The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
Bridging the Gaps of Divorce Miscommunications
Unlock the secrets to effective communication in divorce mediation and transform misunderstandings into mutual understanding. Have you ever wondered why a simple desire, like being a "50-50 dad," can spiral into conflict? We promise to equip you with the tools to navigate these emotional landmines, spotlighting the imperative role of clear intentions and assumptions that can escalate tensions. Our episode sheds light on how professionals diligently maintain neutrality, ensuring both parties in a divorce feel heard and understood, despite the emotional reactivity that often pervades the process.
Through real-life scenarios and expert insights, we dissect the art of distinguishing between complaints and character attacks, guiding you toward more productive conversations. Discover how mediators can transform conflict into cooperation by clarifying complaints and avoiding the triggers of defensive responses. As we explore the intricate dance of mediation strategies, we emphasize persistence and the nuanced understanding of underlying issues. From financial settlements to property division, see how personal desires can overshadow objective considerations and learn how mediators, alongside mental health professionals, help clients articulate hidden needs, paving the way for empathetic, effective resolutions.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Have you ever had it?
Speaker 2:happen. Where somebody says I want to, my counterproposal is I want to take the kids to McDonald's once a week, except when the McRib sandwich is on the menu. Then I want to go twice a week.
Speaker 3:Has that ever happened, I would have to say you know what I would agree with that. Anybody would take their kid to get a McRib. Yeah, must not love their children. Welcome to the Three Wise Men of Divorce, money, psych and Law podcast. Sit down with the California divorce experts financial divorce consultant Mark Hill, psychologist Scott Weiner and attorney Sean Weber for a frank and casual conversation about divorce, separation, co-parenting and the difficult decisions real people like you face during these tough times. We know that if you are looking at divorce or separation, it can be scary and overwhelming. With combined experience of over 70 years in divorce and conflict management, we are here for you and look forward to helping by sharing our unique ideas, thoughts and perspectives on divorce, separation and co-parenting.
Speaker 2:So, guys, I think that in the course of our work you know, we're seeing people certainly at the start of a process, or even throughout a process, for that matter we're encountering people who are often experiencing more emotional reactivity. Things are more fraught between them, there's a lot of uncertainty, and that really raises, I think, the potential, or increases the potential risk communication really raises, I think, the potential or increases the potential of miscommunication. So one of the things I wondered about is if we might talk about the kinds of patterns of miscommunication that we encounter in our work and what do we do about that. How do we help people to minimize the potential for miscommunication and to communicate more effectively with each other?
Speaker 1:and to communicate more effectively with each other. I think you're right, peter. We see this all the time and you know, marriage is end because trust is broken down at some level and the lack of trust can increase that miscommunication, because people start thinking about, well, what's her motive, by saying that what's behind that, and so makes people more cautious and more likely to, as you say, be suspicious and reactive is the way I would describe it. You know why is he saying that? You know what's what's he? I don't trust him. He had an affair. I can't trust him on any level because he had an affair. So if he's saying this about the children, what's behind it? What's he not saying?
Speaker 3:I think that's true. I mean, I think people have a tendency, when they're triggered, to hear what they don't want to hear. You know, you hear a lot of people say, well, he only hears what he wants to hear.
Speaker 2:I think a lot of times in our work when people are really triggered and feeling negative or feeling on guard with each other, they hear what they don't want to hear.
Speaker 3:So almost like reflexively assuming the worst, right. And I think you know, you know what assume makes out of you and me, right. So assumption is kind of the enemy of understanding in many ways. You know, there's the case I had where a guy said he wants to be a 50-50 dad and my brain and the wife's brain was immediately going to well, he wants 50-50 timeshare. He wanted, you know, like a 2-2-5-5 schedule or something like that, where it's, you know, on a calendar it's very clear that you have 50% of the time. But luckily I drilled down a little bit and asked him well, what does he mean by that? What does that look like to him? What kind of schedule would he like to have? And he said well, you know, every other weekend and you know, maybe, you know, on my off weeks I'll have a midweek dinner with the kids.
