Although Dave and Jayne mutually decided they needed the intervention of a mediator, once seated in my office they ignored my presence. Their conversation quickly became an argument, their voices raised and strident. After a time I interrupted and asked: has this worked for you in the past? Do you manage to change each other's minds?

         They responded in unison: never!

         As their marriage crumbled over recent months, their lives had spiraled out of control, their teenage son a reluctant bystander. Now his grades were in free fall.

         A friend had referred Jayne to a doctor who diagnosed their son as having attention deficit disorder and prescribed medication. But Dave had grown up with an aversion to the use of any drugs, particularly those he saw as "fooling with the brain". He believed the problem was psychological, and he urged that all three of them enter family therapy, or at least have their son work with a psychologist.

         Jayne had no faith in Dave's approach, and was derisive about talk therapy and'"shrinks". She trusted the doctor who made the ADD diagnosis, and had spoken with other parents who described their child's miraculous turnaround.

         When I asked, both acknowledged that they were echoing beliefs held by the family in which they had grown up, although on this day they were armed with internet research supporting their divergent views. Neither gave the other's data even cursory attention.

         The question: would they be able to give up their determination to change the mind of the other and agree on a plan to rescue their son? If not, would they have to let a judge decide? This was a path dreaded equally by both.

         Although we may reject some of our parent's convictions, how often do we discard the viewpoints we adopted when young, in light of later life experience? Do we discount as exceptional the evidence that doesn't fit with our basic assumptions? Often, I think we do.

         We took a break for coffee, and when calm they agreed to try a more pragmatic approach:

         First we reviewed their present circumstances. Even if restating the obvious, this placed them firmly in the here and now. I said:     

              -You’re both still hurt and angry, just beginning to heal. 

              -Your son is struggling to keep his head above water in school.         

              - So far, you can't agree on a plan, but you've each developed some possible strategies.

              - And you’ve decided not to turn the decision over to the Court.

          Next we considered their choices and the possible consequences. The discussion that followed was less blaming and with fewer references to the past. Eventually they developed these options:

              - Dave agreed to meet with the doctor Jayne had chosen, if she would join him to talk with a psychologist he selected. She consented.

             - Jayne suggested a joint meeting with their pediatrician, always trusted in the past. Dave agreed.

            - Jayne had already met with their son's teachers but offered to go again, with Dave.

         We talked about where these steps could lead if both were committed to listen with an open mind. Either might change their view and proceed with the choice of the other, or not. But in any case, they would have more data, have heard it together, and been able to ask questions of the "experts".     

         So, a plan was in place.

         The actual solution: Jayne decided to avoid the delay needed to schedule and keep all these appointments, and agreed to start family counseling right away, and Dave agreed that if after three months their son was still struggling with school, medication would be given a try. After family counseling began, they met with the doctor Jayne had seen, and with their pediatrician.          

         Conclusion: Once recrimination about the past is set aside and the futility of argument is recognized, this process can work for many:

              - clearly state the current circumstances which must be faced

              - develop possible choices for moving forward

              - analyze the likely consequences of each choice

         Sometimes, as with Dave and Jayne, just going through these steps can cause a shift from impasse to movement.