Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Learning to cooperate with your ex
If you have children together, you must learn to cooperate with your ex; the marriage may be over, but your parenting relationship will last forever.
Cooperation means working together towards a common goal. Fostering a spirit of cooperation with your ex means laying down your weapons in the war of divorce in order to protect your children. It means that when your ex begins to argue with you, you don't argue back. It means that you stop being reactive and start being proactive. Your kids should be your priority, and although it may kill you to share them with a jerk, it will hurt them irreparably if you continue to do battle.
It's understandable that you may feel bitter, angry, and vengeful toward your ex, but when you deliberately bad-mouth or argue with him or her in front of the children, it's as if you're saying those things to your kids. The hurt and confusion they feel at those times can be damaging. We know that nobody's perfect. And obviously, there will be times when your child overhears you arguing with your ex, sees the expression on your face, or senses your underlying (and many times valid) disgust and anger.
You're human. The point is that no matter what your feelings are, your children will be better off if you keep them as your central focus and work diligently at keeping the parenting relationship civil and cooperative.
There are two ways to work at change with your ex. One is by changing your internal state. You sort through your angry and bitter feelings and obtain insights into those feelings that enable you eventually to change them. Once your feelings are different, your actions automatically change. This is often a lengthy process and many times requires the professional assistance of a counselor. Another way to change is by changing your actions first, no matter how you feel. It's akin to administering CPR to someone whose heart has stopped. You can't get inside the person and restart the heart by changing the internal state. Instead, you work from the outside. You place your hands over the person's breastbone and push down at regular intervals. This external force eventually changes the internal state, and the heart begins beating.
By learning the cooperation skills presented in this article, you're essentially administering CPR to the parenting relationship. When you change your actions in an argument with your ex, eventually your internal state will change too. Remember that although it's okay to allow the marital relationship to die, it's not okay for the parenting relationship to die, because if it does, it's your children who will suffer.
The Fight-or-Flight Response
When you find yourself in a stressful situation, your subconscious automatically assesses your physiological response (sweaty palms, fast heartbeat, rapid breathing, shaking hands, cracking voice) in order to determine what kind of signal it should send to your body. Should it tell your body to run from danger? Should it tell your body to prepare defenses and fight? Or should it tell your body that everything's fine, sit down, relax, and have a cup of tea?
The problem with what your subconscious finds is that it's not discriminatory. It can't tell the difference between the rapid breathing that occurs because you are furious that your ex won't take your child to a birthday party and the rapid breathing that happens when you realize you're being pursued by a wild beast. In either case, your subconscious sends the same message: run, fight, or be eaten!
This panic signal effectively shuts down the part of your brain that handles language and rational thought. Your reactions include clenched fists, gritted teeth, red face, slamming down the phone, and crying. In other words, you respond on a purely physiological level. When that happens, you become ineffective and you give away your power and control over the situation.
Altering the Fight-or-Flight Response
Speaking to an ex often evokes a fight-or-flight response. One father we watched would get red in the face and clench the arms of the chair until his knuckles turned white. Then he stuttered at the mere suggestion that he talk about what he would say to his ex. Invariably, the first words out of his mouth were, at best, explosive, and at worst, profane.
Beginning a discussion with profanity and name-calling (even if that's the way you feel) is not cooperative. When your blood pressure has already risen or your hands are shaking, you considerably weaken your position. We wouldn't presume to suggest that you can rid yourself of anxiety or rage completely, but you can use techniques that will calm, center, and focus you enough to enable you to stay in control during an argument -- as well as maintain a powerful position.
Deep Breathing -- A Technique That Calms
Breathing deeply breaks into the cycle between your subconscious and your body and gives you an alternative to the fight-or-flight response. When you breathe deeply, you alter the message that your subconscious receives. In essence, you send the message to your subconscious that there is nothing to be afraid of. After all, if there were, you certainly wouldn't be standing around taking time to breathe! When you change the message you send to your brain, it stops sending the panic signals that make you ineffective and less resourceful.
To be an effective deep breather, you must practice. Begin by practicing in front of the mirror. Don't rush. Breathe in deeply enough to fill your lungs, then sit or stand straighter and take in just a little extra. Breathe out slowly. Count as you inhale and then as you exhale. Say, "That's one." Breathe again. Say, "That's two." One more time, "That's three." This technique is useful not only during a conversation with your ex when you find yourself reacting, but also prior to phoning or meeting your ex. And if three breaths don't seem to be altering the fight-or-flight response, take more.
Don't Hurry!
When you believe that you must respond immediately to whatever your ex says, and you rush to fill in the silences in a conversation, you inevitably engage the fight-or-flight reaction. In addition, you place yourself at a disadvantage by not allowing yourself time to think. It's not only okay to allow silence (and breathing) in a conversation, it's necessary. If your ex is continuing to talk, or shouting at you to answer him or her, take the phone away from your ear for a moment. If you're face to face, close your eyes. It's difficult to count breaths when you're staring at someone you don't like very much. Closing your eyes momentarily shuts down your visual sense.
If you find it difficult to breathe deeply and incur silence, then practice during your conversations with friends and family members. It may feel awkward at first, but soon you'll discover that the pressure to speak disappears. And remember not to cover your silences with "um." Silence is much more powerful.
Shifting Your Mindset
Part of the difficulty in cooperating with your ex may lie in your tendency to rehearse negative thoughts about him or her. Much like self-defeating self-talk, these thoughts engage and propel you into a negative Think-Feel-Do cycle. For example, you think, "I hate him, I hate him, I wish he would die," over and over again as you listen to him tell you why he doesn't have time to take your child shopping for camp. This sets you up to fail because you plan your next action based on these negative thoughts.
Likewise, the self-defeating self-talk you engage in prior to a conversation with your ex sets you up to fail. You may have thoughts like, "I can't do this, she's just going to start screaming at me again," or "Why do I even bother talking to him? He's such a jerk." This rehearsal of negative, angry thoughts serves only to make you more, rather than less, angry and negative. That rehearsal robs you of momentum and power and creates a tendency for you to respond argumentatively instead of cooperatively.
Listen to Understand
The basis for cooperation lies in being able to communicate effectively, and the foundation for good communication lies in being able to listen. Steven R. Covey, in his bestselling book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, writes that if he had to choose the single most important thing he's learned in the field of interpersonal relations, it would be this: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." Listening and trying to understand your ex is far more powerful than you might realize!
Listening is a skill. It's not, however, a skill that most of us were taught, and although we do it quite naturally with the people we feel close to, when we feel confronted, misheard, or wronged, we fail to draw on our ability to listen.
Listening can be broken down into four components: attention, acknowledgment, reflection, and restatement.
The First Component of Listening: Attention
Listening is more than just waiting your turn to speak, more than just being quiet, and more than hearing the other person. The other person must feel as though he or she is being heard. We help them feel heard when we give them our full attention.
Giving another person your full attention is a crucial part of the listening process. It means looking your ex in the eyes, keeping your arms and legs uncrossed, and fully facing her. When your body language communicates an attitude of attention, the other person softens her attack, because she no longer feels as if she has to work so hard to get you to understand the points she's trying to make.
The Second Component: Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment means verbally indicating that you're listening to the other person. That you're actively following along as she speaks. "I see," or "Uh-huh," are examples of how to verbally acknowledge that you're listening. Acknowledging that there is a problem or that your ex has a point doesn't mean that you have to agree with it.
Arthur's ex-wife called him and began to complain about money. She said that she had taken an extra part-time job on Saturdays but was having trouble coming up with money to pay a babysitter during that time. Arthur got the feeling that she was taking a roundabout way to ask him for more financial support, which he was unwilling to give. Rather than reacting to his thoughts, however, he simply acknowledged her by saying, "Uh-huh... I see... I understand that you don't have the extra money for a baby-sitter on Saturdays. It's been a bad year for a lot of us, and eight hours adds up to a lot."
Had Arthur reacted to his suspicions by exploding and saying, "I'm not giving you more money. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it through your thick skull?" it might have provoked an argument, at the center of which would have been their child. Both parents might have left the conversation feeling as though neither of them "wanted" their daughter. Resentment and hurt feelings might have ensued.
The Third Component: Reflection
Reflection goes hand in hand with acknowledgment. It requires that you try to determine what the other person might be feeling. This isn't easy. As you've already discovered, many times angry words or actions mask our more subtle emotions.
Reflection refers not only to the process of looking underneath the masking emotion for the other person's more subtle feelings, but also being able to reflect those feelings back to him. This sounds something like, "I hear that you're feeling defensive about being late," or "Sounds like you feel accused."
When Arthur refused to engage with his ex, she began to utilize some of the old dynamics that hadn't worked in the past. "Arthur, I don't know what I'm going to do. I can't afford a sitter, I just can't." Arthur responded with, "You really sound overwhelmed. Juggling work with a child is difficult."
The Fourth Component: Restatement
Many times people think they're clearly hearing someone when in fact they are interpreting what's being said.
When Arthur listened to his wife complain about babysitting, he was sure that she was going to ask him for more money. Rather than explode at her with, "I'm not giving you more money," or "What do you want from me anyway?" he restated what he thought she was saying, "Margaret, I'm hearing you say that you'd like me to cover the child-care expenses for you on Saturdays. Am I right?" To his surprise, she seemed bewildered, "Arthur, I'm not asking you for more money! I was just going to see if we could switch visitation from Wednesday nights to Saturdays so that time is covered for me for the next couple of months."
Asking "Am I right?" at the end of a restatement is useful because it enables you to check in with the other person to see if you heard correctly. And it affords your ex the opportunity to correct you if you didn't understand.
What Can You Agree With?
Another important cooperation skill involves listening carefully to see if there are any points on which you can agree during an argument. In business, for instance, when a client is extremely resistant, good business-people listen carefully to see if there are any points on which they can agree. They think to themselves: "Could I agree, either in principle or in part, with any of what she's saying?" When they find even a part of a statement they can agree on, they seize that opportunity. It's akin to trying to turn a wild horse around: sometimes you have to ride the horse in the direction it's going before you can get it to respond to your words and actions.
When you're feeling attacked by your ex, it may be difficult to think in terms of agreement. You're far more likely to enter a negotiation with your ex with thoughts like, "She's such an idiot," or, "He's 100% wrong, as usual!" Yet when you look for points on which you can agree, you put yourself in the position of control and relay to your ex that you're working toward a common goal and resolution.
Communication Breakdown
Many times cooperative communication with an ex breaks down because we block it. Sometimes we deliberately do this, and sometimes it's subconscious. It helps to recognize some common ways communication gets blocked: through interrupting, by giving advice, and by invalidating another person's feelings or point of view. Let's see how those look.
Interrupting
Interrupting is one of the most common causes of communication breakdown. In an argumentative state, the thing people want most is to be heard. When you interrupt, you are not allowing the other person to finish his turn. You're not giving him his chance to feel "heard." Remember that cooperation means working together. Let your ex finish what he or she has to say before you respond, and then request that your ex let you finish, as well.
Giving Advice
Another way to block the communication process is by offering advice. When you become the adviser, the cooperative mood vanishes.
Sam was experiencing some sleep problems at home. His father, Steve, couldn't seem to get him to stay in bed at night until around eleven or twelve. He called his ex, Rachel, to see if she was experiencing the same difficulty on the nights Sam stayed with her.
"Rachel? It's Steve. I have a concern about Sam's sleeping habits and I wanted to ask you a question about it. I can't seem to get him to go to sleep until around midnight when he's here. I wondered if you were having a similar problem?" "What you have to do," Rachel sighed, "is be firm. A little firmness goes a long way."
"I am being firm," Steve retorted. "Well, clearly not firm enough. A boy needs a strong hand, especially from his father."
Steve's blood began to boil. "Are you accusing me of not being a good father? You're infuriating!" he yelled as he hung up the phone.
When Rachel responded to Steve's request for information by offering advice, she may have believed she was being helpful. After all, wasn't Steve asking for advice on getting their son to bed earlier in the evening? The problem is that we often give advice when we're simply being asked for information. To keep communication with your ex cooperative, it's best to determine what your ex wants before dropping your pearls of wisdom. Steve and Rachel would have been better off had she employed her active listening skills, then asked Steve if he wanted advice before giving it. She might have said something like, "It sounds like you're asking me what I would do, is that right?" He might then have responded with, "No, I just want to know if it's happening at your house as well."
