The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
Divorce and Politics: Navigating Divorce in a Divided World
In this Presidential Election season, polarization is tearing us apart, but could it also hold the key to understanding and strengthening personal relationships? As the Three Wisemen of Divorce guide us through the charged political landscape of 2024, we uncover how deeply entrenched views can unravel marriages and complicate co-parenting. Through real-life cases, we examine how disagreements over finances and medical care can ignite conflicts, emphasizing that respect for differing opinions often proves more crucial than fiscal harmony.
Our exploration takes a discerning look at divorce and co-parenting, particularly when it comes to differences of opinion over morality, politics or even health care.
The conversation extends to the broader societal divides that color our relationships, whether ideological, religious, or lifestyle-based. By acknowledging the role of mediators and therapists in navigating these treacherous waters in family law and divorce matters, we recognize the value of staying neutral while remaining engaged. Through humor and cultural analogies, the complexities of maintaining respect amidst disagreements become evident.
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.
Welcome to the Three Wisemen of Divorce Money, psych and Law podcast. Sit down with the California divorce experts financial divorce consultant Mark Hill, marriage and family therapist Pete Russos 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 60 years of 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. Well, it's that time of year every four years where so you're not talking about Halloween.
Speaker 1:I'm not talking about Halloween, but it is just as scary, if not more Okay, where we're inundated with commercials, even if we don't live in a swing state. It's the political season, the presidential election, and four years ago we did a podcast on this very subject and I'm thinking it's probably a good time for an update. You know, here we are in 2024. A lot of the political dynamics are still just as difficult, if not more.
Speaker 2:So, if not more so I think that's true, Pete. I think positions have become even more entrenched over the last four years.
Speaker 1:I think what we can be assured of and this is not a political program, but I'm just. You know, mark, I think you and I have political science degrees. Is that correct? I have one, do you Yep Me?
Speaker 1:too, Me too. Oh, you too, pete. All right, so we have three political scientists, or at least armchair political scientists, and I think one thing we can be assured of is that, no matter who wins the presidential election, it's not going to just all of a sudden make all the divisions go away. In fact, it might exacerbate the divisions.
Speaker 2:Yep, I agree.
Speaker 1:No matter who wins, it's going to be kind of bedlam, I think, and it seems like it's extraordinarily close. The last time I looked at the 538 forecast, it was a 52% chance that Harris wins and a 48% chance that Trump wins, based on whatever their model is, and the polls look like they're tied across the board and it's just as close and all the pundits are like we're not predicting anything, we're not going to predict nothing and the polls have been so bad in recent years that it's Well.
Speaker 1:I mean all these polls. What do they have like? A 3% 4% margin of error, right, and when you're tied or you're 1% ahead in one poll or 2% ahead in another poll, you're still within the margin of error. So technically the polls won't be wrong.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I want to know what that octopus that picks the World Cup winners what they're predicting for this?
Speaker 2:I think that we should just redo Groundhog Day and basically decide it on that basis.
Speaker 1:If the yeah, one party wins if the groundhog sees his shadow Exactly, or her shadow, or maybe it's a non-binary groundhog? Yes, yeah, and one party wins if it doesn't see the shadow.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean it's one of a, really a slew of, or a lot of different issues have the same impact. So you have one liberal Democrat and a MAGA conservative. You have one religious person and one who is basically does not believe. You have different denominations, different religions. You have people from different ethnic backgrounds in America who still fervently believe the information they receive from the country they came from. All those are the same kind of concept as what we're talking about, right, sean?
Speaker 1:It's not just the political decisions today of family value. They don't tend to turn on fiscal policy. I don't think I've seen a divorce where people are like, well, he doesn't believe in cutting taxes, so therefore I'm not going to be married to him. I've never heard that.
Speaker 2:I did have a case where one guy thought it was ridiculous to pay taxes and so had been essentially cheating on his taxes and having her sign it for years, and then when she found out this was a divorce, one of the reasons she wanted the divorce.
