the abstract wonder of the symposium and the more concrete work of making our world a better place. Among other things, there has been talk about hosting another similar symposium, or even annual symposiums, to help continue finding ways that our work can be enhanced by new ideas about love, forgiveness and compassion. Many times during the conference, I thought that many of my colleagues in IACP would have great ideas to contribute and I thought how great it would be to widen our circle from the 50 people gathered in Minnesota last May to the more than 5,000 members of IACP and beyond.

Many of the powerful discussions at this year’s Forum in Vancouver served as a strong affirmation that ideas of forgiveness, restorative justice and compassion are emerging as central themes in our work.

The articles in this edition were written for the purpose of widening the circle to include all members of our community. It is our hope that you will find all of the articles to be interesting and that some of you will find at least one article to be inspiring enough to invite you into the Open Space to help us carry these ideas forward.

The focus of the symposium was quite broad and included ideas that go beyond the specific elements of Collaborative Practice. Yet, with each of the articles and ideas there is a

common thread that I believe relates very directly to our work as Collaborative professionals, as well as to our overall vision of creating a better world for the families that we seek to help. we are hoping that this issue will plant many seeds and will inspire thinking by our members, and many others, about how we can be examples of love, forgiveness, and compassion in our work.

The articles in this edition do not represent all of the things discussed at the symposium, or even all of the ideas or articles that may evolve from discussions during the symposium. However, they represent some of the very best ideas that emerged from many of the talented and creative people who participated, and we hope the publication of these ideas will be a catalyst for much more good work.

Opening Comments from the Fetzer InstituteLinda Bell Grdina, Program Officer for the Fetzer Institute, provides an introduction to our issue and describes a wonderful connection between the work being done by Collaborative professionals and the growing movement of professionals seeking to relieve suffering and promote healing in conflict resolution.

Peace In Place Project: Building Healing SpacesOne of the exciting ideas that was generated during the Open Space sessions was a discussion about how our physical space relates to our work in love, forgiveness and compassion. Bringing people together from different backgrounds led to a rich and diverse discussion of how we can create space that creates a “safe haven” to help clients and professionals do their work as peacemakers. Deanna VanBuren, an architect, Yuval Berger, a mental health professional and Kimberly Fauss, an attorney, have combined to write an article that explores the great possibilities of creating space in which love, forgiveness and compassion can thrive in our work. The issue of improving our peacemaking space is often discussed in our Collaborative community. This article on space is the first article I have ever read that really looks at the research and ideas that support our thinking about creating a healing space. I hope that we will look back many years from now and know that many healing spaces have been created or enhanced by the ideas generated in this article.

New Roots for Social and Institutional Change: Fostering More Rapid Growth of Forgiveness, Gratitude and Compassion Sharon Strand Ellison, author of the powerful book Taking the War Out of Our Words, Executive Director of


9

the Institute for Powerful Non-Defensive Communication, and an engaged participant at the symposium has contributed an amazing article entitled: New Roots for Social and Institutional Change: Fostering More Rapid Growth of Forgiveness, Graitude and Compassion. In her article, Sharon outlines how we foster a growth in human consciousness and create a social epidemic of compassion, forgiveness and healing. Sharon provides inspiration and clear ideas about how we can extricate ourselves from old ideas and “nurture new, healthier roots for change.” She describes ways that we can defuse defensiveness and “create experiences that give future generations the ability to live more meaningful lives.”

The closing remarks of Sharon’s article summarize it best and nearly give me a chill: “we can stop giving the greatest power to the most negative person at the table. we can be part of a process that can move us at exponential speed toward a world that understands and embraces the realistic and practical power of positive forces such as forgiveness, gratitude and compassion. The potential is there. One conversation at a time. Every time.”

Putting a Heart in the Body of LawSue Cochrane, a retired family court Judicial Officer in Minnesota and Co-Chair of the symposium, writes about five principles that could create a model court system which would bring love, forgiveness and compassion to families.

Sue’s article has a very personal impact on me. I have known Sue since the time we both graduated from law school more than three decades ago. we both entered as visionaries, and through different paths, have tried to change the world of family law. I have worked primarily in the area of Collaborative Practice and Sue has worked, most recently, in reforming our court systems. Sometimes we had opportunities to work together in our reforms and, more often, we had the opportunity to notice how, in and out of the courts, we are working to achieve the same purpose. when Sue was a Judicial Officer of family court, she enlisted the help of mediators and Collaborative professionals to create an entirely different type of court system that lies at the very heart of our work.

The magic of Collaborative Practice for me, is that, by taking divorcing families outside of the “shadow of the court” and away from the notion that some outside person will make the decision for us, we open the door for families to find their better solutions. During her time on the family law bench, Sue achieved much of the same reality. She has shown that, in the right environment, even a judge or Judicial Officer can take people outside that “shadow” by getting them to forget

that there is a powerful decision maker who is going make decisions for them, and to look to the resources of the court system to help them find the power within themselves.

One of the reasons I was so eager to expand this symposium to all areas, inside and outside of court, is that, in the truly ideal state of conflict resolution, these ideas can connect. Even within a court system, one with heart, there is an opportunity for families to pause and to seek the aid of professionals both within and outside the system, who will help them find solutions without the threat of adversarial litigation.

Circles Supporting Family CourtDiscussion of love, forgiveness and compassion often lead to the amazing work that has been done around the world in relation to Restorative Justice Circles. while many of us are aware of the power of Restorative Justice outside family law, we were fortunate to have a participant at the symposium who had brought this amazing work into the world of family law. Elizabeth Vastine, a Chicago attorney, writes about the success of a pilot project in Chicago in working with families using Restorative Justice Circles. The concept of working with families in conflict through Restorative Justice Circles represents another cutting edge way in which we might integrate love, compassion and forgiveness in our work.

Talking About Love With LawyersPauline Tesler has added a wonderful reflection about what it means to talk about love with lawyers. She writes about the difficulties that lawyers have in talking about love and in expressing emotions and about the impact that the suppression of these emotions has on our profession as well as our health. Law schools do not train lawyers to have these types of conversations and, indeed, may continue to suppress some of the traits that make us better people and better attorneys. Thankfully, as Pauline writes, new ideas and new trainings are emerging to help us counter this traditional approach in ways that we hope will eventually allow even lawyers to speak openly about love and forgiveness.

What does Love Mean in Family Law Practice?One of the remarkable things about the Fetzer Institute is that, in furtherance of their mission, they insert the word “love” into our dialogue and ask all parts of our society to talk about what it means. I believe their funding of projects like this one is designed, in part, to get the legal community talking about how love fits into their work. Even in the Collaborative community, I find that this is a greater challenge than we might expect; whether we are talking about the concept of love, or the very word itself.


10

I chose the name for the symposium, “Divorce: what’s Love Got to do with It?” with the idea that it would take us out of our comfort zone and, at minimum, force us to discuss the impact of that word, and that concept. Of course, the focus of the Fetzer Institute funding, and the symposium itself was designed to go beyond a discussion of what we mean by “love.” There was a mandate, throughout the symposium, to also look at the role that forgiveness and compassion have in our work. Using words like forgiveness and compassion, while still challenging, take us down more familiar paths. Injecting the word “love” into the conversation adds another dimension altogether.

One of the topics discussed at our very first Open Space session was the very seminal question of what we mean by “love” in family law. It is clear that love is a word that is used with great caution in professional circles, if it is used at all. If we are going to be bold enough to use that word in our dialogue, as the people of Fetzer seem to be daring us to do, then we ought to spend some time talking about what we really mean. Coming from a tradition in which love was used very expansively (and therefore could fit into almost any container), I was surprised to learn that this was not the same for many of my colleagues. Many of my good friends at the symposium and elsewhere, have had very different notions about what we might mean by “love” in this context and, accordingly, about whether the ideas embedded in that word should be a part of our professional practice. In this issue, we have compiled some reflections about what love means in family law by some of the participants, including IACP's CEO and its President, to help us all think about the many dimensions of the word and the concepts. I appreciate the willingness of each of our contributors to share their very personal thoughts on this bold and delicate topic.

SummaryFor me personally, this symposium was an opportunity of a lifetime to participate in what I hope will be a truly transformative discussion. The true beauty of Collaborative Practice is that it opens the door to a whole world of possibilities. By taking families in conflict outside of the shadow of the court, we are hoping to make room for a truly transformational shift. we are moving away from a world in which these families fight for survival and rely on their most base instincts to a world in which individuals and families in conflict are given the opportunity to connect with the best parts of themselves. when this happens, it is pure magic and it gives us, as Collaborative professionals, the most compelling of reasons for doing the hard work we do.

while we don’t always use terms like love, forgiveness and compassion in our work, most of us are well aware that those concepts lie at the heart of what we currently do and, perhaps more importantly, form the clearest signposts pointing to where we want to go in helping these families build a ladder to a better future. Many of us have already spoken, on many occasions (at least among our colleagues), about how forgiveness and compassion can play a role in helping our clients find deeper resolution. we have, for the most part, been less comfortable using the word “love.” It is an understandable discomfort, even for a community as brave as ours. It is a word saturated with meaning and we may all have different understandings of what we mean by “love,” based on cultural or religious beliefs or even simply based on our individual experiences of how we have seen that powerful word used in our lives.

The people of Fetzer have challenged us, much in the way they have challenged so many elements of our society, to come to grips with “love” and to come face to face with how this word fits into our lives and into our work. we may not be able to have a consensus about what love means to each of us; indeed, that is not truly necessary. But we must have the courage to at least have the conversation; for it is a word that, while often misconstrued, is deeply embedded in our culture and the meanings so many of us attach to the word is too powerful to be ignored. It is a word that ignites passion and feeling and, in our case, helped lead us to a powerful weekend of rich conversation.

The people at Fetzer sought out the Collaborative community because they believed that, among legal circles, this may be a group most likely to have the courage to talk about love, compassion and forgiveness in a way that truly leads to change in our world. I think that they were absolutely correct in their assessment of our community; not because we were able to host a three day symposium; that was only intended to be the beginning; but because we have the commitment and creativity to carry these ideas forward. The proof will lie in the years ahead. The symposium involved just a handful of people, some of whom were IACP members. The purpose of this issue of the Collaborative Review is to be the spark that ignites a larger flame so that these ideas may build and grow as we constantly look for better ways to help the families that we serve.


11

IIPeace in Place Project:Building Healing SpacesBy Deanna VanBuren, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP, NOMA; Yuval

Berger, MSW, RSW and Kimberly Fauss, JD

The Collaborative movement thrives on interdisciplinary connections and innovations. The Fetzer Symposium 2014 encouraged new and unexpected relationships embracing peacemaking between Collaborative Practice and health, contemplative thought and architecture. One exciting group conversation centered on the attributes of the physical space where we do our work. Many of the themes throughout the symposium invited us to embody our work – not just explain, educate and theorize about resolving disputes respectfully, but also to recognize, investigate and allow the physical expressions of conflict to be expressed, calmed and released. Physical experience impacts both clients who struggle in their transition as well as professionals who are located in and identified with the space.

An architect, mental health professional and lawyer have continued the conversation beyond the symposium to explore how Collaborative professionals can construct or renovate spaces in their communities that heal and nurture rather than separate and judge. Both research and experience demonstrate that the physical configuration of courtrooms, offices, mediation and restorative justice centers directly affect the people entering and using the space. The fortress model of traditional courtrooms creates distances and hierarchy while the haven model of contemporary offices offers sanctuary. The new edge of change for Collaborative professionals is how to intentionally design and incorporate hospitality into their practice so that love and forgiveness can emerge naturally to move clients beyond settlement to resolution.

Project Description

Collaborative Practice empowers clients to resolve legal disputes without traditional adversarial legal structures such as courts. In family matters specially trained Collaborative professionals from different disciplines guide clients in reaching balanced and lasting agreements. Collaborative Practice does this by managing conflict and directly engaging the team of clients and professionals together to generate acceptable options for clients and their families in their future lives. The Collaborative process is about creating a

new experience of safety for the clients in a time of great physical stress. Trust in the process and all professionals, respect for the personhood of all participants, integrity of action to provide information and contribute solutions are the foundational tools of Collaboration. The process provides emotional safety for clients to explore custom-designed plans. Each client is represented by a lawyer who is fully committed to a negotiated conclusion since representation will terminate upon any contested court proceedings. This commitment to safety encourages the client to attempt new behavior. Just as the professional team strives to be a metaphorical safe container for the dispute, the physical environment of Collaborative negotiations can be an actual safe container enhancing respectful attitudes for both clients and professionals.

The primary area of practice for many Collaborative professionals remains family law in which the central values of love and forgiveness may seem to have been forsaken. In the breakdown of a marriage, anger, betrayal and hurt are familiar and often barriers to open dialogue and proactive future financial planning. Often the feelings of anger, betrayal and hurt are fueled or even encouraged in a zero sum contest to win the most. Forgiveness is a conscious, willful choice to turn away from the pain and discover a larger context for change, restoration and hope. Forgiveness is not an outcome, but a process of compartmentalizing, leaving behind and co-creating a future relationship. To achieve this state, the professional actively facilitates clients by quieting anger, acknowledging the transgression, moderating civility, modeling empathy and inviting a new beginning. This context for forgiveness can be reflected and enhanced by the physical surroundings - from the shape of the table to the seating arrangement, lighting and wall colors.

Likewise professionals are influenced by physical space. To move beyond settlement of financial issues to the broader goal of resolution, they too must have a shift in attitude. The space and organization of the office, conference room and courtroom should remind the professional of his deepest values – justice, healing, trust - the reasons he went to

12

Peace in Place Project... (continued)

professional school. The broader conversation about love includes the professional’s compassionate response to his clients, support staff and colleagues. Compassion calls us to suffer together with another and be moved to relieve that suffering. The peacemaking foundations of Collaborative Practice arise from a desire to relieve the suffering of families in the divorce transition by normalizing the stages of grief and restructuring families so they can thrive. The professional practicing compassion holds hope for his client until that client regains emotional balance, confidence and trust. Conflict conducted in healing spaces can support professionals in their work of relieving suffering, healing past memories, learning broader perspective so that their clients can rekindle love in future relationships.