Invalidating
Another effective communication block occurs when we invalidate another person's feelings or point of view. Everyone has, and is entitled to, her own opinions and feelings. By telling another person that her opinions or feelings are wrong, or even by implying that they're wrong, you invalidate what to her are legitimate concerns and are more likely to arouse her anger than her cooperation.
Josh's mother, Cheryl, called her ex because she was concerned about Josh using her ex's car during rush hour. She wanted to make the suggestion that Josh borrow the car only before five in the afternoon, when there wasn't much traffic, or after seven, when rush hour was over.
"Hank? It's Cheryl. Do you have a minute?" "Sure." "It's about Josh borrowing your car. I'm concerned about him driving in traffic..." "Cheryl, you're being ridiculous!" Hank interrupted. "Josh is a good driver, and he'll be fine." "Hank, I'm just trying to ask that you restrict his use of the car to non-rush hours." "Look, Cheryl, there's nothing to be concerned about. Don't you have better things to do than worry?"
Not only did Hank interrupt Cheryl, he also invalidated what to her was a legitimate concern. Here is a major breakdown in what could have been a cooperative communication between Josh's parents.
Doing the Box Step
Cooperative communication can be looked upon as a box step. Think of yourself as a partner in a dance. What you are doing is drawing a box on the floor by moving your feet in that direction.
1. Step back -- and assess the situation. You could, at this point, strike right back, but this action encourages retribution. Listen to understand, and remember that you don't have to make any decisions right this moment.
2. Step to the side -- your ex's side. See if there is anything on which you can agree. Look at what your ex's feelings, objectives, and motivation might be.
3. Step forward -- present your ideas clearly and concisely.
4. Step to the other side -- close your negotiation with a compromise.
Tim's mom was surprised when her ex called one day and began yelling. "You listen to me!" he said, "I am not going to have Tim riding a bike in the city! He's done fine up until now without a bike and I think it should stay that way." Remembering the box step of cooperative communication, she didn't engage right away in an argument she knew nothing about. Instead, Sarah stepped back and went into a listening mode. "I hear a lot of concern in your voice, George. What's going on?"
"Tim says you promised him a bike for his birthday, and I simply won't have it. It's far too dangerous to ride in the city!" Sarah then stepped to her ex's side, trying to hear it from his point of view and find something on which to agree. "I agree that it can be dangerous to ride on the streets." She then stepped forward and presented her plan. "I had thought that I'd buy him a bike only if we limited his riding to the park with a helmet to ensure his safety."
"Oh!" George seemed surprised, almost as if the wind had been knocked out of him. "I guess I didn't realize that."
Then Sarah stepped to the other side, closing the communication. "So can we agree that he can have a bike if he rides only in the park with a helmet?"
"Okay," George agreed, "and thanks." When Sarah engaged George with her newly learned cooperation skills, she was able to handle a situation that previously would have escalated into a fight.
Catch 'Em Doing It Right
One of the most powerful ways to engage another person in cooperation is to acknowledge and appreciate his efforts.
Very often we watch for and pick on the things a person does wrong, mistakenly believing that if we point out his mistakes, it will help the person change his behavior in the future. Unfortunately, this often makes the behavior worse, because soon the person realizes that you'll never acknowledge what he did right anyway, so he might as well do it wrong.
By watching for the things a person does right, however, and acknowledging those things, you increase the likelihood that the person will do things right in the future. Even if you believe that your ex never does anything right, you'll find that it will move you in a more cooperative direction, even if you only acknowledge his efforts: "I know how hard it is for you to get out of the office on time. I appreciate that you made this effort today, even if it didn't work out."
If You Lose it, Apologize
Working towards a cooperative relationship doesn't mean you'll achieve a perfect one. We're all human. Obviously, there will be times when you won't hold it together, when you'll lose your temper or composure in front of your ex. When this happens, apologize. It's not what you do, but what you do afterwards that counts. A simple "I'm sorry for calling you names" can go a long way. (This is an important point to remember when dealing with your kids, as well.)
Compromise
Finally, cooperating with your ex for the sake of your child means compromise. Many people look at each conversation with their ex as a miniature battle to be won. If you look at it this way, hanging on to your thoughts of revenge, setting out to hurt your opponent, wanting to come out of every conversation the victor, you might end up winning each battle, but rest assured you'll lose the war. Your children are at stake here, and if their happiness and self-esteem suffers in your battles -- which they most assuredly do -- you'll have lost much more than you ever realized.
When you give yourself permission to compromise, you give yourself and your children permission to be happy. You've worked hard to get where you are today. Being a single parent is not an easy job. Raising a child is not easy. Cooperating with your ex reflects your maturity, sensitivity, and personal growth and, ultimately, makes things easier for you.
Cooperation means working together towards a common goal. Fostering a spirit of cooperation with your ex means laying down your weapons in the war of divorce in order to protect your children. It means that when your ex begins to argue with you, you don't argue back. It means that you stop being reactive and start being proactive. Your kids should be your priority, and although it may kill you to share them with a jerk, it will hurt them irreparably if you continue to do battle.
It's understandable that you may feel bitter, angry, and vengeful toward your ex, but when you deliberately bad-mouth or argue with him or her in front of the children, it's as if you're saying those things to your kids. The hurt and confusion they feel at those times can be damaging. We know that nobody's perfect. And obviously, there will be times when your child overhears you arguing with your ex, sees the expression on your face, or senses your underlying (and many times valid) disgust and anger.
You're human. The point is that no matter what your feelings are, your children will be better off if you keep them as your central focus and work diligently at keeping the parenting relationship civil and cooperative.
There are two ways to work at change with your ex. One is by changing your internal state. You sort through your angry and bitter feelings and obtain insights into those feelings that enable you eventually to change them. Once your feelings are different, your actions automatically change. This is often a lengthy process and many times requires the professional assistance of a counselor. Another way to change is by changing your actions first, no matter how you feel. It's akin to administering CPR to someone whose heart has stopped. You can't get inside the person and restart the heart by changing the internal state. Instead, you work from the outside. You place your hands over the person's breastbone and push down at regular intervals. This external force eventually changes the internal state, and the heart begins beating.
By learning the cooperation skills presented in this article, you're essentially administering CPR to the parenting relationship. When you change your actions in an argument with your ex, eventually your internal state will change too. Remember that although it's okay to allow the marital relationship to die, it's not okay for the parenting relationship to die, because if it does, it's your children who will suffer.
The Fight-or-Flight Response
When you find yourself in a stressful situation, your subconscious automatically assesses your physiological response (sweaty palms, fast heartbeat, rapid breathing, shaking hands, cracking voice) in order to determine what kind of signal it should send to your body. Should it tell your body to run from danger? Should it tell your body to prepare defenses and fight? Or should it tell your body that everything's fine, sit down, relax, and have a cup of tea?
The problem with what your subconscious finds is that it's not discriminatory. It can't tell the difference between the rapid breathing that occurs because you are furious that your ex won't take your child to a birthday party and the rapid breathing that happens when you realize you're being pursued by a wild beast. In either case, your subconscious sends the same message: run, fight, or be eaten!
This panic signal effectively shuts down the part of your brain that handles language and rational thought. Your reactions include clenched fists, gritted teeth, red face, slamming down the phone, and crying. In other words, you respond on a purely physiological level. When that happens, you become ineffective and you give away your power and control over the situation.
Altering the Fight-or-Flight Response
Speaking to an ex often evokes a fight-or-flight response. One father we watched would get red in the face and clench the arms of the chair until his knuckles turned white. Then he stuttered at the mere suggestion that he talk about what he would say to his ex. Invariably, the first words out of his mouth were, at best, explosive, and at worst, profane.
Beginning a discussion with profanity and name-calling (even if that's the way you feel) is not cooperative. When your blood pressure has already risen or your hands are shaking, you considerably weaken your position. We wouldn't presume to suggest that you can rid yourself of anxiety or rage completely, but you can use techniques that will calm, center, and focus you enough to enable you to stay in control during an argument -- as well as maintain a powerful position.
Deep Breathing -- A Technique That Calms
Breathing deeply breaks into the cycle between your subconscious and your body and gives you an alternative to the fight-or-flight response. When you breathe deeply, you alter the message that your subconscious receives. In essence, you send the message to your subconscious that there is nothing to be afraid of. After all, if there were, you certainly wouldn't be standing around taking time to breathe! When you change the message you send to your brain, it stops sending the panic signals that make you ineffective and less resourceful.
To be an effective deep breather, you must practice. Begin by practicing in front of the mirror. Don't rush. Breathe in deeply enough to fill your lungs, then sit or stand straighter and take in just a little extra. Breathe out slowly. Count as you inhale and then as you exhale. Say, "That's one." Breathe again. Say, "That's two." One more time, "That's three." This technique is useful not only during a conversation with your ex when you find yourself reacting, but also prior to phoning or meeting your ex. And if three breaths don't seem to be altering the fight-or-flight response, take more.
Don't Hurry!
When you believe that you must respond immediately to whatever your ex says, and you rush to fill in the silences in a conversation, you inevitably engage the fight-or-flight reaction. In addition, you place yourself at a disadvantage by not allowing yourself time to think. It's not only okay to allow silence (and breathing) in a conversation, it's necessary. If your ex is continuing to talk, or shouting at you to answer him or her, take the phone away from your ear for a moment. If you're face to face, close your eyes. It's difficult to count breaths when you're staring at someone you don't like very much. Closing your eyes momentarily shuts down your visual sense.
If you find it difficult to breathe deeply and incur silence, then practice during your conversations with friends and family members. It may feel awkward at first, but soon you'll discover that the pressure to speak disappears. And remember not to cover your silences with "um." Silence is much more powerful.
Shifting Your Mindset
Part of the difficulty in cooperating with your ex may lie in your tendency to rehearse negative thoughts about him or her. Much like self-defeating self-talk, these thoughts engage and propel you into a negative Think-Feel-Do cycle. For example, you think, "I hate him, I hate him, I wish he would die," over and over again as you listen to him tell you why he doesn't have time to take your child shopping for camp. This sets you up to fail because you plan your next action based on these negative thoughts.
Likewise, the self-defeating self-talk you engage in prior to a conversation with your ex sets you up to fail. You may have thoughts like, "I can't do this, she's just going to start screaming at me again," or "Why do I even bother talking to him? He's such a jerk." This rehearsal of negative, angry thoughts serves only to make you more, rather than less, angry and negative. That rehearsal robs you of momentum and power and creates a tendency for you to respond argumentatively instead of cooperatively.
Listen to Understand
The basis for cooperation lies in being able to communicate effectively, and the foundation for good communication lies in being able to listen. Steven R. Covey, in his bestselling book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, writes that if he had to choose the single most important thing he's learned in the field of interpersonal relations, it would be this: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." Listening and trying to understand your ex is far more powerful than you might realize!
Listening is a skill. It's not, however, a skill that most of us were taught, and although we do it quite naturally with the people we feel close to, when we feel confronted, misheard, or wronged, we fail to draw on our ability to listen.
Listening can be broken down into four components: attention, acknowledgment, reflection, and restatement.
The First Component of Listening: Attention
Listening is more than just waiting your turn to speak, more than just being quiet, and more than hearing the other person. The other person must feel as though he or she is being heard. We help them feel heard when we give them our full attention.
Giving another person your full attention is a crucial part of the listening process. It means looking your ex in the eyes, keeping your arms and legs uncrossed, and fully facing her. When your body language communicates an attitude of attention, the other person softens her attack, because she no longer feels as if she has to work so hard to get you to understand the points she's trying to make.
The Second Component: Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment means verbally indicating that you're listening to the other person. That you're actively following along as she speaks. "I see," or "Uh-huh," are examples of how to verbally acknowledge that you're listening. Acknowledging that there is a problem or that your ex has a point doesn't mean that you have to agree with it.
Arthur's ex-wife called him and began to complain about money. She said that she had taken an extra part-time job on Saturdays but was having trouble coming up with money to pay a babysitter during that time. Arthur got the feeling that she was taking a roundabout way to ask him for more financial support, which he was unwilling to give. Rather than reacting to his thoughts, however, he simply acknowledged her by saying, "Uh-huh... I see... I understand that you don't have the extra money for a baby-sitter on Saturdays. It's been a bad year for a lot of us, and eight hours adds up to a lot."