Speaker 3:You know where I see political differences playing out in terms of couples dynamics would be when the partners are not able to hold a sense of respect for the other person in their viewpoint. You know that they're able to disagree, disagree but still respect the partner. It's when they begin to lose respect for their partner because of their viewpoints. That is, I think, the kind of slippery slope, if you will, that leads to, and there's always, I think, a broader context. It's never a singular issue, but I do think the thing that ties the issues together is the loss of respect. And then what I think it means for us in terms of divorce work is when people are coming in concerned about a position or a viewpoint that the other person has, they're wanting some kind of remediation or adjudication by the court that's going to protect them and their children from exposure to certain things, and we have to tell them in essence sorry, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over something like this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, or the court may have jurisdiction, but not in a way that you like.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 1:So we have a list that we kind of ad hoc put together of issues that are kind of quasi-political or actually overtly political that have come up and caused complications in a divorce case. So the first one I want to throw out is the issue of whether to vaccinate or not vaccinate.
Speaker 3:Actually, sean, can I broaden that a bit to just broader issues around medical treatment? And I'm thinking about how you know the notion of joint legal custody and how that applies to and how that applies to? But whether it's you know, vaccinate or not, or a child wants to get their ear pierced, one parent's for it, one parent isn't that kind of thing.
Speaker 1:That comes up and that kind of comes under values. Yeah, so I think they're a little bit distinguishable, like the ear piercing versus the vaccine. You know an?
Speaker 2:anti-vaxxer may not object to a to an ear piercing. I I had a case, though, where wife was a fervent believer in alternative medicine and didn't want to take to the child to a regular doctor, and the husband was upset upset about that and I.
Speaker 1:I had a case where um one of the parties was an and was against vaccination and did not want to enroll the child in public schools for fear that the child would be forced to be vaccinated. And the husband was like I want to vaccinate. So here's where you know, you said you said, pete, you know the court doesn't care about these things. The court will care about vaccinations, at least in California.
Speaker 1:So if there's a motion to vaccinate a child, the court is going to side with vaccination because that's the state policy and it would be very you know, whether you agree with it or not. I'm not taking a side here. I'm deliberately not taking a side. But if the court were to decide this, the court would say go vaccinate the kid. And I think I've known people that have like joint legal custody or not. They take their kid to get vaccinated without even asking and then it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is ask for permission. Nobody's going to complain, at least on the court level, that the child was vaccinated against the other parent's will.
Speaker 1:Sorry, Pete, go ahead.
Speaker 3:No, it's something like vaccination, is that I imagine, as part of, I guess, to attend public school? There are certain mandates. What about the example Mark gave, though, where one parent wants to use alternative medicine physicians and the other parent wants to use traditional Western?
Speaker 1:medicine. It's going to come down to, depending on which jurisdiction you're in the Daubert or Fry test for expert testimony Frye test for expert testimony Meaning is the expert that will end up testifying in this case about what kind of medical treatment the child should receive, whether this is something that is widely accepted or not. And so I think you're going to find in court at least in California and I imagine in most other jurisdictions you're going to find the court siding with traditional medicine. Again, I'm not making a judgment call of what's right here. I'm just telling you that's what the courts do, and so they're going to side with traditional medicine. So if you believe that crystals are good enough and herbs and whatever it is that you do, a court may not agree a court may not agree.
Speaker 3:The notion or the construct of joint legal custody I know we've talked about before, sean, but could you do a little refresher, and particularly in the, you know who gets to make a decision about, in this example, whether a child goes. You mentioned that somebody can go ahead and take a child, get them vaccinated without informing the other parent, and then it's easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, technically speaking. Is the way that MSA is typically written makes that possible?
Speaker 1:Well, the typical rule for joint legal custody and this is most people, unless there's a really good reason why one of the parents should not have joint legal custody. But typically what the courts expect is that the parties are conferring with each other and agreeing on medical choices before the medical choice is made, unless it's like an emergency situation. If you're running somebody with a broken spleen to the hospital and they take the spleen out, they're not going to expect you to get permission or an appendectomy Right. So there's there's an expectation that there be communication and cooperation, and if there's an objection, then the court is going to have to be put in a position to decide if the parties can't agree in a position to decide if the parties can't agree.