Impact of Design

The professional practices of architecture, urban design and planning create spaces that reflect the values of society. This built environment forms the containers for nearly all the activities of our lives, and through evidence-based design research we are learning that these containers have a profound impact on how we feel and behave. For those new to the concept, evidence-based design is the process of basing design decisions about the built environment on rigorous research to achieve the best possible outcomes. It is also used to quantify the effects our current environments have on our health and well-being. In analyzing this research it is clear that the values inherent in our social systems, including those for justice, are the genesis for the physical environment. If we value winning, our spaces will create a field of conflict. If we value forgiveness, our spaces will be focused on healing. within the context of the dispute resolution continuum we are seeing a dramatic shift in values taking us from the punitive to the transformative. New practices for dispute resolution, that include restorative justice and Collaborative Practice, have the potential to foster love, forgiveness and compassion for those in conflict rather than fear and alienation. However, in order to support this change we need to break from patriarchal and hierarchical spaces for conflict resolution and create environments that support different desired outcomes.

To frame the discussion and help non-designers to understand how this happens, it can be helpful to begin with the model we are most familiar - the courthouse. The American Correctional Association video series Understanding the Criminal Justice System uses the metaphor of a boxing ring to describe the adversarial process of conflict resolution to understand how this works spatially. In the boxing ring there is

a centralized infrastructure, unfamiliar to many and physically separated from the community. The entrance to the match has clear fortress-like barriers to entry and opaque walls to hide the various routes separating the participants (judges, the accused and the public). Inside the judge as referee sits on an elevated dais while the players themselves hit back and forth verbally within the carefully defined footwork of the courtroom. These are distinct formal strategies that reinforce the power relationships and adversarial nature of the proceedings. Once the round is over, both the winner and loser return to their corners physically, mentally and emotionally hurt and in pain.

while this is the experience of many families, communities and individuals entering our courts, the user experience of the physical design of courthouses is anecdotal. There has been little evidence-based design research done on courtroom settings. However we can extrapolate data from research done in other building types with similar values, such as prisons and jails. For example, current research and literature in the design of these institutions, which includes work being done by architects in collaboration with social workers and incarcerated students, suggests that to some extent the violence and anger prevalent in correctional facilities are attributable to the architecture and design of the physical spaces that induce incredible amounts of stress. Some of these features include loss of privacy, poor acoustics exacerbated by hard surfaces, lack of control and isolation from nature - especially sunlight (wener, 2012). It is interesting to see that many of these same features are found in the design of the courthouse. Lawyer and architect, Paul Spencer Byard, makes reference to how the amount and types of spaces might replicate these conditions:

The bind comes from a dominant postmodern political emphasis on criminalization, prohibition and retribution as proper responses to socially undesirable behavior. This emphasis produces for the architect an almost insuperable programmatic overload in the quantities of space for courtrooms and related functions - duplicated and even trebled by requirements for segregation and security - to accommodate all the required adjudication and punishment (Celebrating the Courthouse, p. 143).

Byard means by “bind” that neither the anecdotal, qualitative or quantitative research in the destructive nature of these settings has led to a shift in the design of spaces for traditional dispute resolution nor retribution since there has been no change in underlying values. It is this bind that led to the development of alternatives such as Collaborative law. As a practice further

13


along the continuum of dispute resolution, Collaborative law had to physically divorce itself from the courthouse in order to foster its values of trust, respect and integrity. These values can now also manifest physically to support the families, professionals and the unique spatial needs of this process. Collaborative professionals are actually well-positioned to participate in creation of spaces that relieve suffering, reduce physical and mental stress and provide emotional safety.

How do you as a Collaborative professional take ownership of space to transform yourself? How do you create a space that fosters hospitality and emotional safety? These were questions asked of the Fetzer Symposium group looking at Designing Space for Love and Forgiveness. Sadly, we have few models of what this haven looks like within the context of the legal profession. The good news is that we can adapt solutions from evidence-based design research done in other building types expressing similar values, such as case health care, residential and work environments. These spaces share values rooted in creating places that support the emotional and physical well-being of those who use them. This shift in values has allowed architects and their clients to implement spatial strategies based on research to achieve better outcomes. In addition, the learning conversations between architect, mental health professionals and lawyers during the working group at the symposium raised early criteria on how to create spaces for collaboration that are designed to heal and nurture. Based on analysis of current evidence-based design research and real world projects for peacemaking and restorative justice, already designed and built, some of the most universal and relevant criteria we have identified for these environments include: personalization of space to elicit feelings of haven, home and hospitality, integration with nature and providing a sense of scale and control.

Not unlike your home, your office is a place where you have some form of control over the surroundings. when you contextualize the places where you work as a significant place in your life, then it can contain symbolic content that reflects your values, your personality and supports your emotional state of mind (Bailer, 2002). Creating a comfortable warm and welcoming space through personalization can also begin to establish the basic level of intimacy required for trust in facilitated dispute resolution processes. In an early study on the Effects of Interior Design on Communication, researchers Chaikin, Delega and Miller discovered that self-disclosure was greater in a warm, intimate counseling setting (Page K Pressly, Spring 2001, p. 152). In residential facilities where there is prolonged exposure to an

environment, personalization of space has been shown to mitigate aggression and anxiety (wener, 2012, p.125). Plants and artwork with certain themes are simple elements to implement that can be part of the strategy. For example, art that represents nature, as opposed to abstracts or urban settings, has positive physiological and emotional effects in offices, hospitals and institutional settings (Roger S. Ulrich, 2008) (wener, 2012, p. 222). This personalization can also manifest in textures, colors, furnishings, objects, imagery and lighting that reflects character and personality rather than corporate or institutional identity. Your physical space is essentially a reflection of you and your values.

Another related aspect of personalization is the creation of positive entry experience that reflects one of welcome and hospitality. At the symposium workshop, Collaborative practitioners explored both needs and solutions to this aspect of their spaces. what is the first thing that people see? who is greeting them? Many decided to remove diplomas, others who were unable to staff a front desk had their dog greet visitors as they came. Other practitioners made sure there was a place for food and coffee. In our work in designing centers for native peacemaking, clients have asked for a greeter instead of a waiting room or to have a lobby space filled with visual interest and activities that helps take some of the focus off the difficult dialogue about to take place. Another aspect of this experience is a desire for depth of view through low walls, shelves or glass to reduce anxiety that comes when entering an unfamiliar space or relieve overcrowding in a small or cramped area. As a start, being mindful of these basic aspects of the environment can provide a way for practitioners to care for themselves and create an experience that can be a calm space in the midst of chaos.

The American Institute of Stress shows that second only to the death of a spouse, divorce and separation from a mate are the most stressful life events, with illness a close third. In evidence-based design of health care facilities, one of the primary goals has been to explore how the environment can be used to reduce this stress and can be directly applied to spaces for dispute resolution. One well-researched aspect is the impact of integrating man-made environment with nature. This includes windows that allow daylight, fresh air and views to nature, natural elements within the space and access to gardens or outdoor spaces for reflection and social interaction. For example it has been proven in multiple building types that environments with views to nature and plants reduce anxiety and stress that lead to fear, anger and violence (Francis E Kuo, July 2001 ) (Roger S. Ulrich, 2008, p.

14

36) (wener, 2012, p. 222). More importantly for those visiting a space for shorter amounts of time, the physiological reactions that illicit stress can abate within five minutes with views to real or representative images of nature (Roger S. Ulrich, 2008, p. 35). windows that allow in daylight and provide visual interest also reduce mental fatigue, promote emotional recovery, improve mental function and provide relief from depression (Roger S. Ulrich, 2008, p. 42) (Heschong Mahone Group, October 2003, p.120). while fuller spectrum artificial light can help, well-controlled daylighting and a link to the outdoors is one of the most powerful design features one can draw on to create an environment that is emotionally and physically supportive.

Most of these elements form a proxy for home where we have complete control over our space. This includes not just the object and aspects of nature that surround us, but also lighting levels, thermal conditions, interpersonal space (body buffer zones) and levels of social engagement. Studies of student perceptions of faculty office environments showed that they felt more welcome and at ease in offices in which they felt more control over their surroundings. (Page K Pressly, Spring 2001, p. 152). It has also been shown in hospital, workplace and residential settings that when people feel they have control over what happens to them in the physical space, they are less stressed and frustrated (wener, 2012, pp. 117-122, 199), (Augustin, 2009) (Ann Sloan Develin, 2003, p.672). This might be the ability to open a window to stay cool, close a window to control sound, move one’s chair to alter interpersonal space, dim the lights or leave the room to process and reflect.

The combination of these elements is a preliminary framework for understanding how the Collaborative practitioner can harness the power of design to represent the values of the process. Returning to the vision of the boxing ring, we can see the radical difference between the spaces of the courthouse and the kinds of spaces we are talking about for collaborative offices. Knowing the profound impact the design of physical infrastructure has on our social systems, there are many architects across the country attempting to re-vision the courthouse and its associative architecture. However, in the face of a continuing commitment to the adversarial values of our traditional system, this change is difficult. It is not surprising that in an effort to create a new paradigm for one of the more stressful events in people’s lives, the closing of the courthouse doors has been essential. In doing so Collaborative practitioners can generate environments that reflect and support different

outcomes and should be empowered with the tools to do so. By understanding the research in other places that promote calm and healing and by engendering mindfulness around the impact environment has on our health and well-being, the intention of this project is to develop thought leadership to inspire Collaborative professionals to create spaces of dispute resolution that embody love and forgiveness.

Entering through the Back Door: How Physical Space Can Surprise the Unconscious

The human brain has evolved over many millions of years to protect us from danger, real or perceived, physical or psychological. In the psychological realm, threats can range from failures, rejection, inconsistencies of awareness of our mortality, small frustrations or hassles of everyday life. The brain is equipped with billions of neurons organized in separate regions, yet all connected. These neurons can identify, analyze and respond to real or perceived danger swiftly and effectively. This system has protected us over many millions of years with one goal - our survival as a species! The defended self reacts arising from unconscious sensory motor strategies anchored in the spine and nervous system.

The brain’s ability to defend the self is largely dependent on an unconscious, rapid cascade of internal processes which result in automatic behaviour. The way we react to the perceived danger lacks conscious psychological process, such as cognition, choice, linear sequence thinking, etc. Our brain response to the challenge of threats is significantly quicker than when the brain is challenged, for example, to collaborate with another human being. when competing needs arise, the need to defend the self would ‘veto’ all other human needs. Some evolutionary psychologists would argue that our brain better serves as a war apparatus than as a relational one.

Divorce or separation from an emotionally-committed relationship is a traumatic and extremely stressful event. The trauma of the divorce is compounded by the fact that during the time that individuals work through their own bereavement, they are challenged by the need to make many important decisions regarding their children, their accommodation, as well as financial matters.

In many divorces, conflicts arise as the two clients negotiate the next step. Some conflicts have their origins in the psychological responses to feelings of being hurt, humiliated or shamed by divorce. It seems that initiators and non-initiators share similar emotional responses to divorce, but


15

the timing of the responses is different: initiators experience more change, stress, and personal growth at the beginning of the divorce process, whereas non-initiators report the same feelings later on in the process.

Unlike dealing with the death of a spouse, divorce is a voluntary process. Although there are similarities between divorce and the loss of the spouse through death, nonetheless, given the nature of the loss, adjustment to divorce seems more difficult than adjustment to widowhood. Death is a matter of fact, which often permits an idealized view of the deceased one, whereas divorce often shows the ambivalence of the feelings present in some relationships.

Considering the complex psychological nature of the divorce and the conflict in which it is embedded, it is normal and expected for individuals dealing with divorce to feel angry, self-protective, self-justifying and victimized by the divorce. These responses are not a matter of choice or a voluntary state of mind, but rather a biological response of the self to protect and defend the self when feeling threatened and in danger. Evolution equipped us with this mechanism to preserve and protect as a species.

There are many definitions of forgiveness. However, psychological academics and researchers conclude that forgiveness is a conscious process in which the person who forgives intentionally chose to do so. According to Enright & Fitzgibbons (2000), people, upon rationally determining that they have been unfairly treated, forgive when they willfully abandon resentment and related responses (to which they have a right), and endeavor to respond to the wrongdoer based on a moral principle of beneficence, which may include compassion, unconditional worth, generosity, and moral love (to which the wrongdoer, by nature of the hurtful act or acts, has no right). when a person forgives, changes occur in the affective, cognitive, and behavioral systems. For example, negative emotions, such as anger, hatred, resentment, and sadness, are given up and are replaced with more neutral emotions and, eventually, positive affect. with forgiveness, one recognizes that a hurt has occurred, yet one consciously chooses to release resentment and anger.

The psychological challenge for the divorcing couple while engaging in the separation process, regardless of who is the initiator or the non-initiator of the divorce, is how to pursue a rational, conscious process which employs logical, objective, and systematic methods of thinking, including the choice to

cultivate forgiveness, while the unconscious brain is caught up in a self-defended, self-righteous state of mind.

Our unconscious brain is highly sensitive to the environment in which we live. Physical spaces are designed to ‘surprise the unconscious brain’ through leveraging memory, evoking experiences and inducing behaviours. The space in which the Collaborative process unfolds may assist the person in cultivating a peaceful, calm and rational state of mind which would allow for rational conscious thinking process to overcome the reactivity of the unconscious brain. The potentiality of the physical space as a stimulus for activating moods, attitudes, decision-making, leveraging values, including forgiveness, for the individual who has been dealing with the traumatic experience of separation, has not yet been fully explored as a resource by Collaborative professionals, even though its impact on the self has been documented in research studies. This is a new frontier, and a very exciting one for the Collaborative movement.

The Collaborative process is about creating a new experience of safety for the clients. This kind of safety provides an atmosphere for inspired guidance by the professionals; and for the client, it provides the courage to attempt new behaviour. By soothing the negative feelings associated with separation and activating calm and safe experience, the individual can reorganize mindset toward the conflict. A change in the mindset may impact the ability to appraise the challenges they are facing with a less ‘catastrophic’ stance so that the individual may consider ‘outside-the-box’ options, increase empathy to the spouse’s pain and possibly choose forgiveness.