Had Arthur reacted to his suspicions by exploding and saying, "I'm not giving you more money. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it through your thick skull?" it might have provoked an argument, at the center of which would have been their child. Both parents might have left the conversation feeling as though neither of them "wanted" their daughter. Resentment and hurt feelings might have ensued.
The Third Component: Reflection
Reflection goes hand in hand with acknowledgment. It requires that you try to determine what the other person might be feeling. This isn't easy. As you've already discovered, many times angry words or actions mask our more subtle emotions.
Reflection refers not only to the process of looking underneath the masking emotion for the other person's more subtle feelings, but also being able to reflect those feelings back to him. This sounds something like, "I hear that you're feeling defensive about being late," or "Sounds like you feel accused."
When Arthur refused to engage with his ex, she began to utilize some of the old dynamics that hadn't worked in the past. "Arthur, I don't know what I'm going to do. I can't afford a sitter, I just can't." Arthur responded with, "You really sound overwhelmed. Juggling work with a child is difficult."
The Fourth Component: Restatement
Many times people think they're clearly hearing someone when in fact they are interpreting what's being said.
When Arthur listened to his wife complain about babysitting, he was sure that she was going to ask him for more money. Rather than explode at her with, "I'm not giving you more money," or "What do you want from me anyway?" he restated what he thought she was saying, "Margaret, I'm hearing you say that you'd like me to cover the child-care expenses for you on Saturdays. Am I right?" To his surprise, she seemed bewildered, "Arthur, I'm not asking you for more money! I was just going to see if we could switch visitation from Wednesday nights to Saturdays so that time is covered for me for the next couple of months."
Asking "Am I right?" at the end of a restatement is useful because it enables you to check in with the other person to see if you heard correctly. And it affords your ex the opportunity to correct you if you didn't understand.
What Can You Agree With?
Another important cooperation skill involves listening carefully to see if there are any points on which you can agree during an argument. In business, for instance, when a client is extremely resistant, good business-people listen carefully to see if there are any points on which they can agree. They think to themselves: "Could I agree, either in principle or in part, with any of what she's saying?" When they find even a part of a statement they can agree on, they seize that opportunity. It's akin to trying to turn a wild horse around: sometimes you have to ride the horse in the direction it's going before you can get it to respond to your words and actions.
When you're feeling attacked by your ex, it may be difficult to think in terms of agreement. You're far more likely to enter a negotiation with your ex with thoughts like, "She's such an idiot," or, "He's 100% wrong, as usual!" Yet when you look for points on which you can agree, you put yourself in the position of control and relay to your ex that you're working toward a common goal and resolution.
Communication Breakdown
Many times cooperative communication with an ex breaks down because we block it. Sometimes we deliberately do this, and sometimes it's subconscious. It helps to recognize some common ways communication gets blocked: through interrupting, by giving advice, and by invalidating another person's feelings or point of view. Let's see how those look.
Interrupting
Interrupting is one of the most common causes of communication breakdown. In an argumentative state, the thing people want most is to be heard. When you interrupt, you are not allowing the other person to finish his turn. You're not giving him his chance to feel "heard." Remember that cooperation means working together. Let your ex finish what he or she has to say before you respond, and then request that your ex let you finish, as well.
Giving Advice
Another way to block the communication process is by offering advice. When you become the adviser, the cooperative mood vanishes.
Sam was experiencing some sleep problems at home. His father, Steve, couldn't seem to get him to stay in bed at night until around eleven or twelve. He called his ex, Rachel, to see if she was experiencing the same difficulty on the nights Sam stayed with her.
"Rachel? It's Steve. I have a concern about Sam's sleeping habits and I wanted to ask you a question about it. I can't seem to get him to go to sleep until around midnight when he's here. I wondered if you were having a similar problem?" "What you have to do," Rachel sighed, "is be firm. A little firmness goes a long way."
"I am being firm," Steve retorted. "Well, clearly not firm enough. A boy needs a strong hand, especially from his father."
Steve's blood began to boil. "Are you accusing me of not being a good father? You're infuriating!" he yelled as he hung up the phone.
When Rachel responded to Steve's request for information by offering advice, she may have believed she was being helpful. After all, wasn't Steve asking for advice on getting their son to bed earlier in the evening? The problem is that we often give advice when we're simply being asked for information. To keep communication with your ex cooperative, it's best to determine what your ex wants before dropping your pearls of wisdom. Steve and Rachel would have been better off had she employed her active listening skills, then asked Steve if he wanted advice before giving it. She might have said something like, "It sounds like you're asking me what I would do, is that right?" He might then have responded with, "No, I just want to know if it's happening at your house as well."
Invalidating
Another effective communication block occurs when we invalidate another person's feelings or point of view. Everyone has, and is entitled to, her own opinions and feelings. By telling another person that her opinions or feelings are wrong, or even by implying that they're wrong, you invalidate what to her are legitimate concerns and are more likely to arouse her anger than her cooperation.
Josh's mother, Cheryl, called her ex because she was concerned about Josh using her ex's car during rush hour. She wanted to make the suggestion that Josh borrow the car only before five in the afternoon, when there wasn't much traffic, or after seven, when rush hour was over.
"Hank? It's Cheryl. Do you have a minute?" "Sure." "It's about Josh borrowing your car. I'm concerned about him driving in traffic..." "Cheryl, you're being ridiculous!" Hank interrupted. "Josh is a good driver, and he'll be fine." "Hank, I'm just trying to ask that you restrict his use of the car to non-rush hours." "Look, Cheryl, there's nothing to be concerned about. Don't you have better things to do than worry?"
Not only did Hank interrupt Cheryl, he also invalidated what to her was a legitimate concern. Here is a major breakdown in what could have been a cooperative communication between Josh's parents.
Doing the Box Step
Cooperative communication can be looked upon as a box step. Think of yourself as a partner in a dance. What you are doing is drawing a box on the floor by moving your feet in that direction.
1. Step back -- and assess the situation. You could, at this point, strike right back, but this action encourages retribution. Listen to understand, and remember that you don't have to make any decisions right this moment.
2. Step to the side -- your ex's side. See if there is anything on which you can agree. Look at what your ex's feelings, objectives, and motivation might be.
3. Step forward -- present your ideas clearly and concisely.
4. Step to the other side -- close your negotiation with a compromise.
Tim's mom was surprised when her ex called one day and began yelling. "You listen to me!" he said, "I am not going to have Tim riding a bike in the city! He's done fine up until now without a bike and I think it should stay that way." Remembering the box step of cooperative communication, she didn't engage right away in an argument she knew nothing about. Instead, Sarah stepped back and went into a listening mode. "I hear a lot of concern in your voice, George. What's going on?"
"Tim says you promised him a bike for his birthday, and I simply won't have it. It's far too dangerous to ride in the city!" Sarah then stepped to her ex's side, trying to hear it from his point of view and find something on which to agree. "I agree that it can be dangerous to ride on the streets." She then stepped forward and presented her plan. "I had thought that I'd buy him a bike only if we limited his riding to the park with a helmet to ensure his safety."
"Oh!" George seemed surprised, almost as if the wind had been knocked out of him. "I guess I didn't realize that."
Then Sarah stepped to the other side, closing the communication. "So can we agree that he can have a bike if he rides only in the park with a helmet?"
"Okay," George agreed, "and thanks." When Sarah engaged George with her newly learned cooperation skills, she was able to handle a situation that previously would have escalated into a fight.
Catch 'Em Doing It Right
One of the most powerful ways to engage another person in cooperation is to acknowledge and appreciate his efforts.
Very often we watch for and pick on the things a person does wrong, mistakenly believing that if we point out his mistakes, it will help the person change his behavior in the future. Unfortunately, this often makes the behavior worse, because soon the person realizes that you'll never acknowledge what he did right anyway, so he might as well do it wrong.
By watching for the things a person does right, however, and acknowledging those things, you increase the likelihood that the person will do things right in the future. Even if you believe that your ex never does anything right, you'll find that it will move you in a more cooperative direction, even if you only acknowledge his efforts: "I know how hard it is for you to get out of the office on time. I appreciate that you made this effort today, even if it didn't work out."
If You Lose it, Apologize
Working towards a cooperative relationship doesn't mean you'll achieve a perfect one. We're all human. Obviously, there will be times when you won't hold it together, when you'll lose your temper or composure in front of your ex. When this happens, apologize. It's not what you do, but what you do afterwards that counts. A simple "I'm sorry for calling you names" can go a long way. (This is an important point to remember when dealing with your kids, as well.)
Compromise
Finally, cooperating with your ex for the sake of your child means compromise. Many people look at each conversation with their ex as a miniature battle to be won. If you look at it this way, hanging on to your thoughts of revenge, setting out to hurt your opponent, wanting to come out of every conversation the victor, you might end up winning each battle, but rest assured you'll lose the war. Your children are at stake here, and if their happiness and self-esteem suffers in your battles -- which they most assuredly do -- you'll have lost much more than you ever realized.
When you give yourself permission to compromise, you give yourself and your children permission to be happy. You've worked hard to get where you are today. Being a single parent is not an easy job. Raising a child is not easy. Cooperating with your ex reflects your maturity, sensitivity, and personal growth and, ultimately, makes things easier for you.
Rahul Kishore hands-on guide to dealing with delicate custody issues is specifically designed for divorced parents who have trouble communicating with each other, offering step-by-step techniques and scripts to help them cope with difficult situations.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Creating a satisfying life
Contrary to what you might believe, personal happiness is not dependent on life dealing you a good hand. How you respond to what comes your way will largely determine whether your life is fulfilling or not; here's how to move from dissatisfaction to real satisfaction.
The breakdown of a marriage is one of the most traumatic things that can happen in your life. Divorce can cause profound feelings of loss, failure, regret, abandonment, emptiness, fear of the future, and/or powerlessness -- especially if you didn't initiate the split.
There's no quick fix to your anger and grief, but there is a journey toward a more satisfying and fulfilling life that you can start right now. The transition from despair to satisfaction starts with your determination not to be a victim of your circumstances; happiness doesn't depend so much on what happens to you, but on how you deal with what happens to you. Change your way of thinking: decide that you're not going to let divorce take control of your life and you'll be taking the first step towards recovery. If you are determined to wallow in defeat and sorrow, then the divorce has already won.
Feel the pain, then let it go
"Allow yourself to grieve," advises Chet Mirman, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist who co-directs The Center for Divorce Recovery in Northbrook, IL. "You need to recognize that divorce is a loss. In the case of a death, society has rituals to encourage people to grieve; we have no such rituals with divorce. Many people don't realize that the end of a marriage is a psychological equivalent to death."
And denying that you're in pain won't work, either. "Suppose I have a wall in my house that's all scarred with paint peeling," says Russell Friedman, executive director of the Grief Recovery Institute in California. "If I want to redo it and paint it over, do I just slop the paint over the cracks? Of course not: I have to strip the wall down and sand the old paint off before painting with a new coat. In order to participate in life fully, you have to strip down the damaged wall -- regardless of whose fault the damage is -- down to the heart of the matter. Covering up your pain never has a positive conclusion; unresolved grief makes you make bad decisions."
"You have to allow the hurt to run its course," says relationship expert, workshop leader, and best-selling author Bill Ferguson. "The more you allow yourself to feel the pain, the more it comes and the more it goes."
Divorce-recovery is a process, and it takes time. How long you will take to heal depends on many factors, including the length of your marriage, whether you were abused, and the support you receive from family and friends. "You must take the process of recovery seriously," urges Micki McWade, who has developed a 12-step divorce-recovery program in her book Getting Up, Getting Over, Getting On. "People have high expectations of themselves; they think they should be getting over it quickly and immediately. But for every five years married, it takes about one year to get over it. Don't suppress your feelings or act as if it never happened, but give the process respect. If you bypass the process, it sets you up for a fall."
Erase revenge, blame, and guilt
Even when the divorce is over, anger, blame, and/or guilt may be dominating your thoughts. If you want to feel better, you have to work through and release them. It's unlikely that either you or your spouse is 100% responsible for the end of your marriage; perhaps both of you should have put more effort into it, or perhaps you were simply not a compatible couple. Whatever your situation, you have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by lashing out at yourself or at your ex-spouse. "Beware of getting stuck in anger, fighting, or blame," Dr. Mirman points out. "Even if the anger or blame is justified, it tends to keep you from feeling your sadness." It also prevents you from moving forward toward better times.
