Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries |
|
|
Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in |
|
|
|
Fingers Crossed This entry was posted on 4/9/2011 6:11 AM and is filed under Relationship Dynamics. She said: How can I negotiate with someone I no longer trust? When an intimate relationship ends, trust flies out the window. Anxiety sweeps in. Someone who was so well known becomes a stranger. The resulting pain dominates the emotional landscape. Often, for one person the focus is the other's misdeeds, a betrayal, a failed promise, while their partner centers on the unfairness of the blame. Both become defensive. Then all that is needed is a spark, a canceled credit card, the closing of a joint account, or a barbed letter from an attorney, and if there was any residual trust, it vanishes. How can these two people, now on their guard, have any hope that if even the least concession is made by one, the other will reciprocate? Positions harden. Consider my response to this concern in mediation: In marriage we expect to be told the truth and supported emotionally. It may be a dream, not always the reality, but not an unreasonable expectation. When divorcing, it is a premise we have to give up. A trusting relationship may later be reestablished, incrementally, but until it is, a "show me" attitude is completely appropriate. So, without giving voice to the accusation, just assume your spouse is untrustworthy. You may be wrong but you may be right. So, why not simply design a settlement that doesn't depend on trust. Require documentation for facts alleged and test conclusions with the involvement of counsel and other experts. Make no decisions until they are fully informed decisions. But does this reasoning apply when the issues are not financial, and children are caught in the middle between parents with conflicting views and unforgiven grievances? It does not. Just the opposite is true. Not long ago I worked with parents of an 8-year-old, both highly educated professionals. They continued to litigate parenting issues year after year. Four years post-divorce, the Court required they enter mediation before filing the additional motions both now threatened. At every turn they frustrated each other's efforts to develop a sense of ease and predictability in their relationship with their young son. Everyone paid a high price. But now their son had begun to exhibit physical symptoms believed to have a psychological component, so they could no longer deny that their continued mistrust and blaming ways threatened the health of the child they both loved dearly. I consulted with a psychologist friend, unable to fathom these parent's behaviors. The professional conjecture: some parents are unable to individuate. They see every slight they have suffered as also experienced by their child. If rejected by a spouse, they transfer the sense of betrayal to their child. If denied love or respect, in their view, so is their child. They are simply unable to step back and view their child as a person with needs different from their own. And social psychologists argue that normal people can do terrible things when put in a terrible situation, but that amazing things can happen when the focus is not on altering another's character, or punishing another for a breach of trust, but on creating settings in which people's better selves can flourish. Could I create such a setting? I told them I assumed that each of their stories had some validity, part of the truth. They visibly relaxed. Then I mandated that our sole focus be on measures each could take to enhance their son's well-being. Trust issues not only had to be set aside, but they had to offer each other the benefit of the doubt, a measure of trust, and not assume the worst of the other when things went wrong. No easy task. Each was asked to make new requests for changed behaviors, small steps, readily achieved and committed to writing: Be on time. Call well in advance of a need for a change of plans. When things go awry, don't accuse: how could you be so . . . Instead, ask: what happened? And listen. Reciprocity became the byword. Eventually settlement options were developed and accepted, if somewhat grudgingly. Both were satisfied, not perfectly, but well enough. I've not heard from this pair for almost a year. Fingers crossed. |
|
|
Copyright . http://BEALARSEN.COM. All rights reserved.