Change and Other Challenges to Professional Identity

Although the evidence-based research demonstrates that design follows values and that clients have physiological responses to the perceived safety of environment, the final hurdle to a collaborative reorientation to physical space is the professionals themselves. In our struggle to remove traditional barriers to consensual family restructuring, the professional community is still coming to terms with the restructuring of our own assumptions and responses. As a movement, Collaboration has embraced a self-reflective orientation to evaluate the impact of our aptitudes and attitudes on client functionality. Likewise, clients in continuing conflict have the ability to hijack even the best intentions of the professionals through positional thinking, advocacy, alignment, transference, counter-transference and other invisible pulls toward long-standing habits of


16

adversarial work. Professionals need visible reminders of their higher values in the workplace to strengthen their commitment to respectful practice.

Traditional fortress environments developed alongside the hierarchical evolution of law and social institutions administering justice. From a power-based system of the Dark Ages where might made right, the legal system of the 11th Century moved into rights-based justice arising from ecclesiastical courts, imbued with the authority of God and King (Fauss, 2010). The divine rightness of the law was defended by professionals who professed their faith and duty. The legacy of the rightness of this system lingers today among professionals and clients alike forming an implicit identity for judges and lawyers. Moving family matters from the courtroom to negotiation settings became acceptable only as no-fault divorce statutes became ubiquitous in the 1970’s. It took a single boy to point at the Emperor with no clothes and ask “why do we continue to subject families to the same assumptions and values embedded in property-based, distributive legal processes?” That boy was Stu webb in the 1990’s who chose a different set of values within himself. His courage has allowed family law professionals to follow the exodus from hierarchy and power.

Yet 25 years in the making, Collaboration is still considered an alternative. Professionals trained and successful in the adversarial model have an ingrained preference for the environments that perpetuate this identity. Clients in the stress of fight or flight unwittingly reinforce the hierarchy by turning over decision-making to someone with exclusive knowledge and experience in this unknown landscape. without mentoring, community and life changes, Collaborative professionals risk relapsing into habits which have been successful in court, in adversarial negotiation and in society’s acknowledgment of professional power. Many professionals are called to take an introductory Collaborative training by personal values of peacemaking, love and forgiveness, but struggle to align their professional practice in ways which will support continued growth and maturity as a facilitator of disputes.

when the professional resonates with these deeply held values, the clients notice. Neuroscience suggests that there is an entrainment that happens between people in conversation arising from empathetic networks of mirror neurons. Curiosity and open questions will elicit a different response from clients than fact-oriented discovery that compartmentalizes the client’s lived experience. The attitude of the professional has an impact on how the client shares

his story. The information the professional gives, whether process-oriented (how we will move forward) or substantive (what you can expect) will either calm the client or anchor the client to protective reactions. The professional is in the best position to focus attention on one goal or the other. And the professional will be influenced by the setting of the interaction. Does hospitality shift the client’s fear or does the planning of hospitality by the professional, including the room, the food on the table and the comfort of the chairs, shift the professional’s perspective?

This is the core of the paradigm shift Collaborative professionals experience: moving the clients from fear to calm, from emotional dependence to generativity and from settlement to resolution. There are emotional, mental and physical transformations in the professional first, so that the clients can be guided, refocused and allowed to express their highest values as well. So the natural progression of the shift is for Collaborative professionals to surround themselves with indicia of these values. Creativity in clients and professionals can be tapped in the calm alertness instilled by the haven environment, allowing the clients to access his full range of memory, knowledge and experience to craft an acceptable and durable outcome.

The haven is our metaphor for environments which allow access to creativity and conversation, with its welcome and access to nature, beauty and calm. The different disciplines of Collaborative professionals may well have different access to office space or conference rooms that elicit the feeling of calm alertness. Many professionals are in group practices with significant overhead and colleagues who are not engaged in Collaborative Practice. Often staffs, receptionists and assistants, are not trained in the hospitality of the Collaborative table. So recommending structural changes to the practice environment may be costly and not practical. The Peace in Place Project will examine not only building new structures, but also redesigning existing spaces. Changing colors, lighting and implements of authority may be enough to shift the comfort of professional and client alike.

The value of compassion can then be expressed through the intentions of the Collaborative team: the desire to alleviate the suffering of our clients by offering an alternative. Even though the divorce transition for our clients is stressful and possibly even traumatic, Collaboration embodied in the physical can create the circumstances for forgiveness to be approached. The shift in power expressed in intentional space and human spirit can invite love and forgiveness into the future we create


17

together. The Collaborative team can hold this hope for the clients as they rediscover their values and potential for the future.

Moving Forward

Based on research in the diverse fields of architecture, psychology and neuroscience there is a connection between the design of place and outcome in the Collaborative process. Although coming from three different disciplines, the authors conclude that design of physical space has a substantive and transformative influence, positively or negatively, on the clients’ emotional experience of conflict as well as on the emotional experience of the Collaborative professionals as they engage in the process. Place has the potential of transforming the clients from feeling defended, angry, guilty, afraid, lonely and powerlessness into calm, engaged and reflective. This shift from stress and dependency creates the possibility for the client to cultivate forgiveness. For the professionals, this shift from hierarchical vestiges of adversarial settings allows them to reclaim personal values of compassion for the suffering of families in conflict.

In addition to the structural design of place, there are a myriad of other variables that can impact the process that can be investigated. Colors chosen for the walls, textures of flooring, design considerations of window treatments, textiles and décor of a room may have subtle influence on mood. Research on the physiology of the eye has demonstrated that men and women see color differently, with men responding to bold colors and women to pastels. Lighting, especially fluorescent bulbs, has reflective qualities on faces which may subtly affect perception of emotions. Research on unconscious interpretation of facial cues may provide new insight into the significance of the visual reading of others in conflict. Egress and ingress to a space and flow between spaces may create barriers or invitation to sanctuary. Clutter, at the one end of the spectrum, or displays of accoutrements of success at the other, may convey messages of chaos or rigidity. while clients may need reassurance of professional qualifications, in Collaboration we are encouraging clients to use professionals as resources so they can rely more on their own internal expertise. All of these physical considerations become part of the Collaborative professional’s canvas, and all can be managed with relatively low cost. Just as we are learning that there is an optimal point between fight or flight responses and lethargy, our goal is to create a space where the clients can optimize calmness and alertness. Our space should convey well-ordered establishments, yet accessibility and welcome to those who choose to participate actively in resolution.

The metaphor of the safe haven describes an emotion and a place. In this place the clients can find comfort and soothing at times when they feel threatened, frightened and in danger. They may step away from victim mentality, looping memories and isolation to discover a new view of self, expanded social networks and new ways of partnering. In addition to the feeling of calm engendered by safety, this haven can encourage the client to search for more expansive solutions to their situation by accessing creativity, explorative behaviors and empathy. The heart may be broken open here to forgive not only the other, but one’s self. If Collaborative professionals can actively participate in the architecture of forgiveness, they may also reconstruct professional purpose into personal commitment to a compassionate life.

Ann Sloan Develin, A. B. (2003). Health Care Environments & Patient Outcomes A Review of the Literature. ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 5 Sage Publication.Augustin, S. (2009). Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture. John Wiley & Sons.Bailer, K. A. (2002). The Role of the Physical Environment for Children in Residential Care. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth Vol 20 Haworth Press Inc., 15-27.Francis E Kuo, W. C. (July 2001 ). Aggression and Violence in the Inner City. ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, 543-571.Heschong Mahone Group, I. (October 2003). Windows and Offices: A Study of Worker Performance and Indoor Environment. California Energy Commission.Keith A. Bailey, M. D. (2002). The Role of the Physical Environment for Children in Residential Care. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth Vol 20 , 15-27.Page K. Pressly, M. H. (Spring 2001). The Physical Environment and Counseling: A review of Theory and Research. Journal of Counseling and Development Volume 79, 148-160.Roger S. Ulrich, P. C. (2008). A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design( Part I). Health Environments Research & Design, 1(3).Wener, R. (2012). The Environmental Psychology of Prisons and Jails. New York: Cambridge University Press.Robert Enright & Richard Fitzgibbons (2000) Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, APA Books.Sagrario Yarnoz Yaben (2009) Forgiveness, Attachment, and Divorce, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50:4, 282-294.

Kimberly Fauss, From Barristers and Solicitors to the New Collaborative Lawyer, VBA News Journal, Spring 2010.


18

IIINew Roots for Social and Institutional Change: Fostering More Rapid Growth of Forgiveness, Gratitude, and CompassionBy Sharon Strand Ellison

I have always been horrified by the capacity we humans have to do harm to others – all the while feeling justified and even in denial about our motives.

I am, simultaneously, in absolute awe of the human spirit — of our capacity to survive even the unthinkable, turn tragedy into healing, transform pain into gifts of forgiveness and love.

Our symposium, Divorce: what’s Love Got to Do with It?, was focused on this dichotomy. The Fetzer Institute, our co-sponsor, defines key aspects of the issue:

“People across the globe, from all cultures and traditions, embrace love and forgiveness. These values are universally viewed as central to the fabric of humanity. Yet the emerging global community has few institutions dedicated to fostering deeper awareness and understanding of these values. The Fetzer Institute pursues a unique role—working to investigate, activate, and celebrate the power of love and forgiveness as a practical force for good in today’s world.”

Countless stories demonstrate how compassion, generosity, forgiveness, and other positive forms of energy have the power to bring us healing, connection, and joy, building self-esteem and strong relationships. why, then, is “survival of the fittest” still such a pervasive global philosophy? Through this lens, believing that compassion and forgiveness have practical power is seen as naïve, as making us vulnerable to harm.

This philosophy impacts even those of us who are dedicated to peaceful conflict resolution. I often ask audiences, including therapists, mediators, and Collaborative family law professionals, “If you were at a table with ten people, and nine were very cooperative and one person was negative and uncooperative, who would have the most power?” The prevailing answer is, without exception, the “negative” person.

why, after counting down more than 20 centuries of human history, are we so locked into the belief that cruel, “heartless” people will always gain power over those who are kind and

loving? I believe this is an essential question we must answer if we are to work toward a more rapid change in human consciousness.

The Power Struggle Cosmology

My premise is that, just as our physical world is governed by certain laws, such as gravity, all human interaction functions within the context of a cohesive system as well. I see the “survival of the fittest” mentality as part of what I call the Power Struggle Cosmology — or worldview — which has created an intricate, encompassing virtual reality that surrounds us, as if someone blew a giant soap bubble and we are all living in it.

This Power Struggle Cosmology has been reinforced by what I see as four rationales. It has also been a primary influence on two integrated sub-systems that are essential to human life: (1) the process by which we communicate, and (2) an underlying system of core beliefs about common human experiences.

The “Harsh World” Rationale

The following rationales support the contention that we are by nature driven primarily by competition, making us prone to selfishness, jealousy, greed and violence:

(1) It’s Always Been That way: The endless history of violence among nations, races, religions, and even in families can reinforce the idea that “It’s just human nature to be violent.”

(2) Darwin’s Theory: Traditional interpretations focus on evolutionary process as being driven almost exclusively by the principle of “survival of the fittest.”

(3) Genetics: we’ve learned that due to genetic hardwiring, nature trumps nurture. Also, the prevalence of defensiveness suggests we are inherently given to a reactivity that fuels power struggle.

(4) Society Must Change Slowly: Any change in human relationships must happen at a pace that barely creeps across the

19

New Roots for Social and Institutional Change... (continued)

centuries because too-rapid social change would create anarchy.

Impact of the Power Struggle Cosmology on How We Communicate

In the 1970’s, as my ideas were evolving, people started saying that what I was teaching was so “disarming.” I eventually realized that I was teaching a method of communication in which you don’t have to get defensive no matter what the other person does — and, at the same time, you have far more power instead of less. My second insight followed quickly: we’ve been using the rules of war, not just as a metaphor, but as the literal infrastructure for how we communicate.

I started to think about the way we use our basic forms of communication, which I believe are questions; statements, consisting of both giving others feedback and stating our own position; and predictions, often called “limit setting.”

I looked up the word “question” in the dictionary and found it was never defined with the word “curiosity.” Common words used were “interrogation,” “doubt” and “mistrust.” Current definitions include “problem,” “dispute,” “difficulty,” and “controversy.”

Thinking about how we use statements, I thought of the phrase, “the art of persuasion,” and how often people try to convince others to agree and/or state opinion as fact. I thought about how giving feedback is so often delivered and/or perceived as criticism. I saw predictions used with the intent to get people to do what we want.

It became clear to me that we had been using each form of communication for the purpose of manipulating and controlling others. So even when we communicate with those we love, we often create and accelerate needless conflict. I call this traditional communication paradigm “The war Model.”

For decades, I thought that changing how we communicate was the key to constructive problem solving and fulfilling relationships. Gradually, I began to realize there was something else blocking our ability to change.

Impact of the Power Struggle Cosmology on Core Beliefs

Ultimately, I became more conscious of how many of the conflicts people have are over issues like authority, loyalty, honesty, and trust. It dawned on me that the “survival of the fittest” mentality has influenced and shaped global beliefs about everything from power to intimacy.

while the way we communicate is crucial, it’s only the tip of the iceberg —the beliefs that shape our experience and thus dictate how we interact hide mostly below the waterline.

I began to examine a set of predominantly held beliefs about common human experiences. what I discovered was both fascinating and appalling.

Power: The Power Struggle Cosmology is based on the belief that one person/group or the other has the power—one is dominant, one submissive; one right, one wrong. Bernard Loomer calls this concept “unilateral power, a non-mutual power.” It’s also sometimes called “power over.”

when two people using unilateral power interact, it’s like pitting the voltage from two direct current electrical sources against each other. Unilateral power is at the core of a philosophy that’s destructive both to our self-esteem and relationships.

Authority: In this model, the character of authority is dictatorial, like the army sergeant barking orders. The only alternative is usually to be permissive, which allows the children and/or adults being supervised to become unresponsive, demanding, and dominant. The roles have reversed.