"When you're depressed and angry, you really don't feel you have anything to give," says Barbara Sher, the best-selling author of such motivational books as Wishcraft: How to Get What You Really Want, Live the Life You Love, and I Could Do Anything If I Only Knew What It Was. "Often you can't see why you should give at all, since you're the one who has been robbed and mistreated. Doing anything at all is hard when you're in the dumps." But once you let go of thoughts that depress and anger you, and prepare to start giving of yourself again, "the energy inside you rises to meet the challenge."
Most definitely do not resort to revenge. It's a dish best not served at all, even if your ex has hurt you without shame. Vengeance doesn't make the hurt go away; it sets a horrible example of social behavior for your children, and it stalls you from moving on. Revenge never fulfills its intended purpose: it doesn't "teach a lesson" to the person that hurt you, but rather provokes that person to get back at you in turn -- starting a cycle of tit-for-tat vengeance that causes unnecessary anguish on both sides. Revenge is extremely harmful at its worst and a waste of time at its best.
After all you've gone through, it may be tempting to see yourself as the eternal victim of your former spouse. But adopting this role prevents you from embracing responsibility for your own actions, whether or not you really have been a victim. On the other hand, it's no more constructive to blame yourself for everything. Immersing yourself in guilt -- or playing the "if only" game -- will keep you stuck in the past and afraid to make a decision in case it's the wrong one.
"You need to let go of the non-empowering emotions," says Mike Lipkin, a Toronto-based motivational speaker and the author of Your Personal Best. "Anytime you stay angry at someone, you are letting them live rent-free inside your head."
Look for the hidden gift
"Problems are just opportunities in their work clothes," said the late Henry J. Kaiser, an American industrialist, entrepreneur, and the father of modern shipbuilding. In the long run, dealing with problems can open up unexpected opportunities -- or at least make you stronger. Sometimes, good can come from bad -- although your current upset, anger, or fear may prevent you from seeing it. If you change your way of thinking to consciously look for the positive effects in any negative event, you may experience a radical change in your emotions and your outlook on life.
This is admittedly not an easy thing to do, especially during periods when life seems to be throwing you disappointments and crises without mercy. It takes patience, clarity, and objectivity to spot the gift in an unhappy event. For example, your divorce may turn out to be a blessing in disguise: you've been released from a marriage that wasn't working; you're now free to make your own decisions about your future; and eventually, you may find a much more compatible partner to share your life. You're losing the benefits of a committed relationship, but you'll also be losing the trials and unhappy compromises it required as well as regaining some of the perks of singlehood.
Sometimes, the most beneficial thing to come out of bad times is what you've learned from them -- and you should acknowledge that to yourself. You need to look at the situation and say, "What's the lesson here? What have I learned from this experience?" The benefits of doing this include a sense of empowerment from having used your experience to grow wiser, and using your new-found wisdom to avoid the same pitfall if it comes up again. Experience is a hard way to learn how to get through life, but it's a very effective teacher.
The "gift" that comes out of suffering isn't always immediately apparent. This is where you need to develop the ability to "turn a lemon into a lemonade," as the old saying goes. It takes courage, character, imagination, and perspective to accept the inevitable and even use it as the basis to create something positive. Great artists through the ages have channeled their suffering into classic novels, paintings, and music; poverty, disease, and social ostracism have fueled the eventual achievements of many great people -- from Charles Dickens and Abraham Lincoln to Helen Keller and Stephen Hawking.
If you're having trouble seeing the gift in your situation, just think of it this way: it could be worse. Things frequently are not as bad as they seem. Your divorce may have caused you extreme grief, ruined you financially, filled you with massive stress, and turned your life upside-down -- but would you rather be starving in a desert, stranded alone on an island, or on death row? Sometimes, your life itself is the gift; there are probably millions of people in the world who would love to have what you have right now, even in the worst of times.
According to the 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, "We seldom think of what we have but always of what we lack." This tendency to focus on the negative causes unnecessary upset. Look for the gift: the silver lining. With practice, you'll get faster at finding it -- and happier for having done so.
The power of choice
Now that you've grieved, let go of your hurt, and looked for positive aspects of your situation, it's time to start exploring your options as to where life can take you next -- or, rather, where you will take it. If fulfillment is your aim, you have to pro-actively make choices about where to go instead of waiting for things to happen to you.
The breakdown of a marriage is one of the most traumatic things that can happen in your life. Divorce can cause profound feelings of loss, failure, regret, abandonment, emptiness, fear of the future, and/or powerlessness -- especially if you didn't initiate the split.
There's no quick fix to your anger and grief, but there is a journey toward a more satisfying and fulfilling life that you can start right now. The transition from despair to satisfaction starts with your determination not to be a victim of your circumstances; happiness doesn't depend so much on what happens to you, but on how you deal with what happens to you. Change your way of thinking: decide that you're not going to let divorce take control of your life and you'll be taking the first step towards recovery. If you are determined to wallow in defeat and sorrow, then the divorce has already won.
Feel the pain, then let it go
"Allow yourself to grieve," advises Chet Mirman, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist who co-directs The Center for Divorce Recovery in Northbrook, IL. "You need to recognize that divorce is a loss. In the case of a death, society has rituals to encourage people to grieve; we have no such rituals with divorce. Many people don't realize that the end of a marriage is a psychological equivalent to death."
And denying that you're in pain won't work, either. "Suppose I have a wall in my house that's all scarred with paint peeling," says Russell Friedman, executive director of the Grief Recovery Institute in California. "If I want to redo it and paint it over, do I just slop the paint over the cracks? Of course not: I have to strip the wall down and sand the old paint off before painting with a new coat. In order to participate in life fully, you have to strip down the damaged wall -- regardless of whose fault the damage is -- down to the heart of the matter. Covering up your pain never has a positive conclusion; unresolved grief makes you make bad decisions."
"You have to allow the hurt to run its course," says relationship expert, workshop leader, and best-selling author Bill Ferguson. "The more you allow yourself to feel the pain, the more it comes and the more it goes."
Divorce-recovery is a process, and it takes time. How long you will take to heal depends on many factors, including the length of your marriage, whether you were abused, and the support you receive from family and friends. "You must take the process of recovery seriously," urges Micki McWade, who has developed a 12-step divorce-recovery program in her book Getting Up, Getting Over, Getting On. "People have high expectations of themselves; they think they should be getting over it quickly and immediately. But for every five years married, it takes about one year to get over it. Don't suppress your feelings or act as if it never happened, but give the process respect. If you bypass the process, it sets you up for a fall."
Erase revenge, blame, and guilt
Even when the divorce is over, anger, blame, and/or guilt may be dominating your thoughts. If you want to feel better, you have to work through and release them. It's unlikely that either you or your spouse is 100% responsible for the end of your marriage; perhaps both of you should have put more effort into it, or perhaps you were simply not a compatible couple. Whatever your situation, you have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by lashing out at yourself or at your ex-spouse. "Beware of getting stuck in anger, fighting, or blame," Dr. Mirman points out. "Even if the anger or blame is justified, it tends to keep you from feeling your sadness." It also prevents you from moving forward toward better times.
"When you're depressed and angry, you really don't feel you have anything to give," says Barbara Sher, the best-selling author of such motivational books as Wishcraft: How to Get What You Really Want, Live the Life You Love, and I Could Do Anything If I Only Knew What It Was. "Often you can't see why you should give at all, since you're the one who has been robbed and mistreated. Doing anything at all is hard when you're in the dumps." But once you let go of thoughts that depress and anger you, and prepare to start giving of yourself again, "the energy inside you rises to meet the challenge."
Most definitely do not resort to revenge. It's a dish best not served at all, even if your ex has hurt you without shame. Vengeance doesn't make the hurt go away; it sets a horrible example of social behavior for your children, and it stalls you from moving on. Revenge never fulfills its intended purpose: it doesn't "teach a lesson" to the person that hurt you, but rather provokes that person to get back at you in turn -- starting a cycle of tit-for-tat vengeance that causes unnecessary anguish on both sides. Revenge is extremely harmful at its worst and a waste of time at its best.
After all you've gone through, it may be tempting to see yourself as the eternal victim of your former spouse. But adopting this role prevents you from embracing responsibility for your own actions, whether or not you really have been a victim. On the other hand, it's no more constructive to blame yourself for everything. Immersing yourself in guilt -- or playing the "if only" game -- will keep you stuck in the past and afraid to make a decision in case it's the wrong one.
"You need to let go of the non-empowering emotions," says Mike Lipkin, a Toronto-based motivational speaker and the author of Your Personal Best. "Anytime you stay angry at someone, you are letting them live rent-free inside your head."
Look for the hidden gift
"Problems are just opportunities in their work clothes," said the late Henry J. Kaiser, an American industrialist, entrepreneur, and the father of modern shipbuilding. In the long run, dealing with problems can open up unexpected opportunities -- or at least make you stronger. Sometimes, good can come from bad -- although your current upset, anger, or fear may prevent you from seeing it. If you change your way of thinking to consciously look for the positive effects in any negative event, you may experience a radical change in your emotions and your outlook on life.
This is admittedly not an easy thing to do, especially during periods when life seems to be throwing you disappointments and crises without mercy. It takes patience, clarity, and objectivity to spot the gift in an unhappy event. For example, your divorce may turn out to be a blessing in disguise: you've been released from a marriage that wasn't working; you're now free to make your own decisions about your future; and eventually, you may find a much more compatible partner to share your life. You're losing the benefits of a committed relationship, but you'll also be losing the trials and unhappy compromises it required as well as regaining some of the perks of singlehood.
Sometimes, the most beneficial thing to come out of bad times is what you've learned from them -- and you should acknowledge that to yourself. You need to look at the situation and say, "What's the lesson here? What have I learned from this experience?" The benefits of doing this include a sense of empowerment from having used your experience to grow wiser, and using your new-found wisdom to avoid the same pitfall if it comes up again. Experience is a hard way to learn how to get through life, but it's a very effective teacher.
The "gift" that comes out of suffering isn't always immediately apparent. This is where you need to develop the ability to "turn a lemon into a lemonade," as the old saying goes. It takes courage, character, imagination, and perspective to accept the inevitable and even use it as the basis to create something positive. Great artists through the ages have channeled their suffering into classic novels, paintings, and music; poverty, disease, and social ostracism have fueled the eventual achievements of many great people -- from Charles Dickens and Abraham Lincoln to Helen Keller and Stephen Hawking.
If you're having trouble seeing the gift in your situation, just think of it this way: it could be worse. Things frequently are not as bad as they seem. Your divorce may have caused you extreme grief, ruined you financially, filled you with massive stress, and turned your life upside-down -- but would you rather be starving in a desert, stranded alone on an island, or on death row? Sometimes, your life itself is the gift; there are probably millions of people in the world who would love to have what you have right now, even in the worst of times.
According to the 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, "We seldom think of what we have but always of what we lack." This tendency to focus on the negative causes unnecessary upset. Look for the gift: the silver lining. With practice, you'll get faster at finding it -- and happier for having done so.
The power of choice
Now that you've grieved, let go of your hurt, and looked for positive aspects of your situation, it's time to start exploring your options as to where life can take you next -- or, rather, where you will take it. If fulfillment is your aim, you have to pro-actively make choices about where to go instead of waiting for things to happen to you.
"In divorce, it's important to heal your hurt, and it's also important to get on with your life," Ferguson points out. "The main thing is to be active. Life is like being in water: as long as you're swimming, you stay above water, but if stop moving, you sink. During divorce, some people get caught in upset and then withdraw from life, eventually sinking into depression. You need to move forward and start creating dreams. Find things that you love to do."
Weigh the pros and cons, then take action. If you're dissatisfied with your job or your financial situation, take the initiative to update your resume and look for something more fulfilling, or at least to work toward promotion to a higher position or ask for a raise. If you're feeling courageous, you might even switch career paths completely and start over -- although you have to balance this desire with the need to put food on the table and maintain a roof over your head. If you want to improve your education or technical skills -- or if you just have an unsatisfied hunger for learning -- go back to school in the evenings. It's not too late to start or finish a college/university degree. You have the power to choose your next step in life.