Speaker 3:Do you see, or how unusual is it for people to not confer, to take action and then to find themselves in trouble with the court because they haven't conferred with the other?
Speaker 1:It depends on the nature of the issue, like one question could be like do we do medication for ADHD or not? There's enough of a wiggle room in there that if you didn't confer and didn't get permission from the court and didn't provide expert testimony or something like that that this child actually needed Ritalin, and then you went and administered Ritalin anyway, I think you could have a problem. But let's say you go to the doctor and the doctor prescribes Ritalin and then one of the and the doctor prescribes Ritalin and then one of the parties objects to the prescription of Ritalin and gets a second opinion. You know it can be a challenge, but again the courts tend to if you're going to have a tiebreaker, the judge isn't a doctor, they're not going to decide, but they tend to side with whoever the medical professional is, unless there's a difference of opinion between medical professionals. And then you're going to have to apply evidence standards based on what kind of expert testimony is allowed in. Is this enough of a mainstream concern that the court is going to side with it or not? And this kind of goes to the point, pete of. I always tell my clients stay in charge as soon as you don't agree and you have to go to the court. You've now turned over your decision to a stranger in black robes who may not believe the same way you do, you know.
Speaker 1:But I think, like, like standard things, like vaccinations I mean I had one over the human with HPV, human papillomavirus, and that one has had some controversy in the past because it feels like, you know, is this elective or not? And I've never seen a court upset with a parent for just getting the HPV vaccine done. And I've never seen a court upset with a parent for just getting the HPV vaccine done. I've never seen a court chastise anybody for getting a vaccine done without permission.
Speaker 1:And so you know, if I was I don't advise people anymore because I don't go to court anymore really but if I were to advise somebody who you know again not taking a side here, just the pure law of it If I had a client who wanted the vaccine versus the other client who didn't want the vaccine, and I was advising the client who wanted the vaccine, I would tell them just go get it done, don't even ask permission, just get it done and then see what happens after that, because I don't think you would have any courts objecting. I think, by all means try to get permission, courts objecting. I think by all means try to get permission, you know, but like, if we're talking about COVID vaccination or even more, not even COVID like measles and polio, courts are not going to criticize someone for doing it. In fact, they might criticize someone for not doing it.
Speaker 2:Didn't you have a move away issue, Sean, on something where somebody wanted to move the child or the children to a state where it wasn't mandatory?
Speaker 1:I've had a number of those cases. I've had several, actually, where a parent was ready to change schools. It was a matter of do we enroll the child in public school or not.
Speaker 1:Oh gotcha, it was a matter of do we enroll the child in public school or not? Oh gotcha, and then a parent was ready to move away to another jurisdiction where there might be waivers for requirements of vaccines. And then this leads us into the next issue that I think comes up a lot, and it's kind of a political issue, it's kind of a morality issue. It depends on your point of view, whether or not you support your child in a gender transition. Do you engage in gender affirming care or not? And I've seen arguments that are actually pretty compelling on both sides. I'll start with the side that says don't engage in gender affirming care, and the point they make is well, a lot of this is irreversible. You have a minor who can't really decide for themselves. How right is this to take a minor and administer hormones and other surgeries and things like that that could be life-altering and irreversible? And then you have the other side that's like well, there's also research that says if you don't provide gender-affirming care, you increase the risk of suicide and you increase the risk of mental health problems in other ways.
Speaker 1:It seems like California is generally leaning towards gender-affirming care. We're California. I think you might get a different outcome in Arkansas or Florida, and I know of at least two cases where one or both parents were found to be abusive of their child because they chose to use the dead name of the child. The child wanted to change their name to a gender of their preferred gender and the parents refused to use that name and a child welfare services worker found that to be abusive. And so then comes up well then we're moving to Texas, you know that comes up. But then what happens if they don't agree? You know like what? If one of them is like all for the gender affirming care and the other one is not for the gender affirming care, how is that going to play out in the court? I think the court would side with at least in California, would probably side with the person that's more willing to do gender affirming care If they don't agree.
Speaker 2:Peter, when you have these kind of disagreements with your therapy couples, how do you approach it?