Even when we try not to be authoritarian, we may also still react in ways that reflect authoritarian beliefs. we may become embarrassed to admit to a client or another professional that we made an error. In the realm of unilateral power, admitting error is a weakness, a cause for shame.

Honesty: Those with power can be brutally honest, even take pride in it. Those without power often fear to speak the truth because they feel vulnerable — void of any semblance of strength.

Loyalty: when you “have someone’s back,” you defend them regardless of what they do. Either you are on their side, or you are the enemy.

The Power Struggle Cosmology creates an endless stream of no-win choices between, for example, authority and accountability, vulnerability and strength, honesty and loyalty. And the list goes on—protection, love, freedom, compassion, intimacy, and trust all have missing “parts,” and so often they too function destructively instead of constructively.

In their book, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Carol Travis and Elliot Aronson say, “when we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-

20

worth. Most people find it difficult, if not impossible, to say, ‘I was wrong.’” we persist in our denial even when confronted with irrefutable facts by creating a narrative that absolves us of responsibility, remembering our version as truth, blaming others for harm we have caused, and seeing ourselves as victims.

That the majority of us would associate taking accountability for mistakes with damaging our self-esteem instead of as a sign of integrity shows clearly how fractured our beliefs are about what makes us weak or strong.

The Impact On Our Lives Is Enormous

David Loye, PhD, founder of the Darwin Project, says “the story of ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘the celebration of selfishness’ – [is] fixed in our minds like the programming for robots driving our species toward destruction.”

A study by Sommers and Kosmitzki in The British Journal of Social Psychology showed only “20% of American adults rated gratitude as a useful emotion.” 10% said they “regularly” experienced it. Those lacking gratitude are more driven by materialism – which, beyond resources needed for stability – was strongly correlated with increased rates of mental disorder (Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson, American Psychologist, 2005).

A 2006 article in the Journal of Happiness Studies also presents data demonstrating that focusing on victimization, blame, and negative emotions harms physical and mental well-being. I see defensiveness, power struggle, and cutthroat competition as culprits in all of this.

In this reality, being open and vulnerable would be tantamount to striding onto the battlefield without protection.

Deepak Chopra tells about flies put into a covered jar and left there for a time. Even when the lid is removed, 95% will never leave. They accept the boundaries of the jar as their reality. we have been living within the confines of the Power Struggle Cosmology “jar,” in bondage to a destructive worldview.

My work has always been motivated by the belief that “It doesn’t have to be this way.” I feel deep gratitude to live in an era when the faith many of us have in the inspirational power of the human spirit is supported by new information that exposes much of this historical philosophy as faulty.

Harsh World Rationales Debunked

(1) It’s Always Been That Way: This does not hold as an

argument against the possibility of rapid, full-scale change in the future. A testament to this is how previously unbelievable technological changes have dramatically altered our lives in this century. Given these, it’s clearly not accurate to say that if something hasn’t happened in the past, then it won’t happen in the future. And we have adjusted to these changes, which is what evolution is all about.

(2) Darwin’s Theory Was Misrepresented: In Descent of Man, Darwin wrote 95 times about love, 92 about moral sensitivity, 27 about cooperation, and just 12 times about competition. The phrase, “survival of the fittest,” was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, who successfully used it as “a slogan for unrestrained and ruthless economic competition” (©2009 Christ's College, Cambridge).

Darwin suggests, conversely, that the “highest part of our nature” and the “more important” part of our evolution involves “moral qualities” that are advanced more through reasoning, what we learn, and habits we develop than through “natural selection.”

(3) Genetics Can Be Impacted: Recent research is demonstrating we can undergo genetic changes in our own lifetime — a shocking contradiction to previous scientific data.

Through the study of epigenetics, scientists are recognizing that people’s experiences exert a strong influence on their biology by silencing or turning on genes, changing the way a cell functions without changing its DNA sequence.

Abused children living under constant stress become unable to shut down the alarm mechanism even when danger isn’t present. They misinterpret innocent behavior as threatening, impacting their ability to trust and deal with change. And their trauma can be passed genetically to their own children (Nova Next, 2014, Abuse Casts a Long Shadow by Changing Children’s Genes, by Eleanor Nelsen).

In an article in Discover Magazine, Dan Hurley says, “According to the new insights of behavioral epigenetics, traumatic experiences in our past, or in our recent ancestors’ past, leave molecular scars adhering to our DNA.” Hurley goes on, “Our experiences, and those of our forebears, are never gone, even if they have been forgotten. The DNA remains the same, but psychological and behavioral tendencies are inherited.”

This explains how traumatic experiences get passed genetically down through generations. In a world rampant with defensiveness,


21

power struggle, and violence, whole cultures of people can pass on the trauma from war and other forms of oppression.

I think we all carry varying degrees of traumatic stress at a cellular level. At the same time, knowing now that our cellular functioning can be altered—turned on or off, gives us hope for abused children and adults — for all of us.

Defensiveness Can Be Defused More Easily than We Think

Hard-wired defensiveness takes us to a flight or fight reaction, unable to access the complex problem-solving center of the brain. However, scientists have recently discovered that while we can’t talk someone out of being defensive, if we say something that prompts a shift to a different feeling state — such as safety, sadness, or compassion — their physiology shifts back to normal instantly.

Protection Versus Learning

Bruce Lipton, author of The Biology of Belief, offers another exciting piece of the puzzle related to our survival and evolution. Our two basic mechanisms of survival are “growth and protection.” while both take lots of energy, protection only depletes our energy, while growth/learning produces a huge amount. “A sustained protection response inhibits the creation of life-sustaining energy. The longer you stay in protection mode, the more you compromise your growth [and] chronic inhibition of growth mechanisms severely compromises your vitality.” This supports my belief that learning to defuse defensiveness is essential to creating high-speed individual and social change.

(4) Society Does Not Need To Change Slowly To Remain Stable: In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell documents that constructive societal change can be as contagious as any disease — and is often initiated by only a few “exceptional people.”

Gladwell writes about television producer Joan Ganz Cooney, who wanted to enhance education for pre-school children to help counter the effect of poverty on illiteracy. She produced Sesame Street, which became a “learning epidemic.” By “2001, there were over 1,000 research studies regarding Sesame Street's effect on American culture.”

Research from The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley, also verifies that positive change in our attitudes can happen quickly. “A one-time act of thoughtful gratitude produced an immediate 10% increase in happiness and 35% reduction in depressive symptoms,” lasting

for months before dissipating! Another study demonstrated a 9% increase in happiness over six months, from an exercise that took mere seconds a day.

what all this means to me, first, is that misguided beliefs are creating havoc in the lives of millions, if not billions, of people. Second, there is no reason to be afraid to change – it’s not changing that threatens our survival. Third, creating positive change can happen extremely quickly. Far from creating chaos, it can give us greater stability and happiness.

The Reciprocity Cosmology

Splitting a “whole” entity, such as an atom, apart can create ultimately destructive energy. Unilateral power demolishes reciprocity by splitting “giving” and “receiving” apart, creating a world of “givers” and “takers.” Those who seek reciprocity often keep on giving to people who don’t do their part, don’t show gratitude, and continue to demand more. This is not reciprocity. This is a master-servant relationship that is damaging to both parties.

By changing the way we use power, we can find a different kind of strength, one that fosters reciprocity. Bernard Loomer calls this second kind of power, relational power; some call it “power from within.” Here the focus is on how we respond, not on trying to control others.

I call this second kind of power, “reciprocal power.” while reciprocity has a reputation for being successful only if everyone cooperates, I believe the concept of “reciprocity” has been widely misunderstood.

while cooperation is dependent on the willingness of all parties, reciprocity is not. Using an example from our physical world, in an otherwise healthy garden, if I don’t make sure that I adequately water my tomato plants, they won’t give me tomatoes. If I do make sure they get enough water, they’ll give me tomatoes.

Reciprocity is an organic process in which nature gives back according to what it receives. The tomato plant doesn’t withhold the tomatoes as punishment; it just “reciprocates” according to what it gets. If nothing is given, it reciprocates with nothing.

The same is true for reciprocity in our personal and professional relationships. You may give clients information that helps them develop a better support system for their children during a divorce. If they accept that information and


22

act on it, you get to experience the positive impact you had.

Reciprocity is not a form of bartering. You may have a client who pays well for your services but is demanding and attempts to manipulate the process. If you keep working with the client without the reciprocity required in a Collaborative divorce, it can easily become destructive for all parties.

Reciprocity doesn’t reward demands or involve coaxing or coercion. If what we give isn’t valued, we just don’t keep giving it. The most basic form of reciprocity is simply appreciation for the gift given. Reciprocal power is an inherently constructive process that can generate ongoing, spontaneous cycles of giving and receiving.

The Reciprocity Principle, a balanced, mutual flow of giving and receiving transforms both of those subsystems I mentioned previously that shape our character and our reality: our beliefs about every kind of human experience and our communication with one another.

Bringing Core Beliefs Back to Wholeness

when we hold back honesty in favor of loyalty, we are likely to become stressed, feel disconnected from family, friend, or client, and develop resentments. Conversely, when we get honest feedback and see it as meaning that someone is not loyal to us, we feel betrayed.

If we are striving for a belief system that supports the inherent power of reciprocity, we must stop allowing essential component parts of each belief to work against each other and bring them back to wholeness. The ancient yin-yang symbol offers us a profound model for demonstrating how apparent “opposites” can be in balance. A classic example is the cyclical process of day and night — supporting life with rest and germination at night and flourishing energy during the day. Night “turns into” day and day into night.

Each belief we hold about our life experiences must have — like the yin-yang symbol — both a “day” and a “night” side. The “day” side of loyalty is that you protect me and do not do things that hurt me. The “night” side is honesty that might be hard to hear. In a balanced whole, protectiveness softens honesty and honesty strengthens loyalty, which can be healthy for both people.

As we take our own internal inventory, and as we listen to others, it is important to focus on identifying beliefs that

are rooted in a power struggle philosophy. Then, in a more systematic way, we can find the missing pieces we need in order to have true reciprocal power.

For example, if I have a tendency to avoid taking accountability for a mistake because I see it as weakness, I can figure out how to shift my belief in order to experience it as a strength. I may decide to be willing to be vulnerable and honest, bringing integrity into my concept of accountability.

when interacting with others, we can also listen for differences in perception that shape our respective attitudes and direct our choices. we can compare and contrast them, opening doors to new insight.

One of my all-time favorite stories is about Daniel, a five-year-old boy whose parents were getting divorced. Daniel’s father didn’t believe boys should cry. His mother was worried that Daniel was holding in his feelings. One day when I was there for a home visit, Daniel came and sat on my lap. After we talked a bit, he looked at me and asked, “Sharon, are you a crybaby?” I said, “I do cry, but I don’t think of myself as a crybaby.” He was very still for a moment, then squinted, thinking hard, and asked, pensively, “Do you mean that if there are tears inside, they need to come out?”

It was a profound example for me of what it means to use our own authority in a reciprocal way. I realized that if I had turned his question into an opportunity to “teach” him that crying is good for us, he would have probably retreated back into his private conflict.

Daniel’s fear of being a “crybaby” was probably rooted in his father’s value system, where crying might be seen as vulnerable, showing weakness. when I simply answered his question, he compared his belief that crying meant being a baby to my belief that I cry without feeling like a baby — and came to his own conclusion. I was awe-struck by his wisdom.

I don’t know how far Daniel took his new insights about crying, but I do trust that changing a belief does not have to be a long, slow process. It can happen instantly with life-changing effect.

The Powerful Non-Defensive Communication™ Paradigm

As we are able to internalize a belief system based on reciprocal power, it requires that we communicate differently. Likewise, as we become increasingly non-defensive in our communication, it can prompt instant changes in beliefs.


23

I spent a long time thinking about how our basic communication tools would naturally function in an inherently constructive way. I realized that in order to communicate without trying to exert some kind of control over others, we’d have to change four aspects: intention, voice tone, body language, and wording.

Intention: In order to avoid prompting defensive reactions, I have to make sure it is never my intention to influence or control how the other person responded.

Voice Tone: I realized that the tone we have traditionally used to ask questions has a rising inflection at the end with a push to it. I decided that the up-tone was less a function of a question’s nature, and more a function of our history of using questions as interrogation. Instead, I practice speaking in a relaxed tone that comes down firmly at the end. A question needs to be neutral because its purpose is to gather information, not give it.

I find this neutral tone also works well for both giving feedback and making predictions. Feedback needs to be neutral because emotional inflection can convey judgment; while predictions made with emotion often indicate a desire to dictate which choice we want the person to make.

Expressing my own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs is the time I find I am able to speak with emotion effectively, as long as I do it as if telling a story to a friend—without the kind of urgency that accompanies trying to persuade. Body Language: I apply the same principle to body language as I do to voice tone, making it relaxed and more neutral for asking questions, giving feedback, and making predictions. when expressing my own reactions, however, I can show animation.

Phrasing: I use formats and/or steps for asking questions, making statements, and predicting consequences I have found greatly decrease the risk of conveying mixed messages and/or judgments that can prompt others to react defensively. At the same time, they are not scripted, they allow for spontaneous conversation.

I’ll share a few “random” stories that exemplify the use of these formats and show the range of situations where non-defensive responses can yield surprising results. Some stories are mine, some come from others.

• Years ago when I respectfully told a hotel manager about excessive early-morning noise, which included the housekeeping staff shouting back and forth, he sneered and said in a blaming tone, “what do you want? Some of your money back?” I then asked him, calmly, “what is making you angry at me when I am the person who was inconvenienced?”

He stopped cold, stared off into space and said to himself, “I need to get walkie-talkies for the maids because they have to communicate from different floors, and it would be quieter.” Then he shook his head as if coming out of a reverie, smiled warmly, and asked, “would you like half your money back?”

• In a litigated divorce, a very wealthy husband was unwilling to give reasonable support to his wife during interim divorce proceedings. They had shared custody. He lived in a multi-million dollar home; she in a two-bedroom apartment. In his sworn affidavit, he denied each statement of fact she’d made in hers. Angela, her attorney, asked him about the first statement, gently, “Is this true or not true?” He reversed his position and said, “It’s true.” She simply asked that same question again, for each statement; and each time he said, “It’s true.” After the fourth time, he said, “Look, if she said it’s true, it’s true.” His admission helped ultimately bring the parties to a final settlement.