"Between anything happening to us and our response is the power to choose our response," says Stephen R. Covey, renowned motivational expert and author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Through the power of choice, Covey has helped numerous people overcome setbacks in their lives and go on to achieve valuable contributions to their community. "Use the power of choice to bring yourself new meaning and new relationships. It will transcend a difficult past and help you learn from it. The only real failure is a mistake not learned from," he says.
The power to learn from your past and choose where to go next is the opposite of seeing yourself as a victim with no control over your life. "If we get obsessed with the past, we lose a sense of the future and its possibilities," Covey continues. "So we continue to feel embittered and take the road of least resilience. The upward motion is acting on one's conscience and refusing to let the negative energy consume you. If you move from the outside-in, you build a frame of reference in which only the outside will take care of you. You need to rise out of it by taking initiative and using your willpower. Moving from the outside-in, in which you're victimized by circumstances, leads to misery; it's the lower path. But the higher path -- inside-out -- leads to optimism and success." And working from the inside-out gives you the confidence to actively pinpoint and solve problems instead of letting them continue to worry you.
Covey points out the four "basic human endowments" that go into the power of choice:
Weigh the pros and cons, then take action. If you're dissatisfied with your job or your financial situation, take the initiative to update your resume and look for something more fulfilling, or at least to work toward promotion to a higher position or ask for a raise. If you're feeling courageous, you might even switch career paths completely and start over -- although you have to balance this desire with the need to put food on the table and maintain a roof over your head. If you want to improve your education or technical skills -- or if you just have an unsatisfied hunger for learning -- go back to school in the evenings. It's not too late to start or finish a college/university degree. You have the power to choose your next step in life.
"Between anything happening to us and our response is the power to choose our response," says Stephen R. Covey, renowned motivational expert and author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Through the power of choice, Covey has helped numerous people overcome setbacks in their lives and go on to achieve valuable contributions to their community. "Use the power of choice to bring yourself new meaning and new relationships. It will transcend a difficult past and help you learn from it. The only real failure is a mistake not learned from," he says.
The power to learn from your past and choose where to go next is the opposite of seeing yourself as a victim with no control over your life. "If we get obsessed with the past, we lose a sense of the future and its possibilities," Covey continues. "So we continue to feel embittered and take the road of least resilience. The upward motion is acting on one's conscience and refusing to let the negative energy consume you. If you move from the outside-in, you build a frame of reference in which only the outside will take care of you. You need to rise out of it by taking initiative and using your willpower. Moving from the outside-in, in which you're victimized by circumstances, leads to misery; it's the lower path. But the higher path -- inside-out -- leads to optimism and success." And working from the inside-out gives you the confidence to actively pinpoint and solve problems instead of letting them continue to worry you.
Covey points out the four "basic human endowments" that go into the power of choice:
1. Self-awareness. We can observe our own past and see how it has developed our own strengths and weaknesses;
2. Imagination. We can picture ourselves in a new way and reinvent ourselves. "Our memory is limited and self-limiting," says Covey, "but our imagination is unlimited and expansive, and it feeds on optimism and hope."
3. Conscience. Our inner sense tells us what is right and wrong;
4. Willpower.
A synergy results from using all four of these. "It will enable you to take a higher path to a new consciousness and a new peace of mind," explains Covey. "The main barrier, however, is when people don't use these endowments. Environmental, social, or economic factors overwhelm them, and they literally withdraw from the use of imagination. They surround themselves with people who make them feel validated and justified in their beliefs. Sometimes, we look for evidence of support for our views, such as people who tell us how right we are and how wrong others are."
The power of navigating your own life can awaken powers within you that you may have forgotten you had, or of which you were unaware. It will at least revitalize your confidence and control -- and this has to come from within. "You need a sense of autonomy and independence, a celebration of the self," says Lipkin. "Many of us have a strong tendency to underestimate ourselves, and we credit others for what we have. You need to have an acceptance of what happened and then move forward and see yourself as an extraordinary being with gifts that others can appreciate." If your partner defined much of your self-image, you need to take a fresh look at yourself and decide who you are now -- as well as who you want to be in the future.
Find new love and friendship
When you choose to try new things, you'll meet new people as well. And one of the best ways to take your mind off your own problems is to get interested in other people. New friends may, in turn, provide a sympathetic ear and a fresh outlook, particularly if they've also experienced relationship breakdown. "It helps to be with other divorcing people," confirms McWade. "They aren't tired of hearing you talk about it, and they understand what the process is like."
"Get involved with some kind of project that involves other people," says Sher. "The best kind is a rescue effort, like the Red Cross or a similar cause. This kind of activity has important benefits. Firstly, your concern for others will take you out of yourself. Secondly, the affectionate and generous side of you -- often the first casualty of a bad relationship -- will emerge again. You may think you have nothing to give, but you'll find that giving will heal you more than any amount of taking right now. Thirdly, you'll be reminded of what a decent person you really are. One's self-esteem is usually battered by the time a divorce happens, and this is the best way to rebuild it. And lastly, you'll meet a great class of people. The people who go out to help others are usually empathetic and concerned, the kind you need right now."
Eventually, you may consider beginning a new relationship. Beware, however, of leaping into a relationship before you're ready. "When people are hurt from a broken relationship, they often jump into a rebound relationship to find relief," notes Ferguson. "But this is dangerous, because when you break up, all the hurt is still in you. If you rush into a relationship, the pain may subside, but it's still there. The more hurt that you suppress, the more you sabotage the new relationship. So heal the hurt first."
Another problem with jumping in too quickly is that you may not yet have had a chance to think through what kind of partner you really need at this point in your life. "Until you work through your emotional issues, you won't make very good choices in subsequent partners," says McWade. "You need to reassess your needs as of today. The ideals you had before you were married often do not apply 15 years or more down the road. Hopefully, you've learned from the past. But unless you do a personal assessment, you'll keep making the same mistakes over and over. The patterns repeat, as what intimacy means to you was mostly set up in your childhood." You need to recognize the pattern before you can change it.
Make sure that your new partner has also recovered from past relationships and destructive patterns. Ferguson says, "Look for the other person's willingness to feel their hurt. That's the biggest factor in a successful relationship. The more unwilling people are to feel hurt, the more walls they put up and the more they protect themselves and get upset easily. But the more willing they are to feel, the more they flow with life. The dangerous ones are the those who can't access their pain. Look for people with open hearts."
If you have worked through your issues and regained control of your life -- and found a partner who's willing to do the same -- then you should be set for a satisfying new relationship, hopefully one that will complement (though not be the sole cause of) a happy future.
Getting better all the time
"Happiness in this world, when it comes, comes incidentally," wrote Nathaniel Hawthorne. "Make it the object of pursuit, and it leads us on a wild-goose chase, and is never attained. Follow some other object, and very possibly we may find that we have caught happiness without dreaming of it." At this point in your life, during or after divorce, "happiness" may seem like too much to ask of yourself. But if you can at least "follow some other object" that isn't moving you back into misery, you're making progress. Let go of grief and anger, find some way to profit (or at least learn) from your losses, and start making choices that will create a life you'll love.
You probably won't feel wonderful tomorrow, but every positive action you take to recover from divorce takes you one step closer to a satisfying life. "Grief-recovery is action-based, not time-based," adds Friedman. "Time is never a function; the result of the action is what's beneficial. Time doesn't do anything but go by." With perseverance and patience, you will start feeling better about yourself and about the world in general. Happiness awaits down the road, so start walking!
Improve your outlook
Although it may take a while to completely recover from your divorce, there are many little things you could do to boost your spirits in the meantime. For example:
2. Imagination. We can picture ourselves in a new way and reinvent ourselves. "Our memory is limited and self-limiting," says Covey, "but our imagination is unlimited and expansive, and it feeds on optimism and hope."
3. Conscience. Our inner sense tells us what is right and wrong;
4. Willpower.
A synergy results from using all four of these. "It will enable you to take a higher path to a new consciousness and a new peace of mind," explains Covey. "The main barrier, however, is when people don't use these endowments. Environmental, social, or economic factors overwhelm them, and they literally withdraw from the use of imagination. They surround themselves with people who make them feel validated and justified in their beliefs. Sometimes, we look for evidence of support for our views, such as people who tell us how right we are and how wrong others are."
The power of navigating your own life can awaken powers within you that you may have forgotten you had, or of which you were unaware. It will at least revitalize your confidence and control -- and this has to come from within. "You need a sense of autonomy and independence, a celebration of the self," says Lipkin. "Many of us have a strong tendency to underestimate ourselves, and we credit others for what we have. You need to have an acceptance of what happened and then move forward and see yourself as an extraordinary being with gifts that others can appreciate." If your partner defined much of your self-image, you need to take a fresh look at yourself and decide who you are now -- as well as who you want to be in the future.
Find new love and friendship
When you choose to try new things, you'll meet new people as well. And one of the best ways to take your mind off your own problems is to get interested in other people. New friends may, in turn, provide a sympathetic ear and a fresh outlook, particularly if they've also experienced relationship breakdown. "It helps to be with other divorcing people," confirms McWade. "They aren't tired of hearing you talk about it, and they understand what the process is like."
"Get involved with some kind of project that involves other people," says Sher. "The best kind is a rescue effort, like the Red Cross or a similar cause. This kind of activity has important benefits. Firstly, your concern for others will take you out of yourself. Secondly, the affectionate and generous side of you -- often the first casualty of a bad relationship -- will emerge again. You may think you have nothing to give, but you'll find that giving will heal you more than any amount of taking right now. Thirdly, you'll be reminded of what a decent person you really are. One's self-esteem is usually battered by the time a divorce happens, and this is the best way to rebuild it. And lastly, you'll meet a great class of people. The people who go out to help others are usually empathetic and concerned, the kind you need right now."
Eventually, you may consider beginning a new relationship. Beware, however, of leaping into a relationship before you're ready. "When people are hurt from a broken relationship, they often jump into a rebound relationship to find relief," notes Ferguson. "But this is dangerous, because when you break up, all the hurt is still in you. If you rush into a relationship, the pain may subside, but it's still there. The more hurt that you suppress, the more you sabotage the new relationship. So heal the hurt first."
Another problem with jumping in too quickly is that you may not yet have had a chance to think through what kind of partner you really need at this point in your life. "Until you work through your emotional issues, you won't make very good choices in subsequent partners," says McWade. "You need to reassess your needs as of today. The ideals you had before you were married often do not apply 15 years or more down the road. Hopefully, you've learned from the past. But unless you do a personal assessment, you'll keep making the same mistakes over and over. The patterns repeat, as what intimacy means to you was mostly set up in your childhood." You need to recognize the pattern before you can change it.
Make sure that your new partner has also recovered from past relationships and destructive patterns. Ferguson says, "Look for the other person's willingness to feel their hurt. That's the biggest factor in a successful relationship. The more unwilling people are to feel hurt, the more walls they put up and the more they protect themselves and get upset easily. But the more willing they are to feel, the more they flow with life. The dangerous ones are the those who can't access their pain. Look for people with open hearts."
If you have worked through your issues and regained control of your life -- and found a partner who's willing to do the same -- then you should be set for a satisfying new relationship, hopefully one that will complement (though not be the sole cause of) a happy future.
Getting better all the time
"Happiness in this world, when it comes, comes incidentally," wrote Nathaniel Hawthorne. "Make it the object of pursuit, and it leads us on a wild-goose chase, and is never attained. Follow some other object, and very possibly we may find that we have caught happiness without dreaming of it." At this point in your life, during or after divorce, "happiness" may seem like too much to ask of yourself. But if you can at least "follow some other object" that isn't moving you back into misery, you're making progress. Let go of grief and anger, find some way to profit (or at least learn) from your losses, and start making choices that will create a life you'll love.
You probably won't feel wonderful tomorrow, but every positive action you take to recover from divorce takes you one step closer to a satisfying life. "Grief-recovery is action-based, not time-based," adds Friedman. "Time is never a function; the result of the action is what's beneficial. Time doesn't do anything but go by." With perseverance and patience, you will start feeling better about yourself and about the world in general. Happiness awaits down the road, so start walking!
Improve your outlook
Although it may take a while to completely recover from your divorce, there are many little things you could do to boost your spirits in the meantime. For example:
- Have a guys'/girls' night out with your friends.