Speaker 3:And I'm doing the math in my head and I'm thinking, well, that's about 30%, 30, 35%. I said, well, that's, that's not 50, 50. So I drew, I spoke to him some more. Well, how, what about that is a 50, 50 plan to you? Because from my chair that doesn't look like 50, 50. And he says, well, I, you know, I have to work, I can't you know I have to work. I can't you know I'm working, I'm contributing to the rearing of the children by providing more of the income and and I just you know I do. What I mean is I want it to be clear that I'm just as important as it was value, and mom, when she heard that she was on board with it, she's like okay, yeah, we can make that work, you know, because it alleviated that fear, that assumption she had that he was going to push for a 50-50 schedule which she didn't think was tenable given his work time commitments, you know.
Speaker 3:So for that particular couple the assumption got in the way. But once we kind of dove down and I didn't give up, you know, if I, if I would just kind of stopped and didn't scratch deeper, we would have been working with an assumption that was false, you know.
Speaker 2:I think you know oh.
Speaker 2:I'm sorry, go ahead. No, you go ahead, go ahead. No, I was. I was thinking about how, in some ways I'm sorry, go ahead. No, you go ahead, go ahead. I was thinking about how, in some ways, I think the role that the two of you play in your processes has has an aspect of it that's more challenging than the way I work. In this regard, the two of you are working Well, sean.
Speaker 2:When you're doing mediation, mark, and your role as a financial professional, and certainly when you're doing mediation as well, you're there as true neutrals. And then my work. I'm paid for my judgments and to share them, and what I'm struck by is is, I think, the challenges that it takes to be neutral in a process where you may hear both sides of a story or two views of a situation, and one of those views might sound more correct or more right to you, or more appropriate or healthier, and you can't take that position. You've got to try to facilitate their communicating about their respective viewpoints in an effective way. So I'm curious for the two of you what kinds of tools do you use in your work to help clients communicate more effectively and to help you maintain that neutral position that you have to be?
Speaker 1:in. I kind of do what Sean does, but perhaps in not quite as structured or disciplined a way. I just sort of ask questions and I will even go to the point where I say, well, yes, man, you could keep the house and you could give up all of the retirement and you could get the buyout of the spousal support to cash him out totally and you would own the house. But I'd be really worried about where you might be three or five years down the road. Would you like to explore that? Would that be helpful to you? So I'm neutral in the regard that I'm not saying God, that's a stupid idea. You're going to be broke, lady. You're going to be tearing up floorboards to stay warm in the winter. You know, I'm just raising a concern and asking deeper questions so that the person can examine their position a little more. What's the word? A little more sort of objectively, because these are often coming from very subjective, emotional.
Speaker 1:I must have the house. Everything around me is falling to pieces. The marriage is gone, I don't know where the kids are going to be. The house I decorated, I raised the kids there. It's the only stable thing in my life. I must have it. And I see that emotion, and it's not just around the house, you know, it's around other things too. If I don't get the condo up in the mountains, my family is going to kill me. So I must have that, you know.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I do think the concept of asking questions. You know, I'm a lawyer, so I went to law school and we're taught with the Socratic method, which is the concept of you ask questions, followed by a question, followed by a question, so that, as the person is giving their answers, you're kind of leading them down the primrose path where they realize the fallacy of their position. It's a powerful way to reality test without taking a position on it. So somebody comes up with something like well, we're going to do, we're going to split the kids up and I'm going to live in England and with one child and the other person is going to live in the United States with the other child, you know like the parent trap.
Speaker 3:And I might say, well, haven't you seen that movie, the Parent Trap, and why would you do that and what's wrong with you? And you know I would just ask questions like okay, so how is that going to look? Okay, so they're going to be, one's going to be in one country and the other's going to be in the other country, and when are you going to see the other child and when is that child going? Okay, so the children are going to switch occasionally when they have their vacations, so then you'll have the child that's with dad while you have the, you know, while he has your child, the child that's with you.
Speaker 3:When are those two children going to see each other? And then they're like oh Right, yeah, oh, that's kind of a problem, isn't it? How's that going to work? You know how are they. When are they going to see each other? How are that going to work? You know how are they. When are they going to see each other? How are they going to grow up and know each other? Know their siblings? I could have said you know, one of the most important relationships a person has in their entire life is their sibling. And you're depriving your children of that. And how dare you? I could have done that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and do you know the damage you're going to cause?