• I showed 450 freshman how to respond without getting into a fight at a school where there had been a gang murder after one boy, who called another boy’s mom a crude name, got stabbed to death. The next day, a campus guard reported another incident of name-calling. The boy looked back at the name caller and asked in a relaxed way, “what made you call my mom a name?” The other boy said, “I don’t know, I guess I just wanted to piss you off,” then turned and walked away.

• During a painful divorce, a woman had told her Collaborative attorney that she “just wanted out.” when her husband made a very good financial offer, but one small piece felt “unfair” to her, she balked. “No way I’m going to agree.” Her attorney, william, said, “when I hear you saying that you won’t agree to his offer and, at the same time, I know you have said how badly you want to be done, then it seems to me that your desire to have things finalized and your sense of fairness are coming into conflict with each other. I’m concerned that you’ll spend more money and go through a lot of stress if you continue, so I hope you’ll take some time to decide.”


(continued on page 27)

24

IVPutting a Heart into the Body of Law By Sue Cochrane, JD

The Fetzer goals of incorporating love and forgiveness into family law and Collaborative Practice did not stop at the courthouse steps. One of the Fetzer objectives called for us to design new court-assisted dispute resolution models based on love and forgiveness. Impossible? Not at all.

After eighteen years on the family court bench I am sensitive to the needs of the thousands who still show up there due to lack of funds or awareness of other options. Having Collaborative practitioners and others from diverse disciplines working side-by-side with those of us from the courts was, in my opinion, a monumental advancement.

The symposium encouraged me to write about what family courts of the future could provide families in conflict, and the abundant opportunities for Collaborative practitioners and others who are interested in continuing the collaboration with those of us from the courts.

Aligning Head and Heart

The law is well-known for being logical and dispassionate. Courts are where intellect and linear, analytic thinking prevails. In the admirable pursuit of truth and justice, the courts can inadvertently deny the humanity of the people it is supposed to serve and even of the judges and staff who work there.

Human beings are obviously not abstract legal concepts. In family court, it is as much a matter of the heart as the head, though this is not acknowledged.

Research shows that when our head and heart are in conflict, stress and suffering follows. Our deepest core values, like empathy, care and compassion are considered irrelevant in law practice and court cases. This is why many people, including judges and lawyers, find the legal profession unsatisfying, ineffective and potentially harmful, especially in the realm of family conflict.

when families are in conflict or in crisis, logic is insufficient to heal their pain and trauma. Family courts,

as traditionally designed, actually created more harm. I saw this clearly in my time as a family court judicial officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota from 1994-2012. I also experienced harmful effects directly, as a child of bitter and contested divorce. It never really occurred to me growing up that the divorce court was the cause of their fighting. I saw my parents act out their hurt and anger in all venues. I did wish that someone could have made them stop. I know now that there was little or no awareness, guidance or intervention back then that might have led them to a better result. when I chose family law as my profession and then entered the family court system as a judicial officer, it was my sole intention to help families in conflict. It turns out it didn’t take changing the system or the laws to make a difference.

when we apply a collaborative perspective, as we did in the Fetzer Symposium, we create the possibility that the people who work in and experience family courts can bring heads and hearts into collaboration, instead of conflict. when our head and heart are working collaboratively, we experience a state of vitality and well-being. we are able to be authentic, fully present, and freely express our deepest heart values such as care, compassion and connection. we are able to take wise action with our values in the forefront.

Bringing that kind of coherence to my life, family and work, became my commitment and practice.

Bringing Collaborative Coherence to Family Court

In 1990, Stu webb had enough of this incongruence and began Collaborative Law with the goal of keeping families and lawyers out of court and safe from the damage family court could inflict.

I share webb’s vision and commitment to protect families from the courts that fail to serve them. My experience showed me, however, that family court would likely be where most low and moderate income families in conflict would end up for years to come and they deserved and needed the best practices, too. I saw a different path. I took

25

my peacemaking training and meditation practices deep into the family court. I was optimistic that I could improve the system for the thousands every year who either did not know of other options or had no other recourse.

My goal was to bring the institution into closer alignment with its mission to serve the needs of the public. I also was committed to doing this with kindness. I was not alone. when I was a new judicial officer in 1994, a colleague sent me the "10 Commandments for a New Judge" written by Judge Edward Devitt, a highly respected federal judge who served close to 40 years on the federal bench. The First Commandment was "Be Kind."

Devitt’s words supported me through difficult years as an innovator in a legal system that was resistant to any change or fresh ideas and highly critical of any suggestion that bringing our hearts into the workplace would benefit everyone.

I knew right away that the battlefield known as the "temporary hearings" had to stop. People’s pain and anxiety increased with each bureaucratic hoop they had to jump through. That anxiety made it increasingly less likely that the family members could listen to each other with the respect they deserved much less collaborate to find a mutually satisfying resolution.

A simple solution appeared when I viewed the experience from the eyes of the family in court. The moment their case was filed, I sent the parties a personal letter, inviting them into my chambers to go over the potential harm they and their children would encounter if they followed the typical route through the court. I used a statute that required the court to provide education and information on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) but it was not being used in any meaningful way.

we met as equals. No black robe, no elevated bench, no armed deputy looming over us. Parents saw me as a regular person with my children's photos and drawings all around me in my chambers, not a frightening and all-powerful wizard of Oz. I talked with them as I would a beloved friend or family member, with the added bonus that the conversation was backed by my abundant experience of the inner workings of the court and contested divorces.

My goal was simple – to empower them to create their own solutions in a collaborative way. I wanted them to see what I saw – that I wasn’t really needed, and in fact, I was the most

distant and absurd person to order them what to do, since I would never meet their children and never could know enough about their family to decide what was best for them, even if their trial lasted weeks.

I offered them the alternative to meet right then and there with a Collaborative practitioner or mediator. I offered a conference room right next door to my chambers, which I set up in a comfortable way with lamps and furnishings, art on the walls and a bowl of chocolates, to welcome them and reduce their fears. when they heard about their options that wouldn’t involve fighting in the courts, 98 percent opted out of further court hearings.

Creating a New Body of Law—One with Heart

Although changes in the justice system are currently being studied, proposed and created, and recommendations for designing a system that obviates the need for family court altogether are considered, family court is, and will be for years to come, a first destination for families in conflict with little or moderate income.

I am inspired by this guiding principle when trying to work with or change systems:

The Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s invocation:

Be kind whenever possible.It is always possible.

I must add here that we can also open institutions up to fresh ideas from other disciplines, those from design and architecture, practitioners with understanding of the needs of families in conflict, people with their core values in plain sight. Just like we did at the Fetzer Symposium.

The Courts have made huge strides in criminal courts by creating problem-solving courts: DwI court, drug court, mental health court, veteran's court, homeless court, juvenile court and more. There are even some emerging in family courts, such as Co-Parent Court, geared to providing services to unmarried parents instead of litigation. These specialized calendars acknowledge the limitations of the traditional courts and bring in a holistic collaboration of services that respond swiftly and effectively to the complex needs of the individuals. They work at a deep and comprehensive level, getting at and solving the root reasons the person is in the court system. we have barely scratched

Putting a Heart into the Body of Law (continued)

26

the surface of what we can do in family courts if we open up to innovation and collaboration from all angles.

we can also look to leading-edge changes in the medical model for inspiration. The Mayo Clinic has never strayed from the vision of its founders that the needs of the patient come first. This simple, single principle continues to drive Mayo Clinic in a never-ending search for innovation, not just in medicine but in collaborating with other professions like art and design to help them care for their patients. Mayo Clinic is rated number one in the nation for quality medical care. Proof that putting service and care first can result in a win-win: great success for the institution and excellent care for those it was built to serve.

Imagine if courts did the same.

To put a “heart into the body of law” known as family court, I recommend we begin with five changes:

1. Put People First

Families in crisis need a place that welcomes them, all aspects of them, including their irrational emotions. They need and deserve to be respected, heard and included. Creating a system committed to meeting their needs above all other agendas is first.

2. Treat People with Kindness and Compassion

I learned most clearly during my time on the bench that ultimately it was my listening skills that were most needed. People need to have their story be heard, all of it. To me, that was the essence of a “court hearing.”

They needed to be accepted, with dignity, even with their mistakes, their anger, their stress and their pain. This allowed people to choose a path congruent with their deepest values.

Not once did they need to be judged.

3. Allow People their Voice

To me, at the most basic level, access to justice means allowing people to have their voice.

Family courts should not judge the families who come for help. Instead, courts should empower people to solve their own problems with respect and care. If people received this from the moment they walked in, judges would rarely be needed.

4. Design for People

The physical space of family court should be redesigned

focused on the needs of those who use it. As an example, the cost of incorporating art and design that calms people and heals trauma will be more than offset by the benefits received by families in pain and those who work there every day.

5. Shift Resources

Less than 5% of all family court cases go to trial. So why do courts insist that everyone must file papers, be assigned a case number, pay hundreds of dollars for a filing fee, get a court date to see a judge, and then wait? why are the 95% of those who will settle without a trial penalized unnecessarily?

Courts no longer need a full complement of trial judges and staff “at the top” when only 5% of families go to trial. Significant resources should be shifted to the point of first contact for families who arrive there, with or without lawyers. Collaborations with professionals at the entry level could provide helpful and responsive service immediately, cutting through all those untimely and unnecessary bureaucratic steps to get right to the heart of their problem.

Judges’ skills in trial mode have become far less relevant as case management and settlement models emerge, and as holistic problem-solving courts and a new and better understanding of how best to serve people in conflict has developed. with choice and education right up front, untold numbers of people will choose to be equal partners in the creation of solutions for their families.

Holding Out Hope – It’s Never Too Late to Collaborate

I learned that 98% of the families I met with personally during my early intervention pilot project did not know alternative options or the harm that could follow by engaging in the court system.

One hundred percent shared the core value of not harming their children. Many cried while telling me of the pain they suffered during their own parents’ divorce and custody litigation, and of their desire to avoid that at all costs. It was not too late for them to collaborate.

For a model of integrating the “old and the new,” we can look to The Penny George Institute for Health and Healing in Minneapolis, which was started by one woman, Penny George. She was disillusioned with the limitations of standard medical care. She studied all the best practices of alternative care and built a beautiful building across from a traditional hospital which collaborates with the hospital by providing integrative care to inpatients and more. Penny George Institute


27

is now the number one integrative care center in the country that is imbedded in a hospital system. Their mission is to offer innovative, proactive models of care that embrace the strengths of the whole person.

As we saw in the symposium, some lawyers, judges and court administrators are highly receptive to new models. A partnership between even one enlightened family court and


a group of practitioners who understand these concepts can forge a new collaborative model without turning away from or tearing down the old.

Abundant opportunities and gratifying work that fulfills a sense of purpose awaits those Collaborative practitioners courageous enough to reach back and uplift the courts while furthering their vision and their private practice.

Then william predicted, “If you do accept, I think you might feel more relief. If you don’t, I’ll certainly respect that and carry out your wishes.” william was surprised when she responded immediately, “You’re right. Let’s do it.”

• A retired 83 year-old professor emerita had grown up in an English village before coming to the US as a young woman, but had retained the mindset of her “village community.” She opened her door one day to a young man who said his car had broken down and asked to borrow her phone. After she welcomed him in, it became clear that he intended to rape her. She asked him, “what is it that would make a young man like you want to rape an old woman like me?” He turned and ran out of the house.

• Mena came to a class in tears and related how her husband, Todd, had told her he almost left her and their kids that day. Despite feeling betrayed, when she returned home, she asked, with genuine curiosity, “what made you want to leave?” Todd responded, “I’ve wanted to quit working for the electric company and go back to school, but you’ve been scared about money. Today I just thought, ‘I can’t do this for another 20 years.’ I just wanted to run away.” Their conversation turned from one of desperation and betrayal to tenderness and, ultimately, a plan for Todd to return to school.

In these stories we see brief conversations that go quickly to the heart of each issue. People spontaneously drop their defenses, open up, and show vulnerability. we see them take accountability; become more honest and competent, more generous, forgiving and compassionate; make wiser decisions, and transform relationships. They move beyond power struggle to reciprocity.

Centuries of living in a “power struggle” jar have done us much damage, but we have an imperative to change. Lipton says, “Most human violence is neither necessary nor is it an inherent, genetic, ʻanimalʼ survival skill. we have the ability and, I believe, an evolutionary mandate to stop violence.”

we still face a seemingly overwhelming task, but we can extricate ourselves from old roots, free ourselves of illusions about the degree to which we are controlled by our DNA, and let go of the myth that power struggle is our best tool for change and survival.

we can nurture new, healthier roots for change and consciously re-program our epigenetic functioning. we know that even a few people can start social epidemics that spread positive change quickly, without destabilizing society. we can hone our skills so we can quickly defuse defensiveness and teach habits of gratitude, fostering greater happiness. we can create experiences that give future generations the ability to live more meaningful lives.

while I know that it will take consistent, extremely intentional effort, I believe we are at the cusp of an incredibly exciting time in the evolution of humanity. we can stop giving the greatest power to the most negative person at the table. we can be part of a process that can move us at exponential speed toward a world that understands and embraces the realistic and practical power of positive forces such as forgiveness, gratitude and compassion. The potential is there. One conversation at a time. Every time.

New Roots for Social and Institutional Change... (continued from page 23)

28

VCircles Supporting Family CourtBy Elizabeth Vastine, JD

In 2009, the Circuit Court of Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court (PCSC), in partnership with the DePaul College of Law Schiller DuCanto and Fleck Family Law Center, introduced a restorative pilot program that offered a unique service to PCSC litigants. The program brought litigants out of the courtroom and into peace-making circles that fostered communication and relationship building so that parties could more effectively co-parent and, when appropriate, extricate themselves from on-going court involvement entirely. In an effort to support the program, a course in restorative practices was offered to law students at DePaul College of Law. The course introduced students to the restorative philosophy and circle process in the context of family law and family dynamics as well as to train them to serve as facilitators or “keepers.” It provided an opportunity for the students to gain exposure to and experience with the circle process as well as to develop valuable skills useful as practicing attorneys, advocates, counselors, advisors or general community members.