- Do a good deed without expecting a reward.
- Join a club, sports team, arts group, support group, or any other special-interest organization.
- Play with a puppy or kitten.
- Take a night class in some subject you've always wanted to learn about.
- Surprise an old friend you haven't spoken to in months or years with a phone call or e-mail.
- Volunteer at a charity or cause.
- Buy yourself a treat. Stay within your budget, however, or this one will rebound on you.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Legal Ease
Chances are you've heard horror stories about the divorce process
from well-meaning friends and relatives. But before you start to worry
about being "taken to the cleaners" or "left without a dime," it's
important that you understand a few basic principles of divorce law.
The first thing to realize is that every divorce is unique -- just as every marriage is unique. Your individual circumstances, personalities, emotional state, and where you live all play a part in determining what "kind" of divorce you'll have: straightforward or complex; fast or slow; civilized or bitter. This article is not intended to provide legal advice -- you'll need to consult with a lawyer for answers to your specific questions. But knowing some of the "lingo" and what some of your options might be should help you to become a more informed participant in your own divorce -- and that's the first step to taking charge of your post-divorce future.
The first steps
The legal divorce process begins when one party (the "petitioner" or "plaintiff") serves a Summons upon the other party (the "respondant" or "defendant"), stating the Grounds upon which the divorce is sought, and a brief outline of what the plaintiff is seeking -- the divorce itself, as well as items such as division of properties, custody of the children, interim support, and legal fees. (For more information about the grounds for divorce in your state, please see "Ground Rules".) In the state of New York, you must file with the court before seving the Summons. The defendant is required to respond with a Notice of Appearance within 20 days in NY, 30 days in Illinois and California, and 35 days in New Jersey.
After the Summons, the Petition or Complaint is served, describing the factual basis for the divorce and specific relief being sought in more detail. Once served upon the defendant, he or she has 20 days (30 in CA) to respond. In the response, the defendant may admit or deny parts of your Petition, and may also issue a Counterpetition,
Counterclaim, or Response against you. If the respondant objects to the divorce itself, his or her lawyer can go to court to seek to dismiss your Petition on various legal points, such as insufficient grounds. If the judge rules for the respondant, you're back to square one. If you're a New York resident, "you may want to consider moving to a no-fault state, such as New Jersey or Connecticut," suggests Alton Abramowitz, an attorney with Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman in New York City, and president of the New York chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). According to David Wildstein, an attorney with Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, NJ this type of situation would be rare. And, he adds, unless your spouse is a resident of the no-fault state, you'd also have to meet the residency requirement of that state. Assuming there's no objection to the divorce, or any objection is satisfied, the divorce proceeds to the Discovery stage. During Discovery, both parties exchange information on relevant issues such as custody, fault (if applicable), or grounds for the divorce. In most cases, the emphasis will be on financial matters.
No-Fault vs. Fault Divorce
With the exception of New York, most states grant "no-fault" divorces based on one or both parties telling the court that their marriage is over (the closest thing to a no-fault ground in New York is that a couple has lived separate and apart under a separation agreement for at least one year). No-fault divorce acknowledges that both husband and wife have contributed in some way to the breakdown of the marriage, so one party is no longer "punished" -- financially and otherwise -- for being solely to blame for the marriage's failure.
"The purpose of no-fault is to take the acrimony out of matrimony," says Herbert Glieberman, a charter member of the AAML, a divorce attorney at the Chicago-based law firm Herbert A. Glieberman & Associates. "One big advantage to no-fault is that parties don't have to waste time and money hiring private detectives in order to prove grounds. It reduces the need to litigate for days or weeks [about grounds], allowing couples to move on to important issues such as custody, visitation, child support, maintenance, and distribution of marital assets," he adds.
Critics such as A.J. Brand, founder of the Coalition for Financial Fairness, suggest that the adoption of no-fault grounds has increased the divorce rate and contributed to the feminization of poverty. "There used to be an economic consequence to being at fault," she points out. "A whole under-class has developed since no-fault came in: according to a 1990 census, there are 804,000 displaced homemakers in the US -- and about half of them were created by the divorce system." Brand thinks that women in particular are not making out well under the current system. "If a woman has been married for 25 or 30 years, and she stayed home to raise the kids and help her husband's career, she might now get only three to four years of 'rehabilitative maintenance' -- after which she's expected to be able to fend for herself. Since she's now in her 50s, and has no work record, she can look forward to earning a minimal amount at best."
But some experts argue that no-fault divorce actually protects the rights of individuals. According to Glieberman, the economic consequences of fault divorce in the past could be quite devastating. "If a woman committed adultery just one time, she could have wiped out all her claims to property and support," he states. Today, when a judge is making decisions about property and support, he or she takes many factors into considerations, such as:
The first thing to realize is that every divorce is unique -- just as every marriage is unique. Your individual circumstances, personalities, emotional state, and where you live all play a part in determining what "kind" of divorce you'll have: straightforward or complex; fast or slow; civilized or bitter. This article is not intended to provide legal advice -- you'll need to consult with a lawyer for answers to your specific questions. But knowing some of the "lingo" and what some of your options might be should help you to become a more informed participant in your own divorce -- and that's the first step to taking charge of your post-divorce future.
The first steps
The legal divorce process begins when one party (the "petitioner" or "plaintiff") serves a Summons upon the other party (the "respondant" or "defendant"), stating the Grounds upon which the divorce is sought, and a brief outline of what the plaintiff is seeking -- the divorce itself, as well as items such as division of properties, custody of the children, interim support, and legal fees. (For more information about the grounds for divorce in your state, please see "Ground Rules".) In the state of New York, you must file with the court before seving the Summons. The defendant is required to respond with a Notice of Appearance within 20 days in NY, 30 days in Illinois and California, and 35 days in New Jersey.
After the Summons, the Petition or Complaint is served, describing the factual basis for the divorce and specific relief being sought in more detail. Once served upon the defendant, he or she has 20 days (30 in CA) to respond. In the response, the defendant may admit or deny parts of your Petition, and may also issue a Counterpetition,
Counterclaim, or Response against you. If the respondant objects to the divorce itself, his or her lawyer can go to court to seek to dismiss your Petition on various legal points, such as insufficient grounds. If the judge rules for the respondant, you're back to square one. If you're a New York resident, "you may want to consider moving to a no-fault state, such as New Jersey or Connecticut," suggests Alton Abramowitz, an attorney with Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman in New York City, and president of the New York chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). According to David Wildstein, an attorney with Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, NJ this type of situation would be rare. And, he adds, unless your spouse is a resident of the no-fault state, you'd also have to meet the residency requirement of that state. Assuming there's no objection to the divorce, or any objection is satisfied, the divorce proceeds to the Discovery stage. During Discovery, both parties exchange information on relevant issues such as custody, fault (if applicable), or grounds for the divorce. In most cases, the emphasis will be on financial matters.
No-Fault vs. Fault Divorce
With the exception of New York, most states grant "no-fault" divorces based on one or both parties telling the court that their marriage is over (the closest thing to a no-fault ground in New York is that a couple has lived separate and apart under a separation agreement for at least one year). No-fault divorce acknowledges that both husband and wife have contributed in some way to the breakdown of the marriage, so one party is no longer "punished" -- financially and otherwise -- for being solely to blame for the marriage's failure.
"The purpose of no-fault is to take the acrimony out of matrimony," says Herbert Glieberman, a charter member of the AAML, a divorce attorney at the Chicago-based law firm Herbert A. Glieberman & Associates. "One big advantage to no-fault is that parties don't have to waste time and money hiring private detectives in order to prove grounds. It reduces the need to litigate for days or weeks [about grounds], allowing couples to move on to important issues such as custody, visitation, child support, maintenance, and distribution of marital assets," he adds.
Critics such as A.J. Brand, founder of the Coalition for Financial Fairness, suggest that the adoption of no-fault grounds has increased the divorce rate and contributed to the feminization of poverty. "There used to be an economic consequence to being at fault," she points out. "A whole under-class has developed since no-fault came in: according to a 1990 census, there are 804,000 displaced homemakers in the US -- and about half of them were created by the divorce system." Brand thinks that women in particular are not making out well under the current system. "If a woman has been married for 25 or 30 years, and she stayed home to raise the kids and help her husband's career, she might now get only three to four years of 'rehabilitative maintenance' -- after which she's expected to be able to fend for herself. Since she's now in her 50s, and has no work record, she can look forward to earning a minimal amount at best."
But some experts argue that no-fault divorce actually protects the rights of individuals. According to Glieberman, the economic consequences of fault divorce in the past could be quite devastating. "If a woman committed adultery just one time, she could have wiped out all her claims to property and support," he states. Today, when a judge is making decisions about property and support, he or she takes many factors into considerations, such as:
- how long the marriage lasted;
- what the couple's ages are;
- both parties' standard of living during the marriage;
- what marketable skills each one has or could acquire;
- the health of each party; any financial obligations to prior families;
- the necessity of the custodial parent to stay at home with the children;
- the contributions each one has made towards the marriage (through regular employment, homemaking, investments, etc.)
In certain situations, the judge may award permanent maintenance (ask your lawyer if you're eligible for such an award).
So rather than looking for which party has the biggest list of complaints against the other, the courts now try to create an equitable agreement based on what each spouse requires to be financially independent and off public assistance.
"If a woman stayed home for 20 years and was a good mother and homemaker, then she deserves as much as her CEO husband," says Glieberman. "And if she worked outside of the home as well, then she gets extra Brownie points: she's entitled to a disproportionately larger share of the assets than her husband is."
And for those who believe that a return to the fault system would reduce the incidence of marriage breakdown, New York's divorce statistics prove this assumption false. As the only state without true no-fault divorce, it should have the lowest divorce rate in the US if the hurdle of fault divorce really kept couples together. At a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 population, the New York divorce rate is slightly lower than the national average (4.6 per 1,000), but higher than many other states -- including Massachusetts (2.4), Connecticut (2.8), and New Jersey (3.0). So reinstating fault divorce doesn't seem to be the solution to keeping marriages intact.
Generally speaking, there's no advantage to filing for divorce using the fault (usually adultery, cruelty, or desertion) rather than the no-fault (living separate and apart) grounds; in terms of property or support awards, which ground you cite is immaterial. "The only time when fault might be relevant is during custody disputes," says Glieberman. For instance, if your spouse is abusive, a drug addict, or a criminal, filing for divorce on these grounds will help to ensure that you get custody of your children.
The Adversarial Divorce
The very word "adversarial" implies that each party considers the other to be an enemy; that there will be a "winner" and a "loser" at the end of the process. According to Margorie L. Engel and Diana D. Gould, co-authors of The Divorce Decisions Workbook, the two most popular female threats in an adversarial divorce are: "I'll take you to the cleaners!" and "I'll get the children, and you'll never see them!" The two most popular male threats are: "You'll get no money!" and "I'll take the children!" During a truly adversarial divorce, each spouse is looking out only for his or her own interests rather than trying to resolve their issues in a fair, balanced way. Everyone has heard of a "divorce from hell" in which the participants have spent years in litigation and ended up bankrupt rather than compromise on a single issue. Such divorces, however, really aren't the norm.
Contested vs. Uncontested Divorce
If the divorce suit is unopposed (or uncontested) by the defendant, the case moves forward and the final judgment is entered without the need for a trial. This doesn't mean that the issues were resolved easily or quickly, but it does mean that both parties were able to agree on custody, support, maintenance, and the division of assets and liabilities.
The petitioner attends court on the appointed day -- the spouse may also attend but is not required to be there -- and testifies as to the matters set forth in the Petition for the Dissolution of Marriage, and about any agreements already in effect (such as the Separation Agreement). If the judge finds everything in order, he or she will either sign a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage immediately, or set a new date for you to return for the Judgment. A contested divorce must go
to trial before a judge. Basically, this happens when spouses are unable to agree on one or more important issues -- often relating to property or custody -- and they are asking the judge to make a decision for them. "This should be the last resort, because you're putting your fate in the hands of a busy judge," says Chicago divorce attorney Edward Stein. "You're stuck with whatever the judge decides. For instance, the judge may divide your property 50/50, but you may not get the 50% you want. And a judge may not look at the tax ramifications of his or her decision, so your settlement might end up costing you a lot of money."