Speaker 3:Well, the place that I always try to establish as a foundation for the discussion is are these folks really able to delineate between their genuine and focal concerns for their child and how much of their disagreement really is a manifestation or fueled by issues between the two of them? And I think that if couples are going to be or co-parenting partners are going to be able to resolve those kinds of disagreements, it's because they are really willing to focus their attention on the interest of the child. And that can often mean I'm a big believer and look, if you have different opinion as it relates to psychological assessment or physical health issues, who are the other experts that you can consult with to better understand what is going on with your child and for your child. But people have to be willing to put their often their own egos to the side in order to be able to work that collaboratively and be more objective with their co-parenting partner. I think without that it's really difficult.
Speaker 1:Well, and sometimes these issues bleed into religious questions, like different religious beliefs. Oh my gosh, if my child transitions their gender, they're going to go to hell.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And so and I'm not saying that's a good attitude or not right but if you genuinely believe that this is, we're not just fighting over, you know, some custody time, we're fighting over our child's immortal soul, and when the parties can't agree on what needs to be done for the welfare of the child's immortal soul, the court can't do anything with that.
Speaker 1:You know, there was a case I had where we had two pastors of a traditional Christian denomination and one of them decided to become Jehovah's Witnesses and or a Jehovah's Witness, and that caused all kinds of problems in their co-parenting questions Are they going to celebrate Christmas or not? Health issues, are they going to have a blood transfusion or not, when there's an emergency. It became a huge deal and again that was a battle over the child's soul. It was more than just oh, we just have differences of opinion, it's. They both felt compelled by God himself, but in different directions. But the court's not going to decide whether the Jehovah's Witness perspective or the traditional Christian perspective is more valid. But I think, scientifically, I think if there's going to be a question about whether a kid gets a blood transfusion during an emergency, the court will probably side with the blood transfusion.
Speaker 3:So here's something that is, you know, the other end of the spectrum, the kinds of issues that we're talking about, but they come up very, very commonly. Um, a disagreement about the whether or not a child can watch a pg-13 movie or an r-rated movie. You know the broader heading of the rules that mom and dad's house being different Bedtimes.
Speaker 2:Yeah Seen battles over bedtimes.
Speaker 1:Organic foods versus McDonald's.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You took the kids to McDonald's. You know we don't do that.
Speaker 1:I've heard that one. I need to have sole physical and legal custody because he went to Carl's Jr with the kids.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Doesn't work that way, the court. Could you imagine if the court was like taking children away from people that went to fast food restaurants, how busy the court would be?
Speaker 2:they're just not going to touch it yeah um well, it also ties into the the question that you know the comment that I have often made to clients when they're having challenges with their divorce, which is this doesn't start in a vacuum. There's a history here and it would be unreasonable of either of you to think that the divorce is going to be any easier than the marriage was, and that's often. I don't know if it's a surprise, but people often react in a surprised way when you say that.
Speaker 1:But I wonder, what do you do when there's like a recent conversion, like my Jehovah's Witness story where she was recently converted to a different faith? Or I had one case where the guy suddenly decided he was going to be a survivalist and he was building bomb shelters in the house and he was a prepper. He was preparing for the apocalypse and um was was storing ammo on site and was weighing his kids trained in weaponry, and um the other person was not of that persuasion and like oh my gosh, I don't know what happened to him. All of a sudden he's a prepper. What do you do about situations like that?
Speaker 3:well, I think change like that you know.
Speaker 3:so you're talking about significant unilateral changes to the marital contract, if you will, uh, but I think that that, on smaller levels, those kinds of changes are things that happen over the arc of a relationship and it's part of the growth processes, if you will, inherent to a relationship.
Speaker 3:And the bottom line, I think, is that, regardless of whether or not it's a big change or a small change, at the end of the day the partners have to be evaluating whether or not there's still enough of a consensus between them about what they want from their relationship, what's going to satisfy them in life, such that there's enough of a consensus that they can have a relationship that is at least good enough for them both going forward.