Based on Aboriginal and indigenous customs and rituals from all over the world, peace-making or restorative circles bring people together to engage in conflict resolution, problem solving, decision making, community building, consensus development, support, healing and celebration in a way that fosters safety, respect and goodwill. Although circles have been a tradition inherent in many indigenous cultures for centuries, contemporary application has seen them initiated in the criminal justice system, schools and faith-based settings. The idea of attempting to apply this process in the family setting was ground-breaking and, as far as we knew at that time, no other program in the country had made such an attempt in affiliation with a family court.

with ancient roots, the circle process provides a framework for storytelling so that the community engaged in the process may address issues and explore possible ways to move forward. For many indigenous people, as a symbol, the circle conveys a worldview that while everything is connected, it is made up of distinct parts that strive to be in balance in

order to contribute to the well-being of the whole, much like a healthy and resilient family. In this way, the process reflects the intention and spirit of the participants that have come together for a different type of conversation than is typically encountered in and outside of the courtroom with the goal of realigning family values and finding balance within the family structure.

In late 2008, Judge Martha Mills, now retired, but at the time, Supervising Judge of the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court, identified a family that she believed might be amenable to the circle process and could benefit from the experience. Judge Mills had only been at the court for a short while before realizing that its families needed resources and services that exceeded what the court could offer and provide. As a restorative practitioner, educator, and advocate for many years, Judge Mills recognized the potential of the safe space that circle could offer to families for the challenging and difficult conversations that were intrinsic to parenting, such as addressing every day matters, as well as more urgent or complicated issues regularly encountered by parents, especially those parenting separately or apart. Judge Mills recruited my colleague, Peter Newman, and me to assist her by facilitating or “keeping” the circle process she planned to offer to this family. Our “dress rehearsal” case resulted in agreements pertaining to parenting time, travel costs, and child support. More importantly, the family shared that the experience was helpful, productive, and enabled them to better communicate and work together, eliminating a need to return to court or re-engage their attorneys. In fact, the agreement that they reached was the opposite of what the court would have ordered, but was ultimately the more beneficial outcome for everyone involved. As Judge Mills continued to refer cases she believed were appropriate, and we refined and honed our approach to the process, it became apparent that, for families with the capacity to engage in an open and authentic way, the circle process could assist in breaking down barriers and improving communication so that parents could create new patterns of interaction that would support consistency, stability and clarity for everyone.

29

For those of us who work with families in the context of divorce, parenting and related matters, it is rarely a simple or easy task to change dynamics based on past grievances and struggles so that parents may focus on their children’s well-being and best interests. The circle process is not a panacea or magic elixir for all, but it can offer a different type of space that invites a shift in spirit, attitude, energy and, hopefully, behavior. One element of the process is the talking piece, which encourages thoughtful sharing and more attentive listening, or what is often referred to in circle space as “devout” listening. The concept is simple, although not easy; only the person in possession of the object identified as the talking piece may share but has no obligation to do so, one may always pass, and the remainder of the circle community has the privilege to listen. It not only invites people to speak from their hearts with intention and to listen from their hearts with attention, it also makes room for more reserved participants, balances contributions so that no one can dominate, diminishes opportunities for rebuttals or interruptions and manages emotions in a respectful way. Another element that helps to create and maintain the safe space of circle is the establishment of guidelines by determining the community’s shared values. The premise is that the values we bring to circle reflect our best self or core values, which are often buried under our fears, biases, insecurities, stress, exhaustion, habits and the noise of our daily lives. Defining the participants’ shared values builds the container for the process which will hold the stories, feelings, discoveries and collective wisdom. The guidelines serve as a covenant for how participants treat one another and how they will conduct themselves while in circle. The facilitator or “keeper” serves as a steward or caretaker of the process to help keep it inclusive, respectful and safe for all and to support and guide the process as it develops and evolves. Sitting in circle is voluntary and is characterized by shared responsibility and ownership by all participants. As the talking piece is passed, the participants are encouraged to share their viewpoint on the current circumstances, and offer suggestions on how the family may respectfully and better function. Knowing that their thoughts and words will not be shared with the court without their approval, participants are free to back away from positions, acknowledge their contributions to the situation, offer ideas and brainstorm creative or out-of-the-box solutions that they are willing to “try on.”

The initial step in the Restorative Justice Pilot Project was to invite parents to participate and encourage them to include their children and other significant people attached

to the family, such as significant others, grandparents, aunts, uncles or siblings. Because these individuals are part of the family dynamic and often offer support and guidance, their contributions during and after the process were helpful in implementing whatever may have been agreed upon or put in place as a result of the circle process. The parents determined whether their children have the maturity and capacity to participate in the process so as to ensure that it is a healthy and positive experience for them. By giving children a voice, they were invited to share their thoughts, feelings and suggestions with both parents at the same time in a safe space, an unusual opportunity for children of divorced or otherwise separated parents. Hearing their children voice their feelings and experiences, helped parents recognize the need to cooperate and collaborate to ensure that their children felt safe, secure, cared for and loved and rather than being placed in the role of liaison or messenger or, at times, actually fulfilling the role of decision maker. Ultimately, Judge Mills’ idea to involve the children was pivotal in the parents’ ability to go beyond the rhetoric of he said, she said, blame, shame and judgment to real and earnest conversations about accountability, aptitude and living in the present while constructing a different future.

Lengthy involvement with the court system frequently leads to feelings of frustration, discouragement and powerlessness for many parents. Such responses are often accompanied by anger, resentment, bitterness and a sense of failure which may further impede or obstruct constructive communication and interaction conducive to consistent and predictable co-parenting dynamics. The power and potential of the circle experience came from bringing families together in a process that empowered them to not only discuss issues and concerns, but to draw upon their own experience, knowledge and wisdom in determining how they could realistically change their current situation to better meet their children’s needs and the families’ current circumstances.

As we continued to work with the families, we grew to appreciate how timing and readiness impacted the families’ level of engagement, authenticity and willingness to try something unfamiliar and, at times, uncomfortable and unpredictable. Generally, the families who were inclined to participate were parents who felt stuck and were eager to get out of court; parents who were unable to find another way to move forward despite efforts to do so; parents who were able to effectively co-parent in certain areas but struggled with particular issues; parents that were interested

Using Circle Process in Family Court (continued)

30

in including their children in the dialogue process; parents who expressed utter exhaustion emotionally, physically, financially and spiritually from their unrelenting relationship with the court. Notwithstanding qualities and characteristics distinct to each family, we found that families who had experiences reflecting the above were generally more inclined and willing to participate. As they became more comfortable with the process and their “voice,” they appeared to be more invested in coming to an understanding or an agreement, whether it represented a “baby step” or a significant change or adjustment in their mode of communication or scheduling. The process provided opportunities for families to strengthen their abilities to solve problems, make decisions and resolve on-going issues, thus increasing their sense of self reliance and sufficiency. Additionally, it encouraged accountability of each parent for his or her actions, responsibility of the parent to their children, and the development of durable parenting relationships focused on the needs and best interests of the children.

The Restorative Justice Pilot Project was the vision of Judge Martha Mills, which Peter and I supported through our efforts in creating and implementing the nuts and bolts of the project. Early on, we began to recognize the benefits, as shared above, but it took us a bit longer to come to realize and appreciate the incredible novelty of the experience for the family. As we refined and honed our skills and approach to help make the participants comfortable and more at-ease in a process that they had never experienced before, we came to realize that what was being shared in the process were genuine feelings of fear, concern, anger, confusion, frustration and, often times, desperation. As those stories were being revealed and shared in truly authentic and sometimes palpably painful and angst-ridden ways, we could feel the energy shift and the spirit of the space change to allow for a “real” conversation about how they got to the process, what they had learned on that journey, what they hoped for, and what they were willing to do to make even the slightest changes in good faith. what often surfaced was an earnest desire to lessen the tension, diminish the hostility and carve out a new way of being family.

The Restorative Justice Pilot Project was an experiment that expanded and developed on a pro bono basis. Its operation and supporting efforts were carried out without funding for more than five years. Although it was our intention and aspiration to devise an approach and model

that could be sustained in the current court, Parentage & Child Support Court, as well as implemented in its sister court, Domestic Relations, it did not come to fruition. Based on feedback shared by the families, the circle had a positive and enduring impact on those that participated in the circle process. Numerous cases were successfully resolved that would otherwise have returned to court many times, possibly further escalating hostilities and impeding co-parenting efforts. Many of the cases came to an agreement or understanding that kept the parties out of court, or they returned for disparate issues, such as child support modification. As it came to a close this past summer, we believe it touched, impacted and supported many families in seeing and responding to their circumstances through a different lens while engaging in a different dialogue.

Using Circle Process in Family Court (continued)

Let's keep talking...

Love, Forgiveness and

Compassion in Family Law

Join the conversationBe-Fulfilled.org

31

Talking About Love with LawyersBy Pauline Tesler, JDVI

A belief of mine that was confirmed at the “what’s Love Got to Do with It?” symposium is that the words “love,” “forgiveness,” and “compassion” are a foreign language for many lawyers—even the best of us. The lawyers at the symposium were outliers, leaders in innovative, client-centered modes of family law practice. And yet, committed as we all were to the creative mandate of the gathering, I don’t recall hearing any lawyer in any of the working sessions I attended actually utter the word “love” (other than about the food). Nor were compassion or forgiveness (close cousins to love that were also key symposium topics) mentioned by the lawyers I worked with, even as they worked on projects that might enhance those qualities in the courts. why is that so? Exclusion of the emotional realm from law school classrooms and the bar against expressing feelings in the courts are familiar truths about how we are socialized into the profession, but I left the symposium wondering why so many of us so readily accept these limitations on our fundamental humanity as the price for becoming a lawyer. I fear that model programs and other systems-level innovations in and near the courts will inevitably remain marginal until we come to grips with who we are as a profession, which I see as the huge elephant barring the doorway to meaningful change in how family law is practiced.

Of the three important domains in effective legal conflict resolution (what we know, what we do, and who we are), legal education attends almost exclusively to the first. we learn to vastly overestimate the importance of reason and logic – to see them as both the primary motivator of our behavior and the primary tool to change the thinking and behavior of others. This is a dreadful way to relate to a client who has just learned – for instance – that her deepest adult attachment relationship is over, her longtime spouse in love with someone else. American Bar Association research shows that the more a person has had direct personal contact with lawyers, the lower is the person’s opinion of the profession. Nearly half of the survey respondents felt

that the terms “caring” and “compassionate” are flat-out inappropriate to apply to lawyers. That research concluded that our profession is regarded by the public as, at worst contemptuous and at best, indifferent to those we serve.i For the more caring outliers among us who do feel their clients’ pain, the ABA has more bad news: lawyers who work with extremely distressed clients (and what family lawyer doesn’t?) and who respond empathetically run a real risk of coming down with “compassion fatigue.”ii Lacking self-care and self-reflective skills, we risk harm from the cumulative physical, emotional and psychological effects of sustained exposure to traumatic stories or events. The symptoms of compassion fatigue directly parallel the indicia of psychological distress that mark the malaise infecting the legal profession in the big world outside Collaborative Practice: perceiving the resources and support available for work as chronically outweighed by the demands; having client/work demands regularly encroach on personal time; feeling overwhelmed and physically and emotionally exhausted; having disturbing images from cases intrude into thoughts and dreams; becoming pessimistic, cynical, irritable, and prone to anger; viewing the world as inherently dangerous, and becoming increasingly vigilant about personal and family safety; becoming emotionally detached and numb in professional and personal life; experiencing increased problems in personal relationships; withdrawing socially and becoming emotionally disconnected from others; becoming demoralized and questioning one’s professional competence and effectiveness; secretive self-medication/addiction (alcohol, drugs, work, sex, food, gambling, etc.); becoming less productive and effective professionally.iii we lawyers suffer greatly elevated rates of emotional distress and substance abuse.iv Overwhelming empirical evidence shows that lawyers arrive in law school with personality characteristics markedly different from the general population – notably, a discomfort with emotion and a temperament favoring thought over feeling – and

32

Talking About Love with Lawyers (continued)

that the law school experience worsens those qualities in ways that diminish our capacity to bring our full humanity into our work. while pre-law students show only slightly higher levels of significant depression than the general population (10% as compared to 3-9% in the general population), by late spring of their first year in law school 32% report significantly elevated depression levels, rising to a “stunning” level of 40% by late spring of the third year. These levels never fall to pre-law school levels. No matter how long they have been in practice, a steady 17-18% of lawyers suffer from clinically significant depression. Study after study shows that most lawyers would not choose law if they had it to do again, nor would they want their children to be lawyers. The rate at which we experience depression, anxiety, alcoholism, and other psychological problems is about twice the rate found in the general population, and one in five lawyers suffers from psychological problems severe enough to warrant clinical intervention.v what happens to us in law school and on the job that wreaks such harm to our mental health? How is it that becoming a lawyer divorces so many of us from our own deepest moral and spiritual viselves to the point that we don’t see our clients’ yearning for love, compassion and forgiveness, much less practice in ways that might incorporate attention to those needs?

Adversarial law practice requires lawyers to focus clients resolutely on past injuries and pain rather than on recovery and possibilities for a better future; add to that a distressed lawyer and we have a recipe for keeping clients mired in pain and suffering. The growing body of psycho-biological research into the neuroscience of entrainment, limbic resonance, and emotional contagion teaches us that working with depressed, angry, cynical, irritable, detached and numb lawyers is likely to impair clients’ emotional resiliency and capacity for thoughtful decision making. Positive psychology research confirms that emotional states are communicated to others remarkably easily and that the direction of contagion in a relationship is from the more powerful to the less.vii Depressed, suicidal, angry lawyers – which too many of us seem to be – present a danger to health and wellbeing, not only for ourselves but for our clients, the others on the case, the family, and even the community.