Speaker 3:What's wrong with you, you know, but instead it was. It was more of well just asking the question. So they get to the logical outcome and you just keep asking question upon question upon question until you get them to a place where they can, or or maybe you ask question upon question, they've got all the answers. It actually does make sense.
Speaker 1:I've had that happen you know, not being a lawyer and not having been taught the socratic method, I use what I call the colombo approach yes, exactly, just one more thing which is basically help me understand this, I mean yeah, scratch my head a little bit yeah, really I. You know I'm having trouble here, help me out, you know I'm not quite we've all been trained, since we were little children, to be helpful and help people I usually come back.
Speaker 3:okay, just one more thing. You know, if I think I understand it, I ask one more question. So that's something that can happen, but what I'm really trying to get to here with the questioning that I'm doing is what is the rub, what's the real rub between the parties, and that's what's the complaint. So you might hear he always leaves the house a mess and the kids never have a clean house, and what is it that?
Speaker 1:there's your first problem, ever and never, and all right words like never, right?
Speaker 3:yeah, that always is a clue to me that people are reacting emotionally, but you know. So there's a complaint there. So what is is the complaint? Well, he's a slob, right? Well, what is it that you want? So I'll ask them. Well, you know, I'll do what we call the reframe, which is a technique that's very important to mediators. So, basically, what you're doing is you're restating the complaint, so it sounds more like a proposal. Okay, so it sounds like what you want is for the house to be more organized and more clean for the kids. So cleanliness is important to you. Yes, you finally understand me, you know, and so then we can work on a proposal there. So what's a proposal that you would like to make so that you can solve this problem that is upsetting to you? Well, I'd like him, every night, with the kids, to do the dishes before he goes to bed. You know, it could be something like that. No-transcript.
Speaker 2:It could be any issue. Have you noticed the complaint isn't process, the dynamic between the people around, whatever the issue is? And then also the other thing that I think happens often is where people are expressing a complaint, but they're doing it in the form or as a form of criticism, or it's being, it's being interpreted by the other person as a criticism and then things just become much more reactive criticism, complaint being really about a behavior, criticism being much more character, logical commentary about the other person.
Speaker 1:yeah, I've seen that, where it just devolves. Yeah, it starts off a bit about being the issue and then, by the time you're five minutes into it, there's character assassination going on on both sides well, if I think about the example that sean you just gave, it's you know, the, the uh.
Speaker 2:Instead of saying I uh, that cleanliness or the house being organized is important, it's delivered as you're a slob, yeah, or you're uh, you know whatever how can you live?
Speaker 1:like this yeah yeah, well, have you seen the inside of her closet? Yeah it's clean outside, but it's chaos in there, you know, and that's the kind of thing you get, because then they start arguing about detail and we don't have, you know, we don't have a movie, knowing what really happened you know.
Speaker 3:Well, that's why, you know, I like to ask questions. I ask who, what, where, when, how, but I'll never ask why. Because why gets you into the history, you know, why gets you into people's anger and their motivations and things like that. But just like, what exactly do you want? I want the house to be cleaned by 8 pm before the kids go to bed, for example. Or I want to make sure I have enough money to live off of.
Speaker 3:Okay, so how are we going to do that? What is going to happen to make that happen? When is it going to happen? Who is going to make the payment? Where is the payment going to be made? But I'm never going to ask well, why do you want that? Well, because he never took care of me, and I'm going to start, and I'm afraid. And it could go on and on and on. And so what we're trying to get them out of is is away from the, the triggering things that are more in the past, and more into the dysfunctions that led to the relationship breaking up and more into. Well, what's a proposal now for what we're going to do right now, kind of a more present concept. What's a proposal for our future, as opposed to. This is my complaint about the past.
Speaker 2:You know where I think a why question is important, but it can be delivered in a different way. Just in terms of the semantics of it is that I always want to know why something is important to someone.
Speaker 1:What does it mean to them? What?
Speaker 2:does it represent to them. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and so I might ask this question what problem are you trying to solve for with that proposal? You know, um where, what about this is important to you, but I I find that I get in trouble with why, especially if it's a higher conflict couple, and I I try to you. You know this mark. I try to train them not to use y yeah, we.
Speaker 1:You will literally say that we're not. When you ask them a question, you'll say we can talk about a, b, c and d, but not e, which is y yeah, but but I do train them on how to get to what's important to them about that.