Speaker 3:And so sometimes big changes mean, you know, people start a relationship and they may view it as being close to perfect a relationship, and they may view it as being close to perfect, and then things begin to change. And I really do think, and I encourage people to think, in terms of what is at least good enough for you. And so, if your partner has become a survivalist, what is it about that? That renders for you the relationship or means that the relationship can't be good enough. How curious are you about your partner's change in faith, and what is it about that that makes this relationship no longer workable for you? That you can make changes that allow you to continue in a relationship that is in some ways changed but continues to be at least good enough for you both.
Speaker 1:You know, I have some personal experience in that with my family, my own personal family. You know my mom was quite devout but then wasn't so devout when she married my father and then decided during the marriage marriage after they had three kids that she was going to become more devout in her faith. And my father was like wait a minute, that's not what I signed up for. And so there were a number of years of tension, eventually leading to an equilibrium where they were able to kind of accept each other's point of views and the kids had the choice of following the path that they wanted to follow. But I've also seen people in similar circumstances where the marriage didn't survive. That, and I think the difference is what you're talking about, pete is that? What are you willing to live with in the change?
Speaker 3:Yeah, you know, the marriage that I'm so curious about is James Carville and Mary Madeline.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, that's a fascinating one yeah, yeah, but it survives.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it survives and it thrives.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:In contrast is the Kellyanne Conway, and what's his name?
Speaker 3:George Conway yeah.
Speaker 1:And they started as Republicans and then she became MAGA with Trump and became Trump's campaign advisor. And then he went the other direction, became a never Trumper and the marriage didn't survive and it appeared that their daughters suffered from significant stress because of I don't know. I don't know enough to be able to say I don't want to come here and publicly announce that they destroyed their kid or something stupid like that. I'm not trying to say that. I'm just trying to say that there was some tension there and they ended up getting divorced. So what was the difference? I don't know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, sean, you've also pointed out in the past that sometimes the political views or beliefs of the attorneys can be a challenge. Yes, you know where you, you know. I don't know if it was a Muslim and a Jewish attorney, but there was some similar sort of situation where the attorneys were actually more of a problem.
Speaker 1:I don't want to out the attorneys, so I will just say let's just say they were on two different political points of view on the world stage, like two different nationalities that were warring factions, and their behavior during the negotiations were challenging. Their behaviors were challenging and I think it was exacerbated by these international political differences. I also had a case where there was a husband and wife. The husband was a special forces IDF, you know, Israeli Defense Force person and the wife was much more of a liberal Israeli he was very much a Netanyahu fan and she was very much not and that ultimately led to their divorce because she believed in a two-state solution and he thought that was next to treasonous and blasphemous. That was an irreconcilable difference for them.
Speaker 2:But I think what we've done so far is really laid out all the problems problems, and I think what I'd like to kind of turn to now is, you know how having the right resources at the table enable clients to get through even terribly difficult situations like this. But, as you can see, in this case the problems are legal and emotional, not so much financial, although they can have financial impact. You know, I'm sure the survivalists were spending lots of money on guns and ammo that perhaps the wife didn't agree on.
Speaker 1:Oh, and gold and Bitcoin. There you go, yeah, so you know, so and the wife's like I couldn't believe. You bought all this Bitcoin. I thought it was risky. And then he just he would refuse to just have a traditional 401k. Everything was in gold and silver.
Speaker 3:Yep.
Speaker 1:So they had some differences of opinion regarding investment.
Speaker 2:But. But having somebody at the table can help the clients, you know, in a way that Pete talked about of, of of trying to see what they can live with, because that's really what, candidly, divorce ends up being. I don't like this settlement financially, but I guess I can live with it. How many times have we heard that?
Speaker 1:Well, and how many times have we told clients that we're doing our job? You're both both going to be a little disappointed in the outcome. Yeah, yeah, I think, when you get away, I think and this is kind of a thing like mediation it's more successful when people are not black and white thinkers.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:It's the black and white thinking, or what I call the false binary. It's either my way or your way, but there can be no in between. If you win something, that means I lost. If you lose something, that means I win. And it's not that there's grays, and so when helping the clients be able to see the grays is helpful, now, I don't think I'm going to get into a situation where I'm trying to help them see the grays in their one's a MAGA and the other is a liberal democrat progressive. I don't want to get into like a political reconciliation, because I think that's not appropriate for me to do, because I think that's not appropriate for me to do, but getting into, okay.