A consensus is growing among critics of legal education

that empathy, compassion, self-care skills, and self-reflective practice (as well as communication and listening skills and other interactive social skills) must become part of the core competencies of lawyers. But many wonder whether empathy and compassion can be taught to a population uncomfortable by nature with emotion and about to enter a profession that devalues it. The answer offered by their research and classroom experimentation seems to be “maybe, a little.” Not surprisingly, you can’t make much impact by just exhorting lawyers to pay more attention to love, empathy and compassion. That message, like a dog whistle, isn’t heard because it’s couched in language that makes many lawyers squirm or even sneer with discomfort at being asked to deviate so far from the hardnosed rationalist comfort zone surrounding their professional identities. And given the breadth and tenacity of the problem and the comforting blindness induced by habit and cognitive biases, it is probably wasting resources to offer “empathy lite” mini-courses that focus on behavioral skills without getting close to core personal and professional aspirations, beliefs, values and identity. To make a real difference in our own health and in the experiences of those we serve, we lawyers need encouragement to integrate a private inner spiritual life with an outer life of values-driven professional service if we are to reclaim a sense of purpose and professional identity that matches the human needs of clients and of the communities we all inhabit. This change, more than any other I can envision, would transform how family law is practiced by infusing lawyers and eventually judges, too, with the human compassion that invites clients’ stories to be heard and their pain to be seen. without such deep personal change in those who must embrace it, broad scale innovation too often fails to thrive or is relegated to the level of lip service.

Law school curriculum change is in the air, but the pace is glacial. we can’t afford the human and social costs of graduating even one more class of lawyers who have been taught to devalue their own spiritual and emotional intelligence – and yet hundreds of thousands more lawyers will be socialized in that way before widespread humanistic legal education becomes a reality. That’s why the integrative law workshop sequence I teach aims for practicing lawyers who would never attend a symposium about love, or even a Collaborative divorce training. we begin by addressing the personal, professional, and social costs of practicing law in a manner that ignores the human needs of our clients and that

33

is divorced from our own deepest humanity. The gateway that can lead such lawyers toward integration and transformation turns out to be hard evidence from psychological, sociological, and neuroscience studies that illuminates the human damage caused by ways of practicing law that run contrary to our biological nature and that disregard our evolutionary endowment as human primates: compassion, trust, forgiveness, generosity. Although brief or superficial exposure to emerging knowledge from the realm of evolutionary neuroscience, positive psychology, and neuro-decision science isn’t enough, lawyers can be touched deeply by a more sustained engagement with the startling research that overturns lawyers’ rationalist beliefs about how humans experience and resolve conflict, accompanied by exercises immersing lawyers in direct experience of the power of narrative, empathy, generosity, trust, cooperation, and the other prosocial emotions that support health. Once the doors of receptivity are opened by these experiences, it’s easy to introduce body-mind awareness practices, self-reflective practice, attention to the neuro-architecture of the spaces we work in, a systems approach to conflict resolution, and much more, so long as these new tools and perspectives are grounded in research and introduced in language that speaks to lawyers’ strong suit: their cognition.

I’ve said little about forgiveness. we might think it is only clients who need help with forgiveness – who can benefit from enlightened lawyers offering the possibility of apologizing or forgiving those who have wronged them. They do benefit, but that’s just part of the story. when the intellect of adversarial lawyers is engaged by compelling information about the astonishing irrationality of human behavior in conflict resolution, an opening can occur for experiential exercises to trigger epiphanies, large and small, about the high toll our training as lawyers has taken on us and on our clients too, even those we achieved great trial victories for. As this transformative journey deepens, we may remember with pain how we treated others in a normal day’s work. we may recall, for instance, humiliating the opposing party to tears during that deposition in the moveaway case, or relishing demolition of a percipient witness during a custody trial, because our ability to see the human being sitting opposite us had been deadened by a belief that our own human feelings had no place in our work and that take-no-prisoners assault tactics are the professional responsibility of a competent lawyer. I believe work that divorces us, in the name of professionalism, from

Talking About Love with Lawyers (continued)

our own ability to feel empathy or compassion is work that is immoral. when we start to see this, shame may be what we feel. It is often the case that the first person needing forgiveness is ourself. And that’s an act of love.

Notes

i Gary A. Hengstler, Vox Populi: The Public Perception of Lawyers: ABA Poll, 79 A.B.A. J., Sept. 1993, p. 60. See Kristin B.Gerdy, Clients, Empathy, and Compassion: Introducing First-Year Students to the “Heart” of Lawyering, 87 Nebraska L.Rev. (2008), available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol87/iss1/1ii http://www.americanbar.org/groups/lawyer_assistance/resources/compassion_fatigue.html, last consulted 9/28/14.iii Id.iv I am indebted to Susan Daicoff for her decades of research into the psycho-social characteristics of law students and lawyers, upon which the following generalizations and statistics about lawyer temperament, personality, and distress in this paragraph are based. She has no responsibility for any misstatements. For more, see Lawyer Know Thyself (2004).v For instance, Daicoff reports, 23.4% of washington state lawyers reported depression levels more than two standard deviations above the mean, when general population data would predict only 2.27% should score that high. A similar study found 19% of washington and Arizona lawyers to be clinically depressed, most of whom admitted they were contemplating suicide. 11% of North Carolina lawyers polled in 1991 admitted they considered killing themselves once a month. According to a Johns Hopkins University study, the incidence of depression among lawyers is up to four times that of other professionals. Daicoff, Lawyer Know Thyself, p.8. vi I do not mean anything relating to religion when I use the term “spiritual.” In the words of neuroscientist/philosopherSam Harris, “Twenty percent of Americans describe themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious.’ Although the claim seems to annoy believers and atheists equally, separating spirituality from religion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is to assert two important truths simultaneously: Our world is dangerously riven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn, and yet there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit.” waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion, Kindle Locations 100-103 (Simon & Schuster, 2014) Kindle Edition.vii Brian Parkinson, Affecting Others: Social Appraisal and Emotion Contagion in Everyday Decision Making, 35 Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin1071-1084 (2009); Dacher Keltner et al, Emotional Convergence Between People Over Time, 84 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1054-1068 (2003) available at http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu/research/anderson/jpsp8451054.pdf.

34

What does Love Mean in Family Law Practice?

One of the topics discussed at our very first Open Space session was the very seminal question of what we mean by "love" in family law. It is clear that love is a word that is used with great caution in professional circles, if it is used at all. If we are going to be bold enough to use that word in our dialogue, as the people of Fetzer seem to be daring us to do, then we ought to spend some time talking about what we really mean. Some of us come from a tradition in which "love" is used very expansively and therefore could fit into almost any container. However, this notion is not universal and does not hold true for many of our colleagues. Many, both within the Collaborative community and beyond it, have very different notions about what we might mean by “love” in this context and, accordingly, about whether the ideas embedded in that word should be a part of our professional practice. The following articles reflect the perspectives of several symposium participants about what love means in the context of family law. we invite you to consider the many dimensions of the word and your own thoughts about its applications to our work. we appreciate the willingness of each of our contributors to share their very personal thoughts on this bold and delicate topic.

Does the concept of love have a place in my professional life? Although I have seldom, if ever discussed this concept at work, it in fact profoundly influences my thinking and actions. I began my law career as a solo practitioner after graduating from law school, clerking for two federal court Judges and teaching junior high social studies for three years. I knew from the outset that working in a big law firm wasn’t for me. I wasn’t interested in having a boss, or working to achieve someone else’s goals. I was unclear about my own goals, but wanted to discover them. I came from a family where achievement and financial wherewithal were the ticket to acceptance. I faced questions of my own possible superficiality – How much did I care about status and money? How deeply did I care about the ills of society as compared to my own advancement? what could I give, and to whom?

I stumbled into family law, not having taken a family law course in law school. But when I did, I knew I found my career. I had come to see myself as somewhat of an introvert, interested in the human “internal life.”* Family law provided an amazing opportunity to serve others when they were most apt to be searching their souls. what an opportunity to swim in waters in which I was strangely comfortable – and in which

I believed I would grow personally as well as professionally.

when I opened my own law practice, the notion of “love” was already important to me. My family of origin was Christian and I grew up attending an Episcopalian church every Sunday. I then went to a liberal, intellectual and mostly secular small college in Minnesota. The combination of these experiences had a profound effect on my spiritual development. I saw enormous capacity for caring about the world in which we live on my college campus. Love was evident, perhaps all too often more evident to me, among those who did not profess a religion. Yet, when I examined the source of my worth and value, for me it emanated from God as I had come to know Him through my Christian upbringing. I gave considered thought to this matter, and concluded that it was from God that I experienced unfailing acceptance. Thus, I took very much to heart, His command: “As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34. It occurred to me that perhaps I should be a nun; but, I wasn’t Catholic. More importantly, the challenge that I believed faced me was not to love in a cloistered and godly environment, but to love in our very complicated, conflict-ridden, painful, and beautiful world, where I likely had as much or more to learn as to give.

What does love have to do with the practice of family law? For me, probably everything. - Linda Wray, JD

VII

35

Hence began an amazing journey. Let me say unequivocally at the outset, that my belief in the value of loving others in this difficult world, only serves to remind me – often daily – of just how far short of it I fall. Yet, the value I place on this goal only grows stronger. Let me also say that I have been blessed by, learned from and greatly value the wisdom, beauty and integrity in many who would not describe their guiding principles in the way that I do.

Initially, the focus of my career was on representing my clients, exploring as deeply as a client wished, what s/he really needed and wanted at the time our paths crossed, and what options existed in the legal system and world at large for achieving them. My strength was attending to the client as though he or she mattered – the way I believe God attended to me, with feet firmly planted in reality, and the conviction that each person, exactly as she or he was at that time, had an invaluable place in the world. I enjoyed the challenge of working with opposing counsel, and going to court, as I strove to convey my client’s well thought out, and reasonable desires, with integrity as well as support under the law. This “formula for success” however, was not to have a long life. Being fully present to my client so as to unveil with insight what he or she really sought, and challenging the sometimes ill-informed arguments of opposing counsel was only part of the equation.

Early in my career, I was trained in Collaborative law, and was invited to apply for a position on the Board of the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota. Although I was quite comfortable with the Collaborative Commitment, I initially opposed attempts of Minnesota CLI to define its vision as “Transforming the experience of dispute resolution into a healing process for clients, practitioners and the larger community.” In my view, the backdrop of the law and an adversarial process allowed for sharpening of issues and perspectives, and resulted in bumping up against the very real human behaviors and attitudes I was convinced needed to be wrestled with to effect change interpersonally and then systemically. (Perhaps I was, in actuality, wrestling with my competitive father.) I wanted the Collaborative process to allow for vigorous negotiation and candid confrontation of the myriad of challenges facing clients. A focus on “healing” would sacrifice depth, honest grappling with human foibles, and a deep peeling away of the onion, in favor of achieving a superficial harmony. This was not what I wanted.

But, my perspective broadened as I increasingly spent time within the Collaborative community. I began to see the importance of relationships. In a family law case, many relationships of various degrees of depth exist: that between the two clients, that between each professional and me, that between

my client and me and my client’s spouse and me, that between the other professionals, and between each of them and the clients.

Much as my singular focus on my client might seem warranted by the Rules of Professional Responsibility, the reality is that many relationships impact a lawyer’s representation, and are involved in the representation of a client. Relationships, of course, are vital to humanity. At the most fundamental level, I know God loves me because I entered into a relationship with Him. The same is true with regard to all significant relationships.

As I consider my understanding of God’s mandate to love others within the context of my professional life, I conclude that love matters in each relationship that is involved in a family law matter. I also conclude that love is quite complex and manifests itself in different ways in different relationships. what does it mean to love in a team case when perspectives, skills or capacities vary significantly? what does it mean to honor the relationship between spouses, when I see displays of power or vengefulness in the other client? In my client? what does it mean to love in practice groups, committee work, and a 5,000-member organization, where views vary widely? Discussion of these and the many other difficult questions must be left to another time. Suffice it to say, I am comfortable that I not only can fulfill my responsibilities as a lawyer under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but that I indeed can be a more effective lawyer if I search for the role of love in its complexity, in the various relationships that exist within my work.

The developing thought and research regarding conflict and dispute resolution, combined with experience on Collaborative cases and with Collaborative professionals, is invaluable for acquiring knowledge and skills for participating thoughtfully, compassionately and insightfully in professional relationships. For me however, the love I receive from God, provides a guiding light for assimilating and implementing my learnings and experiences, connecting within myself and hopefully making real connections with others, not ignoring or shying away from the less than good. Interestingly, I have spent much time peeling back my own onion, and often come face-to-face with my own insecurities, keeping the waters of my swim continually challenging and refreshing. God’s command has opened a door of richness for me as a lawyer, as I attempt to love others by deeply honoring each of the relationships involved in my work as a lawyer.

*I majored in psychology in college and considered going to graduate school in psychology, but rejected that path for law school.

36

we each have a story; an account of a journey, a life which has melded us. Mine goes something like this: As a seven year old, I entered my second-grade classroom in Louisville, Kentucky for the first time – speaking not a word of English – having just immigrated to the United States from Ramat Gan, Israel. A kind school principal led me in, did his best to share my unusual name with the class and pointed me towards a desk. My new classmates peered at me and I at them. They were, I am sure, full of curiosity at the implausibility of a child from such a faraway place landing in their very own classroom. And I, heart pounding, already recognizing that I didn’t much look like the other kids (my dress and shoes were all wrong!), worrying about what had been packed in my satchel (Yes! They sent me to school with a satchel which even I knew was a bad idea!), wondered how to “be” in this strange new world. And so began my search for my own cultural identity; a search which included the seduction of assimilation, the inimitable immigrant experience, the clash of cultures, identified as the minority within the minority, all the while driven by my own determined and dogged need to make sense of the confusing and frequently conflicting messages, values, norms, written and unwritten codes, rules and expectations surrounding me. Very early on, I sensed that I would be working hard to make meaning out of chaos.