Some of the most common reasons for contesting a divorce include:
So rather than looking for which party has the biggest list of complaints against the other, the courts now try to create an equitable agreement based on what each spouse requires to be financially independent and off public assistance.
"If a woman stayed home for 20 years and was a good mother and homemaker, then she deserves as much as her CEO husband," says Glieberman. "And if she worked outside of the home as well, then she gets extra Brownie points: she's entitled to a disproportionately larger share of the assets than her husband is."
And for those who believe that a return to the fault system would reduce the incidence of marriage breakdown, New York's divorce statistics prove this assumption false. As the only state without true no-fault divorce, it should have the lowest divorce rate in the US if the hurdle of fault divorce really kept couples together. At a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 population, the New York divorce rate is slightly lower than the national average (4.6 per 1,000), but higher than many other states -- including Massachusetts (2.4), Connecticut (2.8), and New Jersey (3.0). So reinstating fault divorce doesn't seem to be the solution to keeping marriages intact.
Generally speaking, there's no advantage to filing for divorce using the fault (usually adultery, cruelty, or desertion) rather than the no-fault (living separate and apart) grounds; in terms of property or support awards, which ground you cite is immaterial. "The only time when fault might be relevant is during custody disputes," says Glieberman. For instance, if your spouse is abusive, a drug addict, or a criminal, filing for divorce on these grounds will help to ensure that you get custody of your children.
The Adversarial Divorce
The very word "adversarial" implies that each party considers the other to be an enemy; that there will be a "winner" and a "loser" at the end of the process. According to Margorie L. Engel and Diana D. Gould, co-authors of The Divorce Decisions Workbook, the two most popular female threats in an adversarial divorce are: "I'll take you to the cleaners!" and "I'll get the children, and you'll never see them!" The two most popular male threats are: "You'll get no money!" and "I'll take the children!" During a truly adversarial divorce, each spouse is looking out only for his or her own interests rather than trying to resolve their issues in a fair, balanced way. Everyone has heard of a "divorce from hell" in which the participants have spent years in litigation and ended up bankrupt rather than compromise on a single issue. Such divorces, however, really aren't the norm.
Contested vs. Uncontested Divorce
If the divorce suit is unopposed (or uncontested) by the defendant, the case moves forward and the final judgment is entered without the need for a trial. This doesn't mean that the issues were resolved easily or quickly, but it does mean that both parties were able to agree on custody, support, maintenance, and the division of assets and liabilities.
The petitioner attends court on the appointed day -- the spouse may also attend but is not required to be there -- and testifies as to the matters set forth in the Petition for the Dissolution of Marriage, and about any agreements already in effect (such as the Separation Agreement). If the judge finds everything in order, he or she will either sign a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage immediately, or set a new date for you to return for the Judgment. A contested divorce must go
to trial before a judge. Basically, this happens when spouses are unable to agree on one or more important issues -- often relating to property or custody -- and they are asking the judge to make a decision for them. "This should be the last resort, because you're putting your fate in the hands of a busy judge," says Chicago divorce attorney Edward Stein. "You're stuck with whatever the judge decides. For instance, the judge may divide your property 50/50, but you may not get the 50% you want. And a judge may not look at the tax ramifications of his or her decision, so your settlement might end up costing you a lot of money."
Some of the most common reasons for contesting a divorce include:
- The hopes of reconciliation. One spouse wants the marriage to continue for emotional, financial, social, or health reasons.
- Revenge. One spouse is using this as an opportunity to hurt or annoy the other by dragging the divorce process out as long as possible.
- Religious beliefs. One spouse's religion doesn't recognize or sanction divorce.
Even when the relationship between husband and wife is strained or
"adversarial," contested divorces are a rarity in today's legal system.
Although some experts believe that there are some emotional and
psychological benefits to going to trial (such as psychological
vindication and economic rewards if you "win"), most recognize that
couples who end up in court ultimately lose sight of the long-term
interests of the family unit, inflict additional pain on themselves and
their children, and greatly increase their legal costs.
Mediation
If the thought of a long, bitter court battle doesn't turn you on, you might want to consider trying mediation. Mediation is growing in popularity as an alternative to the adversarial approach to divorce. Basically, mediators provide couples with professional guidance while giving them an opportunity to maximize their personal input into the divorce settlement.
Mediation can offer many advantages: because the settlement is reached voluntarily, and with the involvement of both parties, it's more likely to be carried out without the need for further litigation or enforcement. "Overall, the greatest advantage of mediation is the ability of the parties to retain control over the outcome of their divorce," says Jerald Kessler, president of the Mediation Council of Illinois and an attorney and mediator in private practice in Highland Park, IL. "The type of settlement that occurs in mediation is different than that arrived at through an adversarial divorce," he adds. "Crafted by the participants, the settlement is arrived at freely, rather than through a war of attrition. The end result is one that the parties have shaped themselves, and so there's a greater willingness to abide by the agreement." The non-adversarial nature of the process and the emphasis on cooperation are also more likely to reduce tension between the parties and encourage future cooperative behavior -- an important objective when children are involved.
According to Kessler, the best candidates for divorce mediation are couples who are willing to work together, who want to attack the problems they're facing rather than each other. "In general, they're able to separate their feelings of anger or rejection from the actual problem-solving tasks that need to be addressed."
If you want to try mediation, you should find a mediator and begin the process as soon as possible -- if you're already knee-deep in litigation, any kindly feelings you may have had for your ex will be long-gone and you'll be less willing to make the compromises that mediation will require for the good of the family. Even if your mediator is also a lawyer, each of you should still retain your own attorney to read and advise you of the implications of any proposed agreement before you sign it. In this case, the attorneys will be acting as consultants rather than active participants.
It may seem obvious, but for mediation to succeed, both parties must want closure to their marriage. Sometimes, the process can simply be delayed until this level of emotional readiness has been achieved. In situations in which there is ongoing domestic violence, however, mediation may not be an option.
Alternatives to Divorce
If you and your spouse don't want a divorce, but don't want to continue living together either, there are a couple of options that may be available to you depending on your circumstances.
In most states, a Legal Separation must be filed by the "innocent spouse" (for instance, your spouse moved out and you did nothing to cause it). According to Ed Sherman -- a family law attorney with Sherman, Williams and Lober in CA; the author of How To Do Your Own Divorce and How To Do Your Own Divorce in California; and co-founder of "Divorce Helpline" -- there are a few situations where a legal separation works better than divorce. Examples include: "...where sizable Social Security benefits, Veterans' benefits, retirement, or other benefits may be lost if there is a divorce, or where a spouse with an illness or disablity may be able to stay on the employed spouse's health insurance (call the plan to see if they allow this)," according to Sherman. A legal separation can last indefinitely -- as long as neither party wishes to proceed to divorce.
A legal separation can determine financial issues such as child support and maintenance, but doesn't generally divide the property. In most cases, it's a stepping stone to divorce; sometimes, however, it's a wake-up call to a complacent spouse. "I've had clients reconcile after filing for divorce," says Chicago divorce lawyer and mediator Kathryn Somers, adding that about 10% of her divorce cases end in reconciliation rather than divorce. "Sometimes, it's part of the reconciliation process." She believes that lawyers and mediators have a "moral and ethical obligation" to try to find out whether the marriage can be saved.
Mediation
If the thought of a long, bitter court battle doesn't turn you on, you might want to consider trying mediation. Mediation is growing in popularity as an alternative to the adversarial approach to divorce. Basically, mediators provide couples with professional guidance while giving them an opportunity to maximize their personal input into the divorce settlement.
Mediation can offer many advantages: because the settlement is reached voluntarily, and with the involvement of both parties, it's more likely to be carried out without the need for further litigation or enforcement. "Overall, the greatest advantage of mediation is the ability of the parties to retain control over the outcome of their divorce," says Jerald Kessler, president of the Mediation Council of Illinois and an attorney and mediator in private practice in Highland Park, IL. "The type of settlement that occurs in mediation is different than that arrived at through an adversarial divorce," he adds. "Crafted by the participants, the settlement is arrived at freely, rather than through a war of attrition. The end result is one that the parties have shaped themselves, and so there's a greater willingness to abide by the agreement." The non-adversarial nature of the process and the emphasis on cooperation are also more likely to reduce tension between the parties and encourage future cooperative behavior -- an important objective when children are involved.
According to Kessler, the best candidates for divorce mediation are couples who are willing to work together, who want to attack the problems they're facing rather than each other. "In general, they're able to separate their feelings of anger or rejection from the actual problem-solving tasks that need to be addressed."
If you want to try mediation, you should find a mediator and begin the process as soon as possible -- if you're already knee-deep in litigation, any kindly feelings you may have had for your ex will be long-gone and you'll be less willing to make the compromises that mediation will require for the good of the family. Even if your mediator is also a lawyer, each of you should still retain your own attorney to read and advise you of the implications of any proposed agreement before you sign it. In this case, the attorneys will be acting as consultants rather than active participants.
It may seem obvious, but for mediation to succeed, both parties must want closure to their marriage. Sometimes, the process can simply be delayed until this level of emotional readiness has been achieved. In situations in which there is ongoing domestic violence, however, mediation may not be an option.
Alternatives to Divorce
If you and your spouse don't want a divorce, but don't want to continue living together either, there are a couple of options that may be available to you depending on your circumstances.
In most states, a Legal Separation must be filed by the "innocent spouse" (for instance, your spouse moved out and you did nothing to cause it). According to Ed Sherman -- a family law attorney with Sherman, Williams and Lober in CA; the author of How To Do Your Own Divorce and How To Do Your Own Divorce in California; and co-founder of "Divorce Helpline" -- there are a few situations where a legal separation works better than divorce. Examples include: "...where sizable Social Security benefits, Veterans' benefits, retirement, or other benefits may be lost if there is a divorce, or where a spouse with an illness or disablity may be able to stay on the employed spouse's health insurance (call the plan to see if they allow this)," according to Sherman. A legal separation can last indefinitely -- as long as neither party wishes to proceed to divorce.
A legal separation can determine financial issues such as child support and maintenance, but doesn't generally divide the property. In most cases, it's a stepping stone to divorce; sometimes, however, it's a wake-up call to a complacent spouse. "I've had clients reconcile after filing for divorce," says Chicago divorce lawyer and mediator Kathryn Somers, adding that about 10% of her divorce cases end in reconciliation rather than divorce. "Sometimes, it's part of the reconciliation process." She believes that lawyers and mediators have a "moral and ethical obligation" to try to find out whether the marriage can be saved.
- One party lacked the capacity to consent to the marriage. For instance, one party lacked the mental capacity to consent, was so ill that he or she couldn't consent, had been plied with alcohol or drugs, or was forced or fraudulently induced to enter the marriage.
- One party lacked the ability to consumate the marriage, and the other didn't know about it until after the marriage had taken place.
- One party was a minor and the marriage took place without parental consent.
- Bigamy. One party was still legally married to someone else when the marriage took place.
- Consanguinty. The marriage is prohibited because of blood relationship (brother and sister, father and daughter, etc.)
Monday, June 3, 2013
The Divorce Doctors: how to keep costs down
we look at the costs involved in getting divorced - and how to keep them to a minimum.
The Dilemma
A
friend of mine spent so much on her divorce that she’s now really
bitter about the whole thing. In my opinion, she spent an awful lot of
time pouring her heart out to her lawyer as if they were a counsellor,
as opposed to a paid adviser, and this inflated the cost. I’m now
heading towards divorce from my husband - how can I ensure that I am
properly protected, but at the same time protect my pocket? Is there
anything I can do to cut down the cost, or the time that a divorce
takes?
The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!
Both in the U.S.A. and internationally the marriage equality movement
is gaining momentum. Accordingly, more and more people are starting to
acknowledge the flawed nature of all arguments which oppose the
legalization of same-sex marriage. This article discusses 10 of the most
common positions presented by opponents of marriage equality and
outlines why each deserves a failing grade.
1. Nature: "It's Not Natural" (FAIL)
The most basic argument presented by gay marriage opponents purports that marriage between two people of the same sex is "not natural" and is in violation of the "natural order." At this level of the debate there is very little exploration of the inherent validity (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage but rather a fixation on the notion that homosexuality is unnatural: "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," the opponents quip. In reality, marriage is a societal institution. The natural world didn't create marriage, humans did. Nature-themed arguments against gay marriage say little about the societal institution of marriage but reveal a lot about the homophobia and heterosexism of those who present such arguments. In this regard, the disapproval isn't about gay marriage per se -- it's more about discomfort with homosexuality, period.