Speaker 1:So you believe in this particular value for your family and you believe in this particular value that seems at odds. Is there a way for us to find a value that you both could live with, that you could sign on as a family? Because, guess what, with the divorce, your family is not ending. Everybody is still here. You know just being able to learn how to disagree agreeably. And I think, pete, you hit on something at the beginning of our conversation. It's about respect.
Speaker 2:Yes, yep.
Speaker 3:And I mean this is a very broad generalization, but I'm trying to think if I've ever had a case where, you know, a couple has come in and they've identified the, the singular issue that's led to the demise of their relationship, you know, like everything was working great until that's not what it happened, you know. But I think there's often this, this, the singular issue, that represents a tipping point, yeah, for a long-standing dynamic pattern or a series of other issues, and that goes to, to mark your, your point, you know that that in some ways and I don't want this to sound glib or cavalier, but it's always interesting to me that people are surprised, or when people are surprised by the fact that they're struggling around something, when, if you take a look at the history and the dynamic and the challenges that that they might've had historically being curious with each other, showing each other respect that they're surprised then that that they're having this specific tension around an issue and wanting to end their relationship.
Speaker 1:I've heard you say on a number of cases that we've been involved in Pete. You'll say you know, it's not that you don't communicate well, you communicate in a very excellent way. It's just you don't agree Exactly and you think that means you don't communicate, it just means, you don't agree. And so then the question is if you don't agree, is that okay?
Speaker 3:And why does a lack of agreement somehow become a justification for disrespecting or losing respect for the other person?
Speaker 2:Well, I think the reason for that is that our political discourse has become more and more strident and more and more. You're with us or you're against us.
Speaker 1:It's very siloed. Exactly, you know like, you watch television, and you tend to watch the networks that you agree with.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:If you're MAGA, you're going to watch Fox. You know, if you're progressive, you're going to watch MS networks that you agree with. Yeah, if you're MAGA, you're going to watch Fox. If you're progressive, you're going to watch MSNBC. Right, and you tend to listen to those podcasts. I noticed that, looking at my YouTube history, I get YouTube stuff suggested to me. Well, youtube's going to suggest the things that it thinks I want to watch, and so I always get a particular point of view suggested to me.
Speaker 1:Well, YouTube is going to suggest the things that it thinks I want to watch, and so I always get a particular point of view suggested to me and I'm like, oh my gosh, youtube even knows yeah, yeah, understands where my silo is, and I try to resist that. If, if, if I'm getting a bunch of suggestions, I try to then watch things that are not necessarily suggested to me so I get a different point of view. It's the mediator in me always wanting to find the grays. I I try to watch all the networks, not just one of them, even when I want to throw something at the television because I don't agree with them as I was once told, it's just a machine.
Speaker 2:It can't hear you, right?
Speaker 1:Well, you know, that's another point, mark, that I think is important for us to bring up, and that is that the mediator you know, when you're working with a neutral mediator like us, yeah, the mediator is going to have political points of view, and how do you remain neutral as a mediator when you have somebody before you that you just fundamentally disagree with?
Speaker 2:And the interesting thing I've found in mediation is, if they, like me, they both assume that whatever their view is my view too, and I don't disavow them of that. I allow that fantasy to continue because it allows me to maintain the neutrality I need in the process, and if I violated that, it would go away.
Speaker 1:I have had. I can count on one hand the cases. One of them was with a vaccine case where they asked me, well, what's your point of view on this? And I have to come back and I have to say, well, my point of view doesn't matter, but I should disclose that. So sometimes I feel like I need to disclose this is a life experience that I've had that's led me to a certain point of view, and so you should know that, that I have that bias. But I am working not to let the bias affect my work with you, um, but you have the right to know that I have that bias and then you can choose whether you want to continue with me as a mediator and and most of the time people really respect that when I do it but I don't I do that very rarely I've never done it only when I think it really can affect.
Speaker 1:um, it could affect the case, but I try not to let them ever see me sweat.
