Mediator Tips
Collaborative Divorce

If you move around inside the Conflict Resolution world for a while, you are bound to hear the term Collaborative Divorce. Many of you probably already know exactly what Collaborative Divorce is, but for those of you who don't, here is a quick summary.

Essentially, Collaborative Divorce is mediation for married couples trying to get a divorce. Just like mediation, it seeks to avoid the legal system by using a model which encourages dialogue and negotiation in order to reach a solution that benefits everyone. Lawyers trained in Collaborative Divorce are hired to facilitate the process. Below is a good description of Collaborative Divorce taken from the Collaborative Divorce Handbook developed by the organization Collaborative Divorce Team Trainings LLC.

Collaborative Divorce is:

• Client centered and non adversarial
• Client controlled
• Based upon active participation
• Based upon constructive communication
• Designed to foster a safe working environment
• Educates the clients
• Focuses on the needs and interests of the clients
• Requires the consent of each client

Collaborative Divorce requires each client sign an agreement that:

• They will not undertake contested court procedure during the Collaboration
• Undertaking any contested court action terminates the Collaboration
• Upon termination of the Collaboration, the aligned Collaborative professionals are prohibited from participating in contested court actions between the participants

The Handbook contains a lot more useful information about Collaborative Divorce. Those interested in learning more would be wise to check it out.

Mediator Tips
Additional Resources

Part of being an effective mediator is keeping up with new developments and techniques in the mediation world. There are several organizations that work specifically within the Alternative Conflict Resolution world, both in Virginia and the nation at large. Keeping in touch with them can help you stay apprised of ways to improve your own mediation skills. Additionally, using these resources can help you network with mediators across the U.S. Below are the names, phone numbers, and websites of several of these organizations.

Association for Conflict Resolution
202-464-9700
www.acrnet.org

Supreme Court of Virginia Department of Dispute Resolution Services
804-786-6455
www.courts.state.va.us/drs/main

Virginia Mediation Network
888-506-4VMN
www.vamediation.org

The Virginia Alternative Dispute Resolution Joint Committee
804-377-8515
www.vba.org/comm/adrjtcom.htm

American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution
202-662-1680
www.abanet.org/dispute/

National Association for Community Mediation
202-667-9700
www.nafcm.org

The outcome isn’t always the most important thing

This might be a surprise, or unbelievable to anyone who has not participated in a mediation session, but mediation clients agree that they are satisfied even when they DON’T reach an agreement. Agreement rates are just one way to measure success in the mediation process. Although 60-80% of people reach agreement at Community Mediation Center (depending on the complexity of the issues), more than 91% report that mediation was helpful.

Case in point – Recently a business owner called and asked for a mediation appointment. He explained that he participated in mediation with a customer a few years ago and so he knew to call. When his original file was pulled we discovered that the agreement he reached wasn’t entirely in his favor. In other words, it was clear from his agreement that he had made some concessions that he originally wasn’t interested in making. After calling him back to confirm his new mediation appointment I asked, what made him willing to try mediation again. He replied that the process was so smooth he couldn’t understand why anyone used the court. In fact, even in making concessions he like he was part of the process and satisfied with the outcome.

Amanda Burbage
Community Outreach Director

Trainer Tips
Study Circles

Study Circles are used in group discussions. While they are not mediations, they are a good place for you to practice your reflective listening skills as a facilitator. The purpose of a study circle is to help individuals gain "ownership" of an issue and empower them to solve the problem. Often the process will involve several study circles being put together over the course of 3 to 6 months. Each session involves the following sections:

• Welcome and introduction
• Ground Rules
• Discussion
• Summary and Common Ground
• Evaluation

Does any of that seem familiar? It should, as it is similar to the way a mediation is run. The main difference, of course, is that study circles are not based on coming to an agreement; they are based upon researching and discussing the issues to raise awareness of the perspectives on it, the problems associated with it, and the ways to move forward. However, just like in mediation, a facilitator must use their reflective listening skills (reflecting, clarifying, summarizing, shifting focus, using silence, and using non-verbal signals). Below are a couple attributes found in a good facilitator:

• Neutrality
• Helpfulness in setting up ground rules and enforcing them
• Asks probing questions
• Helps identify areas of agreement and disagreement
• Appreciate all kinds of people
• Committed to democratic principles

Mediator Tips
Negotiating with Terrorists

An odd title for a mediator tip, I admit. However, it is a particularly relevant topic for this era of terrorism, and thinking about it can provide some insights into how to mediate with people who are normally intractable or who you consider to be morally repulsive.