I grew up in a home that was decidedly more Israeli than American, more culturally Jewish than religiously Jewish, more Eastern European than western, more just outside all the boxes than solidly within any. My father, who was a quintessential German Jew, might have said that the single most important value he sought to instill in me was a sense of responsibility. Though my family regularly attended synagogue, the Judaism taught there was quite different from the Judaism we practiced at home. And, yet, there was a point in time during my teenage years at which I grasped on to a particular Jewish teaching that seemed to weave together, in a way that made sense to me, many of the threads tangled in my mind. That teaching is tikkun olam. Translated from Hebrew, it means a repairing or healing of the world. I think that there are probably as many ways to interpret the concept of tikkun olam as there are Jewish scholars in the world, but to me it came to mean this: As human beings on this planet, it is incumbent upon us to use our capacities and energies and whatever resources we can muster to make this world a better place; to repair what we can, to heal what we can, to sort out that which we can sort out, to show up and

What does love have to do with the practice of family law? For me, not so much. - Talia Katz, JD

to keep at it. Once embraced, in my view, the responsibility of tikkun olam cannot be put down and picked up at will, as a matter of convenience. It is a moral imperative: it is not optional, it is our job. And through it, we create meaning out of chaos.

I share this with you because in thinking about love in the context of family law, our organizational work and my role as CEO of IACP, I am extremely cognizant of the foundation from which my own values and world views have emanated. I would never presume to represent that my views about love in the context of our work are “Jewish,” though they are certainly shaped by my understanding of Jewish teachings. And to be clear, the views I share here are in no way “IACP” views, though my work within the Collaborative community has greatly informed and influenced my thinking.

One of the elements of Collaborative Practice that most intrigued and engaged me from my first encounter with it was the opportunity—indeed, the mandate—to call upon the best and highest forms of our own humanity. Accessing that, bringing it to bear for our clients, our colleagues, our committees and boards and practice groups, is for me not an act of love; it is an act of showing up and being responsible. If we have the capacity to do it, so we must. Embracing the belief that as professionals working in the field of conflict resolution in family law, we are to be respectful, compassionate, caring, empathic, supportive and humane has allowed me to serve first my clients and now IACP in a way which feels ethically consistent with my own moral imperative.

Ron Ousky first shared with me the question about love as it relates to family law several years ago. I bristled at it then, and it still leaves me feeling a little twitchy now, as alien and out of place and uncomfortable as that first day of second grade. I am one who believes that words matter a great deal, and “love” is simply not a word I would use in the context of our work. I know that for many in our community, the integration of love into our work as professionals is fundamental. And yet for many of us, that is simply not the case. I can just hear some of you now: “what you have described—respect, compassion, caring, empathy, support—that’s all love! It’s just a matter of semantics.” My response to you would be no, it is not the same, and it is not merely semantics. I have been fortunate in my life; I experience love in some of

37

its many different forms every day. I am well familiar with the broad range of emotion and thought that accompanies it. I recognize it well enough to know that it is not that which I bring to my professional work. I answered the question of “what's love got to do with family law” early on by saying “not so much.” I say that because I recognize the possibility that we can sometimes access our clients’ love for their children to help shift or focus their thinking and decision making. That emotion - within our clients towards their children - can be love. I recognize the possibility that we can sometimes help a client to recall a previous experience of love for a partner in helping to bridge that client to a place of empathy or understanding. That client might recall feeling love or being loved. To the extent that we are able to support our clients in tapping into their own emotional lives for the purposes of rethinking, retooling and resolving their issues, love may well be an important factor. But our work as professionals in guiding and supporting, being present, mindful and committed is not to my mind love, nor would I strive to make it so. Bringing kindness and compassion to our work? Absolutely! Love? Not so much…I have cared deeply for my clients and the professionals with whom I work. For me, however, carrying that to a place of love is a boundary I believe unwise to cross.

Understanding the desire for a bit of provocation in a cutting edge symposium such as Ron, Sue Cochrane and the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota hosted, I remain concerned about the use of the word "love" to describe the work of the Collaborative community. It is precisely because the word is so value laden and carries with it such diverse

meanings for so many that I worry. I worry that clients will feel even more uncomfortable and skittish in selecting this option, that the Collaborative community and our work will be further marginalized, labeled and dismissed as "alternative," that our community will be further divided along religious or spiritual lines. I suspect that many wonderfully skilled Collaborative professionals seek to help families reach their best possible resolutions, in the most respectful and dignified manner, and do so without feelings of love towards their clients or other members of their Collaborative teams. In my view, the acceptance and mainstreaming of Collaborative Practice is not well served by the premise that love is an essential component of this conflict resolution process. For these reasons, I prefer to steer clear of the "love" word in the context of our professional work.

Unquestionably, serving as a Collaborative professional requires some significant internal fortitude. whatever our motivators (and there are many!), whatever it is that helps us to stay the course, whether it be our religious beliefs or our own personal moral compasses, something of great influence keeps us in the game. Though I no longer work with clients providing Collaborative Practice services, I have found my current position with IACP to be the most amazing of opportunities. There is surely much to sort out and I cannot imagine greater meaning in a life's work than supporting members of this community as you go forth and hold open the possibility of repair and healing for the many thousands of families whose lives you touch. I view it as a great privilege to fulfill my personal mandate of tikkun olam in this way.

when I am in that place, I am “in” love. I’m surrounded by it – it’s my environment, like a fish is in water. Judgment of self or others can’t survive in love; gratitude, compassion, grace, and trust flourish. There are vast reserves of joyful creativity in love that can be found in no other place.

Central to my understanding of love is the belief that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, “other” passing judgment on me (or anyone else) or handing out favors. There are no universal rules except the rule that each person is responsible for deciding what course of action is best for him or her under the circumstances as they know them, at all times.

It’s no wonder, then, that I’m most comfortable with a dispute-

To me, love is the place in me where the best, the most authentic version of me can thrive. - Jennifer Tull, JD

resolution system that also functions under the assumption that the best outcome for people looking to change the configuration of their families does not come from an omnipotent “other” in a robe, but depends on individuals taking responsibility for their choices and lives – past, present, and future. My role with clients is to tell the truth, with compassion, and to invite them to view their current circumstances as an opportunity to demonstrate who they are at their core.

Sometimes, love seems ephemeral, like a mirage that draws me toward something I long for but can never reach. At other times I surprise myself when I realize I have arrived without having put any effort into the journey at all. My goal is to live in love all the time, but at this point in my evolution it’s more like a vacation

38

home. It’s there, fully furnished and ready for me when I can be there, but I can’t always get there. I get lured off the path by cunning sirens like attachment to things being a certain way, or the urge to be someone’s hero, or worry, or regret, or a million other things. when I am in love, none of that matters.

when I’m in love I get to decide who can be there with me. But because love requires me to check my ego armor at the door, I must choose those people carefully. In love I am transparent and vulnerable. If I am not fully settled into and secure in love, it’s easy for me to get sucked out by the tornados of others’ anxiety, anger or fear.

My task is to discern who I can safely invite in at any given moment, and, once admitted, how far into love those people are allowed to come. I am fortunate to know a few people who have a lifetime pass and a zip line to love; most people still have to make their way through security. But I find that every time I go to love, I create more anchors that hold me in that place and give me more confidence in my ability to maintain my equilibrium in the face of unsettling forces, and so the safer it feels to let more people in.

Throughout the decade and a half of my experience with Collaborative Practice I have been in love with many teams and clients. It’s fascinating to witness the effect on people of being in love. For some, it’s calming and empowering; for others,

it’s disorienting and frightening to be the focus of so many good intentions. I do my best to meet people where they are in love, and to demonstrate for them the benefits of incorporating love into their restructured family. As much as I might want to, though, I can’t control whether someone has a positive or negative reaction to being in love. It’s what I have to offer and they will either accept it or not. In my imagination, even those who can’t tolerate love as an environment might take with them the idea that there is another place where they can live their lives if they ever choose to do so.

Just like every other dwelling, love requires constant maintenance and repair. Kindness regenerates areas that have been eroded away by arrogance; forgiveness rehabilitates damage caused by tsunamis of fear; presence reinforces the perimeter, keeping me safe and setting me free at the same time. Remembering who I am in relation to other people and situations – and remembering that relationships are kinetic, dynamic exchanges – keeps love clean and well-manicured.

Collaborative Practice has allowed me to spend more time in love. On my best days, I am there and everyone involved in a Collaborative case is totally immersed in love. Once there, we can create a way for a family to renovate their relationship structure rather than demolish it. Other days, I’m just chasing the mirage, desperately searching for the route that will lead me back to love. Always, I am grateful to know it’s there.

The word “love” is attached to emotions, experiences, memories and misunderstandings that often cause disputes leading parties to seek out a family law professional. Because of this complexity, the definition of “love” may polarize those seeking to determine the role it plays in family law.

Grateful for my heritage, I find clarity in the Greek language, which offers four different words translated as “love,” each with distinct nuances in their definitions. In my thirty plus years as a family lawyer and mediator, I have seen all four dimensions of love play out in my work.

“Eros” (pronounced air-ohs) is the source of the word “erotic,” and it describes love that is passionate, highly emotional and often electric. Eros is based on self-satisfaction and pleasure and has an intensity that is fueled by one’s attraction to another. It is usually accompanied by sexual connection and scientists

The Four Loves in Family Law - Kimberly Stamatelos, JD

describe complex body chemistry affixed to erotic love.

Most relationships have eros at the outset, but in time it usually diminishes or becomes intermittent, leaving parties craving its return. “why can’t we get that feeling back?” couples may ask bemoaning the fleeting nature of eros and reporting they are no longer “in love,” or have “fallen out of love,” with their partner as a result of its departure. when eros doesn’t return or it shifts to a different type of love, parties may want to sever relationships through family law interventions.

Sometimes a party has entered into a relationship with someone new, thus rediscovering eros, and they come to the family law conference rooms to move out of one relationship into another. Their current partner may be grieving, feeling betrayed and shattered, and the family law practitioner helps

39

both parties make clear headed decisions while navigating their respective intense emotions.

“Storge” (pronounced Store-gay) is a love based on the natural affection one has for husband, wife, child, or even a pet. Storge is built as family members are “doing life together.” It feels secure and comfortable and stems from receiving unconditional acceptance by family members, despite one’s defects and flaws.

In family law, storge has to be shuffled and realigned, as legal actions divide households. Most parents aren’t able to see their children as often as they’d like, sometimes causing them to fear loneliness and rejection. Finances are redistributed, often resulting in a shortage of money after considering all factors.

“will the children reject me if I can’t provide for them as elaborately as the other parent, after this divorce?”

This fear of the shifting of storge can cause anxiety and a resultant recalcitrance in positions at the family law negotiation table. Skilled family law practitioners craft creative parenting arrangements and design financial realignment that sustains family security. Once the plans are in place, family members may be reassured and confident to move forward.

“Phileo” (pronounced Phil-leo) is a love grounded in affection or fondness and is the type of love one has in friendships. It is a “brotherly love” that often grows over time, and involves giving as well as receiving.

“we have become more like roommates,” is a common phrase from parties seeking to end their legal relationships, reporting that phileo is now prevalent. Couples who have lived in friendly phileo relationships report long stretches without physical connection, and they are rarely high conflict when they enter the family law environment. These clients often work productively through a mediator, or together in the same room in a Collaborative divorce, moving smoothly out of marriages seeking “something more.”

Friends of couples transitioning out of relationships under any of these scenarios can have a great influence as a result of their phileo love. Research shows that the most common person approached for advice when a marriage is in trouble is a female friend, followed by a family member, then a male friend, then a coworker.1 Accompanying their friend to a legal consultation or mediation session, these friends offering phileo can impact the outcome of a family law case through

their “loving” advice and must be managed by the family law practitioner.

while navigating all of these complex dimensions of love, compassionate family law professionals are able to demonstrate the most noble type of love. Agape (pronounced Ah-gopp-ee) flows from our passion for the well being of others, which is often the reason we have given our lives to the practice of family law. Agape is fueled by our strong desire to recognize those who are suffering and to do what we can to alleviate that suffering through our skills and gifts in family law processes such as mediation and Collaborative divorce.

Agape is not based on merit, circumstances, fault, or actions. It is dispensed to innocent victims in the stories we hear with the same intensity it is given to the unlovable, unkind, unresponsive, or seemingly unworthy. Through the healing balm of agape love, we unconditionally invite all who are involved in family law matters to find their highest selves at a time when they are wounded, confused, scared and broken.

Agape love guides practitioners to see the parties, the families, the friends, the lawyers, the therapists and all who are involved in the legal intervention as fellow human beings connected together on the journey of life, despite their stories or circumstances. Deep listening, empathy, compassion, minimizing blame, encouraging collaboration and introducing forgiveness, are the ways family law practitioners exude agape. Some of us may even mindfully present ourselves as vessels through which God’s own agape love can flow.

what does love have to do with family law? Love has everything to do with family law. By operating through love and recognizing it’s complexity, family law professionals delight in the joy and satisfaction of our work. we are able to connect with our fellow human beings in a way that leaves an indelible mark on their lives, and our own.

Notes

1 2014, The Doherty Relationship Institute, LLC

4201 North 24th Street, Suite 240 | Phoenix, AZ 85016

IACP supports Collaborative Practice as a conflict resolution option worldwide by:

• establishing and upholding the essential elements, ethical and practice standards of Collaborative Practice;

• fostering professional excellence by educating and providing resources to Collaborative practitioners;

• leading and integrating the Collaborative community; and

• promoting the growth of Collaborative Practice.

The CollAborATIVe reVIew Is The offICIAl PublICATIon of IACP.

we solICIT orIgInAl mAnusCrIPTs, whICh should be sAVed In mICrosofT word And senT To:

TAlIA l. KATz, Ceo, IACP4201 n. 24Th sTreeT, suITe 240PhoenIx, Az 85016

or emAIled To [email protected]

All PublIshed ArTICles beCome The ProPerTy of IACP And Are subJeCT To our rePrInT PolICIes unless rePrInTed by PermIssIon from oTher PublICATIons.

divorce: what’s love got to do with it?

Real Estate

jd peace

jd circles

jd talkingabout love

jd new roots

jd talia katz

jd jennifer tull

whats love

collaborative revieware