Speaker 2:I just push back very hard, if that question ever comes back.
Speaker 1:It's irrelevant what I think.
Speaker 2:It's irrelevant what I think. I'm here to assist you. I'm a neutral facilitator. My views don't matter. If I put my thumb on the scale one way or the other, it would only make the case more difficult. That's exactly what I tell people.
Speaker 1:And there's a lot of wisdom in that, Mark.
Speaker 2:Well, it avoids me having to get into a situation where I'm taking a side, and once you've taken a side on one thing, your neutrality is compromised I always want to know um what is the the importance of that information for that person you know my point of view, what is important?
Speaker 3:what would tell me what it would mean? What does what does that matter? If it matters, tell me what that is and what Does that matter? If it matters, tell me what that is.
Speaker 2:What kind of responses have you had to that question?
Speaker 3:Well, this is the way I preface it. I'll say well, I'm not going to dodge your question, but I want to understand more about it. And then, in going through it and it's not like this has happened a lot of times, but most of the time people withdraw the question.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean my fantasy, is that what the thought process is is well, you're a smart guy, you must agree with me.
Speaker 3:Well, actually, where I like to go with it is, you know, it's interesting, there's this parallel processes that are happening. Each of the parties is having to really think about whether or not they believe I have their best interests at heart. What I say is you know, if you've got to think about that question and if you don't think I have your best interests at heart, I would be the first one to say you shouldn't be working with me. And they also are making that assessment of each other as well. So it's a way of bringing that, what I think is a really important question for people to ground themselves in, to settle themselves down when they hear something that maybe pisses them off or makes them uncomfortable or afraid, but also evaluating my role with them. So, again, I make it clear I'll answer the question, but before we go there, let's talk about this now what's happening between us?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:A challenge I've had is I attended a seminar where we were talking about being diverse and open and not having microaggressions. Is I attended a seminar where we were talking about being, you know, diverse and open and not having microaggressions?
Speaker 3:And.
Speaker 1:I left that seminar with the admonition to make sure I put my pronouns on my Zoom profile so that when they see me they'll see Sean Weber and then he him profile, so that when they see me they'll see Sean Weber and then he him, and the problem I've had with that then is that does show a certain point of view and you can say, well, you're right to do that and you should just stand for that.
Speaker 1:But I've had clients that have really lost respect for me because I did that. And so I've learned to be very careful and judicious in how I use the pronouns. You know, because sometimes you know if you get, say, you've got a person, you get a couple, and you don't know what their political views are or what their moral views are, and that can be a lightning rod that can be triggering. And then I know I see the counterpoint Well, it can be triggering if rod that can be triggering. And then I know I see the the counterpoint Well, it can be triggering if you don't do it, and so I don't know what to do with it.
Speaker 3:To be honest, yeah, I mean I think that the position that I've taken, one that just resonates for me, is you know, I'll ask, I will answer the question if anybody asks me, and I try to remember to ask the question, but I don't do a really good job of remembering to do that all the time and again. I guess my hope is and that's hard if you're meeting somebody for the first time and there's going to be that snap initial judgment but my hope is that, as a relationship developed, there are graces and allowances that you know we're making towards clients and that clients are making towards us, the inevitable missteps that happen interactionally. And I think those are powerful process moment, parallel process, moments when we make a mistake or somebody's feelings get hurt and we deal with it in an appropriate and respectful way and the person on the other side sees us doing that. I think that's powerful modeling. I mean these are human interactions. Right, that's powerful modeling. I mean these are human interactions right.
Speaker 2:I've seen that work too, when you do a mea culpa and it doesn't really matter with which party it is. You're right. I think it elevates your neutrality.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, and then the challenge for the practitioner really is being able to have I say it's the two like two television screens in your thinking, and one side is the very neutral screen. That's what you're presenting to the couple and you're not letting any of your biases show up on the first screen. And then you have a second screen that's kind of like your private secret screen that you have, and that's where you're like oh my God, I can't believe they said that kind of thing when you let your biases be.