Speaker 3:So you know what is important to you about receiving support. Well, I want to make sure I have enough money and that the kids have enough money.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So, Sean, you just mentioned, like, if you're working with a high conflict couple, I would imagine that with a high conflict couple, I know this is what I see in my office. Imagine that with a high conflict couple, I know this is what I see in my office. Sometimes I have to approach their communication or interacting with them in a more structured kind of way, and so do you have a specific structure, if you will, for how you try to approach a dynamic between clients where they're missing each other, they're miscommunicating or misinterpreting or whatever?
Speaker 3:I do, I do. So, and you know, I, I, I. I kind of have it spelled out for myself so I can keep track of it, but in real practice it's a lot more fluid than the way.
Speaker 3:I did here. But you know there's there's steps to this. So you maybe you have a situation where there's a mess, they're not hearing each other, and so there's a complaint going on, and so you'll clarify the complaint with the listener. You know the person that's hearing the complaint. You know maybe she said um or he said um, she always gives the kids McDonald's, and the kids need to eat more healthy, and I just can't stand that there's McDonald's happening. And so you might ask the listener, well, what did you hear? And then her response might be something like he thinks I'm a horrible parent.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And then I might turn to the speaker yeah, and then I might turn to the speaker worse than that, he's suggesting that I don't care for my children yeah, I don't care enough for my children and then I'm gonna be,
Speaker 3:in the garbage, right. So I'll ask the speaker well, was that what you meant? You know I'll ask clarifying questions and oftentimes that's not what he meant. I didn't mean that she's a whore. I think she's a good parent. I just don't like the mcdonald, you know. So I go back to the listener again. Ok, well, what did you hear now? You know, how is this different from what you heard before? Oh well, it sounds like he's really worried about them getting to McDonald's. You know, or I might have to facilitate that a little bit, you know, and I'll ask that I'll reframe, like I mentioned before for the speaker. It sounds like healthy food choices is what you would like to see. You would like to see something around healthy food choices, some kind of a neutral statement that's not pointing the finger at her. It sounds like you want her to finally feed the kids healthy food.
Speaker 3:You know that wouldn't be, but what I might say is it sounds like it's important to you that the kids have healthy food choices we probably say stop poisoning the children so then I'll turn to the speaker again.
Speaker 3:All right, did she hear you this time? Is that what you meant? And if it's yes, then I try to find out where the proposal and the complaint is, because I always say a complaint is a proposal in disguise. A complaint is a comment about an unsatisfactory situation that you'd like to change, and the proposal is how you change the situation so that it's better. And if they still don't get it, then I go back and I still do the back and forth to try to have them kind of restate it and reframe it in ways that each of them can understand.
Speaker 3:You're almost playing the role of a translator then, when you're a mediator, and so then when you're going on to proposals, I encourage my parties to make their own proposals. One party makes a proposal I would like us to only do McDonald's on special occasions, maybe once a month. That could be a proposal and the other party can ask questions about that proposal and I'll say who, what, where, when, how, never, why, depending on the couple, like if they're high conflict, I'll steer them away from why I can ask questions about it and then we make sure we understand the proposal. And then there's only so many answers the listener can make once they've received a proposal. It could be, you know, yes, I agree with that, and then we write it up.
Speaker 3:Or it could be no, I don't agree with that. But here's my counter proposal. How about I can take him to McDonald's once a week, you know, and then that's a new proposal. I have to go back through the process again. Now there's a new listener. I got to go back to the new listener and say okay, do you have any questions about that proposal? Do you agree with that proposal? Okay, so there's a counter proposal. And I always say just because you get a no on a proposal doesn't mean that it stops there. The person that says no has a responsibility to make a counter proposal.
Speaker 2:Have you ever had it happen where somebody says I want to, my counter proposal is I want to take the kids to McDonald's once a week, except when the McRib sandwich is on the menu.
Speaker 3:Then I want to take the kids to McDonald's once a week, except when the McRib sandwich is on the menu, then I want to go twice a week. Has that ever happened? I would have to say you know what? I would agree with that. Anybody who'd take their kid to get a McRib must not love their children. You know, I'm contemplating making a terrace off warning to Child Protective Services. No, but you get the point. I do try to keep my own personal stuff out of it, though you know.