According to Roger FIsher and William Ury in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, negotiating with terrorists is generally a desirable path to choose. They claim that even making statements like "We will never negotiate with terrorists!" is technically negotiation inasmuch as you are trying to influence their behavior. However, they say that the more communication there is, the more likely a positive solution will be reached. If issues of personal safety can be resolved, it makes sense to talk with terrorists, as if you have a good case you are more likely to persuade them to come to your position.

Negotiation does not mean giving in; one is not legitimizing kidnapping or other terrorist behavior. But talking may convince a terrorist that they will not receive a ransom and it may also be possible to learn of some legitimate interests they have so a solution can be reached where neither side gives in.

While Fisher and Ury do not recommend talking in every case, they say that it is important to consider the alternative to negotiation. If the alternative is war or some kind of action that could lead to numerous deaths, the question needs to be asked as to whether the costs of the alternative are desireable over negotiation. In fact, they claim, often times war is an act within a negotiation to persuade the other side to give in, albeit a generally inhumane and, in the long term, ineffective tactic.

In conclusion, both Fisher and Ury say that no one is beyond negotiating with. Whether the opposing party is a dictator like Hitler, a religious zeleot like Osama Bin Ladin, or just a disgruntled citizen like those at Waco or Columbine, it is worth considering negotiation as an alternative to violence.

The Egg Story

The co-parenting training class includes a discussion of anger and how anger can cause people to do things they would not normally do. I use the egg story as an example of how people change when anger takes control of their emotions.

It’s about a dad, angry that the divorce is final, angry that his children are no longer in his daily life and angry that he lived in a tiny apartment, while his ex- lived in what had been their 10-room house.

One night, the anger so filled him that he had to do something physical. So he put on his old military field jacket, stopped by the grocery store to buy some eggs and dog treats, and walked the mile into his old neighborhood with the eggs in one large pocket of his jacket and the dog treats in the other pocket.

He knew the neighborhood and the shortcuts and the darkest part of his former yard. Climbing over fences, he moved closer to the house, greeting the dogs and offering treats. He positioned himself in his former yard, listening to the sound of crunching in the yards around him. He threw the first egg and heard a gratifying smack as it hit the house. Then he quickly threw the rest, his heart racing with excitement. The euphoria lasted just a few seconds, and then he realized he had to get out of the area, but he couldn’t run because the dogs would start barking. So he carefully re-traced his route, handing out treats and being as quiet as possible.

Back at his tiny divorce apartment, he waited for a knock on the door. Surely someone had recognized him and called police. No one came. A few weeks later, he had another anger attack and completed another successful egg expedition. And no one knocked on the door.

While buying eggs and dog treats for a third launch, the rational side of his brain overtook the anger side. How stupid he was, his rational side reasoned. The last thing his children needed was to see was him, on the ground outside their house, being handcuffed by police. Surely he didn’t want his ex to his arrest as an example that he was a bad person. And how would an arrest impact on the ability to see his children, even if it was every other weekend.

So the angry dad returned the eggs and dog treats to the shelf and went home. From then on, whenever anger tried to overwhelm him, he got on his bicycle and went for a brisk ride—away from his former neighborhood. The physical exertion released the anger and left him too tired to walk to his target.

I know the details of this dad, because the angry dad was me. For 18 years I kept the secret of the egg attacks from my children. No reason to upset them. Then in October 2005, I had an opportunity to see them all at the same time. The four of us had not been together in nearly two decades. I flew to Seattle and during lunch at the Space Needle, I talked about anger and what it does to people. Then I revealed the secret of the egg story. They howled with laughter. All of them remembered the house being egged. Their mom thought it was neighbors, upset at her for divorcing me. Well, she was partly right. My children said they would not tell their mother who really egged the house. Let her think it was angry neighbors. Whenever I hear about someone injuring or killing others in a blind rage, I think to myself: Thank goodness all I did was egg a house. And I smile.

Chuck Hardwick
Client Services