2. Procreation: "Marriage is for Procreation" (FAIL)
With the procreation argument, opponents of equality argue that the institution of marriage is essentially in place to assist with procreation and the raising of children. They reason that because two people of the same sex cannot procreate that they should not be allowed to marry. While the production of children may indeed be a feature of many heterosexual marriages the capacity to procreate does not determine the legal validity of such marriages. There are many married straight couples who cannot biologically have children or who choose not to. The procreation argument ignores the fact that people marry for a wide range of reasons unrelated to procreation including love, friendship and companionship.
3. Religion: "It's Against My Religion" (FAIL)
Christianity-based arguments lead the way in efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in America. References to the Bible, the "sinful" nature of homosexuality, and "religious beliefs" are regularly made by those who seek to rationalize their support of discrimination via religion. Marriage is a religious institution, they argue, and not one for society to tamper with. Given that the U.S.A. is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion about civil and societal laws. In order to legally marry there is absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony to be held. In this sense, marriage is not a religious institution but a socio-legal one governed by the state. Religious beliefs about marriage should never be enshrined in laws in ways that restrict the freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.
4. Redefinition: "You're Trying to Redefine the Institution" (FAIL)
Opponents argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and that it should stay that way. They say that efforts to legalize same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter the institution for the worse. History reveals, however, that marriage laws in the U.S.A. and in countries across the globe have been modified repeatedly in response to evolving cultural norms. There was a time when women were the legal property of their husbands. There was a time when a man and a woman of different races couldn't marry each other. There was even a time when not one country in the world had legalized same-sex marriage! Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine "marriage" -- it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.
5. Sanctity: "It's a Threat to the Sanctity of (Opposite-Sex) Marriage" (FAIL)
With roots in religion, the sanctity argument posits that marriage is a "sacred" institution that only heterosexual couples should have access to. Allowing same-sex couples to marry apparently poses a "threat" to "traditional marriage" as though somehow heterosexual married couples will all be at risk of divorcing when two people of the same sex marry each other. If those who use the "sanctity" argument were genuinely concerned about the institution of marriage they'd focus their efforts on helping those straight married couples who are at risk of divorcing. If marriage was so "sacred" they'd also be pursuing the outlawing of heterosexual divorce. They do neither of these things. The only married straight couples impacted by the legalization of gay marriage are those in which one of the parties is a closet-case gay person who dreams of coming out and marrying someone of the same sex!
6. Children: "It Will Harm the Children" (FAIL)
Opponents of equality frequently make use of flawed research studies to insinuate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow harm children. They argue that children need a "mom and a dad" in order to flourish in life and that legalizing same-sex marriage denies children this opportunity of "normalcy." Multiple studies across the social sciences have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no difference in psychosocial outcomes between children raised by opposite-sex couples and those raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence that children are psychologically harmed by having two dads or two moms. The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has each endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage and its capacity to provide a stable familial framework for children.
7. Reverse Discrimination: "Religious People Will Be Discriminated Against" (FAIL)
Some opponents of marriage equality describe a future in which religious people become the new "victims" of oppression. They talk of charity-based religious organizations being "forced out of business" for "sticking to their beliefs" about marriage. In this reverse scenario, gay people are apparently "hateful" for wanting to be treated equally in society. How dare we demand equal rights and criticize those who discriminate against us! In no state of the U.S.A. in which gay marriage is legal is a church legally required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Religious groups and churches are still free to pick and choose who they will and won't marry. Organizations that receive public money, however, and which must adhere to anti-discrimination laws, should rightly be challenged if they engage in discrimination against a protected class of people.
8. Slippery Slope: "It Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, Children, or Groups of People!" (FAIL)
Slippery slopes arguments suggest that legalizing gay marriage will serve as a "gateway" for the legalization of marriage involving animals, siblings, children, or groups of people. People who present these scenarios portray a catastrophic future with society crumbling under the weight of rampant immorality and social discord. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, however, simply aim to provide same-sex couples with equal access to marriage laws -- there is no intention to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the legal union between two adult human beings who have no direct biological connection with each other. Facts are useful in this regard: of the fifteen countries and 12 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or groups of people.
9. Civil Unions: "Civil Unions Are Good Enough" (FAIL)
Some opponents of same-sex marriage support the creation of a "separate but equal" platform in which straight couples and gay couples receive the same relationship rights and benefits, but from within different institutional frameworks. They argue that "marriage" should be left exclusively for opposite-sex couples and that same-sex couples should be granted "civil unions." History has demonstrated that this "separate but equal" approach doesn't work. Various countries and American states which initially permitted "civil unions" for same-sex couples have subsequently enacted marriage equality legislation. These jurisdictions have pursued such changes because civil union legislation, no matter how valiant the effort, is not able to provide the same rights and benefits as legal marriage. In essence, having a two-class system continues to maintain the erroneous notion that one group (straight people) is more superior to another group (LGBT people).
10. States' Rights: "States Have the Right to Oppose It" (FAIL)
This position stresses that states have a constitutional right to make their own decisions about the legalization of same-sex marriage which may include banning it. Ironically, most advocates of this argument also support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law which allows the federal government to deny more than one thousand federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples legally married at the state level. The maintenance of a system which allows some states to recognize same-sex marriage and others not to, and which allows the federal government to ignore legal same-sex marriages performed at the state level, sets up a cumbersome and extremely complicated national map of unequal rights and legal nightmares. Those who support a "states' rights" approach to same-sex marriage should at least be consistent and drop their support of a federal government act (DOMA) which essentially tramples states' rights.
Conclusion: Marriage Equality is the Future -- Embrace it!
There is no logical or reasonable basis for denying same-sex couples access to secular marriage laws. Opposing the inevitable (marriage equality) is a waste of time, money and energy. I urge all of those who oppose gay marriage to start focusing on their own lives, to accept that they don't need to marry a person of the same sex, and to recognize the right of all Americans to be treated equally under the law: "liberty and justice for all" should not come with a disclaimer.
(A longer version of the above article is available at the GMUSA blog. Thank you to those at the GMUSA facebook page who have regularly shared their views on this topic and who have, in that regard, helped contribute to the ideas and arguments expressed in this article.)
Thursday, May 30, 2013
How Spouses Should Handle Inherited IRAs
Spouses
have the most flexibility when it comes to inheriting individual retirement
accounts (IRAs). The basic rules are:
* The spouse may treat the inherited IRA as
his or her own, roll it over into his or her own IRA, or remain the beneficiary
on the account.
* The spouse may only treat the IRA as his
or her own if he or she is the sole beneficiary. If there are multiple
beneficiaries, the account can be separated so the spouse's share is in its own
account. When the spouse elects to treat the IRA as his or her own, the IRA is
simply retitled as the spouse's IRA. As an alternative, the spouse can roll the
balance over to his or her own IRA. Since the account is then considered the
spouse's, the spouse can then name his or her own beneficiaries. Withdrawals
are subject to a 10 percent federal income tax penalty if the spouse has not
reached age 59 and 1/2 and the spouse must start taking required minimum
distributions (RMDs) at age 70 and 1/2. RMDs are calculated using the uniform
table, which assumes a joint life expectancy with the beneficiary considered 10
years younger.
* If the spouse remains the beneficiary of
the IRA and is the sole beneficiary, distributions are required by the later of
the year the original IRA owner would have reached age 70 and 1/2 or by
December 31 of the year following the IRA owner's death. If the spouse is not
the sole beneficiary, then distributions must begin by December 31 of the year
following the IRA owner's death. RMDs are calculated based on the single life
expectancy table for beneficiaries. However, a spouse recalculates his or her life
expectancy every year by looking up the life expectancy factor on the table. For
non-spouse beneficiaries, the beneficiary gets the life expectancy figure from
the table in the first year, but in each subsequent year reduces the factor by
one year. Since the table assumes a single life expectancy, distributions would
be higher than if the spouse treated the IRA as his or her own. Although lower
RMDs are required when a spouse rolls over or treats the IRA as his or her own,
there are circumstances when the spouse might want to remain the beneficiary:
* A spouse under the age of 59 and 1/2 can
make withdrawals from the beneficiary account using the life expectancy table, without
paying the 10 percent federal income tax penalty. Once the account is rolled
over, withdrawals before the age of 59 and 1/2 would result in a 10 percent
federal income tax penalty.
* A spouse who is significantly older than
the deceased IRA owner can delay RMDs by remaining the beneficiary. He or she
would not have to take RMDs until the deceased spouse would have reached age 70
and 1/2, even if the surviving spouse is already past age 70 and 1/2.
Buying Out an Ex-Spouse's Stock in a Closely Held Firm
Let's
say divorcing spouses own part of the stock in a closely held corporation. One of them now want to buy out the
other party's shares by transferring some assets in exchange for the stock.
As long as the transfer happens before the divorce is final, there are usually no federal income tax or gift tax consequences. This is because of the tax-free transfer rule that generally applies to transfers of assets between spouses. (Source: Section 1041(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.)
The same tax-free treatment also usually applies to stock buyouts that occur within six years after a divorce, provided they are done pursuant to the terms of a divorce property settlement. Assuming the tax-free transfer rule applies, one spouse simply takes over from the other spouse the tax basis and holding period for the stock purchased. It is as if the buyer had always owned the shares and the selling spouse has no taxable gain or loss on the deal. This harmless tax outcome is generally acceptable to both spouses.
When the Buyer is the Corporation, Things Can Get Complicated
However,
the tax outcome is not quite so simple when a closely held C or S
corporation redeems, or buys back, an ex spouse's shares in the same company.
Such third-party divorce-related stock redemptions can fall into two
situations, both of which have tax consequences:
Situation 1: The redemption transaction is considered to be strictly between the selling ex-spouse and the corporation. There are no federal tax consequences for the other ex-spouse. Depending on the circumstances, the selling ex-spouse may be able to treat the redemption as a sale of his or her stock back to the corporation or as a dividend paid by the company.
Generally, sale treatment is preferred, because the selling ex-spouse can offset the stock redemption payment with his or her basis in the redeemed shares. In this situation, the seller bears all the tax consequences. For the other ex-spouse, the corporation's redemption of the stock has no tax impact.
Situation 2: The tables are turned. The actual transaction is still between the corporation and the ex-spouse redeeming the shares. However, for tax purposes, the deal is treated as if the other ex-spouse collected the redemption payment and then transferred it in exchange for the shares. So in this situation, the redeeming ex-spouse has no tax consequences while the other party bears all of the tax burden.
Depending on the circumstances, the spouse who owes taxes may be able to treat the constructive redemption as a sale of his or her stock back to the corporation or as a dividend.
So Which Situation Applies?
This
is where it gets tricky. In a nutshell, Situation 2 applies if the corporation
redeems a former spouse's shares to fulfill a binding legal obligation
that the other spouse had to buy those shares under the
couple's divorce agreement. In essence, because the corporation actually
supplies the money to buy the shares, one spouse is taxed as
if he or she received the money from the company and then spent it to
buy the stock from the selling ex-spouse, as legally required by the divorce
agreement.
But There is a Way to Reverse the Tax Results
Regardless
of which situation applies, the former spouses can together elect to reverse
the tax results. In other words, when Situation 2 would otherwise apply
(meaning one party would bear all the tax consequences), the couple can elect
to reverse the results and have Situation 1 apply instead.
The two parties may be willing to cooperate in making this election -- for example, because the redemption would be treated as a sale and one ex-spouse has a large capital loss that would offset the gain from the redemption. Needless to say, some paperwork is involved to make the election, and there are deadlines, so planning ahead is critical. (Source: Treasury Regulation 1.1041-2.)
Conclusions: Looking
at it from an arm's-length perspective, a divorce is a major financial
transaction. As such, it has important tax consequences for both former
spouses. This is especially true when business ownership interests are
involved. The ability to choose which ex-spouse will be taxed on a
divorce-related stock redemption allows the couple to tailor the tax outcome to
suit their respective circumstances. Done properly, there's more left for the
two to divide up, because the tax collector gets less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)