Speaker 2:You know what Sean it's it's. It seems I appreciate the way you're saying it that you know. Complaint is a proposal in disguise, and to me, what that connects with is is generally speaking, it's so much easier for people to say what they don't want that's the complaint versus being able to say what they do want, which is the proposal.
Speaker 3:Yeah, right, but it gets their minds focusing the right way. Yeah, so our friend. I'm sorry, Mark, go ahead.
Speaker 1:Well, I was going to say one thing that I found, remember. I'm a financial guy, so I'm always dealing with the numbers, and there's a lot of fear around the money in a divorce because everyone knows, you know, they've had friends that have gone through it whose financial situation is not as good as it was. So there's a lot of fear around it. So one of the things I will often do is I will reduce it back to the numbers, I'll quantify. Okay, you're really worried about this, let's see how much we're talking about here, you know, and I'll put a number on it. And sometimes it's easy to say you know, guys, we can carry on down this road. But in your case this number is fairly small and often it would diffuse it based around that. But the fear was it was going to be huge and have an impact.
Speaker 3:But if you can quantify it and bring it back to an objective reality that nobody can really have an opinion about, it often helps well, and that's where the clarifying questions can be so helpful is because when you, when you eliminate the assumptions that people are making based on what's triggering them, you know, then they, they might see that they agree more than they realize. Yeah, you know there's, there's more commonality here than they thought there was. But because they've been spending so much energy and time being angry with each other or or afraid of what the other one's going to do to them, they've been in this constant fight or flight syndrome where they're not really thinking clearly and they hear what they don't want to hear.
Speaker 1:And I believe that some people come, especially the higher conflict people come into mediation with the expectation the mediator is going to validate their position.
Speaker 3:Right. Well, I had that to validate their position, right.
Speaker 1:Well, I had that happen. The other day. Yeah, just put me in front of the judge. Your judge will see just what a jerk he is and give me everything.
Speaker 3:That does happen. You'll have a client that'll want to expose the other party. Right, and have me see just how awful they are. Yeah, and then I have to be careful around that one, because if I don't play along and expose that person, then the other person gets upset because I didn't do what they thought I was going to do. I must be on their side exactly so you do have to be careful.
Speaker 3:You just take all the charge out of your words and make them more neutral, you know. And then you just ask very basic questions like well, what's this going to look like? How will we make this happen? Who will do what? When will it happen? Where will it happen? You know, that kind of thing.
Speaker 3:You know, and something I didn't mention, I failed to bring up with the proposal process. So I said there's the acceptance. That could be a response or there could be. I don't like it, but here's my counter proposal. A third response could be you know what? I need some time to think about this and we'll give them that time. We're just going to probably put timelines on it that were like okay, well, how long do you need to think about this? What do you need to do to get your answer? Who do you need to talk to so we can set them up for success, so that when they come to the next meeting, they're ready to give an answer or a counter proposal, like either a yes or no. I don't like that, but I'll do this. But I do think one of the things that we mediators have to do is to be very tenacious in the proposal process. Just because we get a no doesn't mean it's over. We keep going until they're running out of the room.
Speaker 1:Well, and that raises the point Sean that sometimes they do get stuck, yeah. That raises the point, sean, that sometimes they do get stuck, yeah. And so that's when I think it's okay for me to step in and say let me, would you be interested in having me share how I've seen other couples address this issue? Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's not me telling them what to do, it's hey, these are things I've seen.
Speaker 3:Does any of these appeal to you? It's always my favorite outcome when the parties come up with their own solutions, but I have those cases where you have to give the mediator's proposal, but that's usually the last thing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think what also happens and we've touched on this before where the clients get stuck, um, but what's happening is that, for example, it's one of the contexts we've talked about before where they're, uh, focusing on an issue having to do with with the kids, but really focusing on what they want for themselves, for whatever reason, yeah, and the impact on the kids is not something that they're really thinking through. So the example that you gave, sean, of the parent-transparent that's, proposing that they're going to live separately in different continents, and how an issue like that might affect children, or the one that we've talked about over several years, has been how parents think about the dividing of the time at the holidays for their children. You know the idea of I have to have my kids every Christmas. Well, what's it like for the children to not have Christmas with the other parent? And, I think, being able to sort out what is the hidden agenda, or the more personal agenda, if you will, versus the objective for all of these other stakeholders in an issue.
Speaker 3:I think that's very important for us to keep in mind is, like I said, the issue is never the issue, or often not the issue, and there is a little bit of work that needs to be done to parse out well what of this conversation is. The same fight that they've had for 15 years that never resolved itself, and what can we do to kind of break the way they view this issue and just by using different words that are more neutral and have less charge to them, it, it can sometimes help, kind of you get them past the anger that they have over the particular you know what this discussion reminds them of that went badly badly in their marriage to okay, we really do have to have a solution here, and that's where I think it's great to bring in a mental health professional on a co-mediation when you find that you have some couples that just can't get past stuck.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And it can help to have a mental health professional come in and just kind of help calm that down. Like I had a case one time with a it was a collaborative case where we had two attorneys and two coaches and a financial specialist and one of the coaches it was actually the husband's coach was talking to the wife it was like cross table talk, which happens a lot in collaborative practice was talking to the wife. It was like cross-table talk, which happens a lot in collaborative practice, and the wife just could not land on an amount of alimony that she believed was appropriate for her to receive. No number seemed satisfactory to her and the coach for the husband kind of figured out what was going on and he's talking to her and he's like you know, you you gave a lot to this marriage, didn't you? You know I'm paraphrasing, but it sounds to me like the reason that a number is difficult is because when you talk about an amount of alimony, it's like this is what your worth is and maybe there is no number that can really address what your value as a human being in the relationship was and how devalued you might've felt during the marriage.
Speaker 3:And then of course, you know she, the flood works with her and she opened up and then we were able to get to a number because she was somebody had gotten her in the room and it happened to be husband's coach, who was the mental health. One of the mental health professionals on the cage was able to see that and and break through that and communicate that to her and and and there was a. There was an exchange and an understanding where she was able to let go of something that was blocking her from finishing and so like okay, we, logistically, we have to come up with a number for support, and it's not about what your worth of the human is, it's about what the law says. What is it that's going to give you the runway? You need to be okay After the divorce.
Speaker 1:You know, I had exactly the same situation in the case I alluded to earlier, which was the, the, the lady who had to have the, the, the condo in big bear. She had to have it and basically it was because of the family, but it didn't come out until one of the coaches drew it out of her that her family would kill her if she didn't get the condo up there. Okay, and, but she couldn't bring that to the table on her own hard for her to say it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, yeah. So yeah, I mean, people are fun, people are interesting. There's always, you know, different points of view that come forward. There's a lot of emotionality around what we do. Um, for folks that are out there just trying to get an idea of how do I approach my mediation, one way to approach it is to think of it as a business decision. You know we have to come up with an agreement and we know that there was a long story that got you into this room, but at the end of the day day we need to be able to figure out a resolution so that you can move forward with your life.
Speaker 3:Sometimes they don't want to move forward with their lives that is true sometimes yeah well, we've done it again, gentlemen for sure, indeed for sure, so pete if. If someone needs to work with you on a divorce case because you're a mental health professional and very good with emotional needs, what would they need to do?
Speaker 2:PeterRussoscom, that's P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, and you can email me there from my contact me page.
Speaker 3:Okay, and Mark, if they have a need for some financial analysis in their divorce, what would they do?
Speaker 1:Go to my website. Pacific Divorce Management is the company. The website is PackDivorcecom.
Speaker 3:And for divorce.
Speaker 1:Sorry, we have a contact form on there and our phone numbers.
Speaker 3:And for divorce mediation services or for any dispute that you have, go to weberdisputeresolutioncom and we will match you with a professional mediator to help you resolve your dispute. Again, that's weber disputeresolutioncom. Weber, like the grill dispute, like we had a fight and resolution, like we solved it com. Okay, well, very good conversation. I enjoyed it. Yes, thank you guys very much All right.
Speaker 3:Take care. See you in two Thanks, Bye-bye, Thanks, Bye-bye. Be in a similar place Until next time. Stay safe, healthy and focused on a positive, bright future. This podcast is for informational purposes only. Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or mental health advice is intended during this podcast. If you need help with your specific situation, feel free to schedule a time to speak with one of us for a personal consultation.