Speaker 3:You know, and I realized that I mean my role is different from both of your roles as true neutrals. And in my role, this is part of what I talk about with people. You know, as we've talked about see, how honest do you want me to be with you now? And I'm thinking about it more in terms of the notion of judgments I think people are paying me for my judgments, people are paying you guys for your judgments, but when I'm working with people in the realm of you know, self-management and emotions and reactivity, there are those times where the worst thing I could do would be to be neutral.
Speaker 1:I see that when I play the role of an attorney, yeah, I can't be neutral. And I also think there's a difference. When you think of neutrality in terms of a car engine, that means you're not engaged at all. You're just kind of rolling down the highway, right, right, when your car is in neutral, and then when you put it in gear, then you're engaged. And I think neutrality for a mediator does not mean you're not engaged. Right, right, you're engaged. And I think neutrality for a mediator does not mean you're not engaged Right, right, right, you're driving the car somewhere.
Speaker 2:It's just, you're not choosing where we're going. Exactly the destination.
Speaker 1:I'm like okay, well, are we turning right now? Is that where we're going? Okay, Do we agree on that? We're going to turn right.
Speaker 3:Okay, If we can't agree then we put the brake on and we just park the car and in the metaphor, sometimes I have to say you're going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1:Yes, that's the difference right Between the role of a mediator and the role of someone who's aligned or in the role of providing a healing heart right.
Speaker 2:Although there are times when I will say you know, we can carry on down this road if you think it's being productive when it's obviously not, frankly, and so I will try to stop people going in directions that are counterproductive if I make the executive decision that this is not a conversation that's going to be helpful and that's what they're paying me for in a way. You don't want to go through a two-hour session and achieve nothing. They had a fight in front of a third party who wouldn't put their finger on the scale.
Speaker 1:Well, yeah, we're in control of the process, they're in control of the outcomes.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Somebody wrote a wonderful article about that some years ago that I still quote.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, article about that some years ago that I still quote oh yeah, it's a gentleman by the name of peter broussos about a wife and family therapist, indeed about, about the airplane analogy right charger airline, that that, um, when you, when you book a flight, you don't, you don't tell the flight crew how they're going to operate the aircraft you don't tell them there won't be a co-pilot, that they're not going to stop to refuel, but you tell them there won't be a co-pilot, that they're not going to stop to refuel.
Speaker 2:But you can say I don't want to go to Las Vegas, I want to go to New Orleans. That's fine.
Speaker 1:Like no, you're going to New Orleans, yeah, yeah, no, that was a good article.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, I mean that was. It's interesting. Over the years, how many people have contacted me asking to use it, Cause I think it really describes what we do and it was very helpful because we were, at that time, all struggling with.
Speaker 2:Well, it's a client process, so we need to follow what the clients want to do. But wait a minute here. What's our role when the clients want to do something that we firmly, as professionals, believe is counterproductive?
Speaker 1:Although I remember when we were looking at models for collaborative practice, pete, you and I had a conversation. I said well, what happens when your airplane turns into a slow-moving barge with no captain? Or seven captains just floating down a river with no rudder. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:Well.
Speaker 1:Well, gentlemen, I think we've done it again.
Speaker 2:We have that was yeah, peter, you want to say something.
Speaker 3:No, no, yeah, I was literally yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:There's some deep stuff in there and I think it's everyone in the world right now, or at least in the United States, that I United States they're triggered on some level about the politics. Yeah, it seems to be a pervasive thing. I do think you ever watch Star Trek. Remember that Star Trek where they went down to the paradise planet and even Spock got the spores in his brain and all of a sudden now he's loving people and smiling and being emotional and he wants to live on the and the whole crew has gotten the spores in him and they're going to live on this planet and live in paradise. And Kirk is the only one that's immune to it and that's because he's basically pissed off that he's lost his ship and he realized that the thing that broke people out of their trance was to irritate them.
Speaker 1:I do remember this, remember that, and he got in a fight had spock like almost kill him because he got him into a fight, called his mother a computer and his father a dictionary or something like that. And and then they fit. He and spock figured out now that spock has been broken from the cure, that they could send a signal to the planet which was a very high-pitched sound. It was barely audible and it wasn't. It was was a bad sound, it was just enough to irritate you. And I think that's what's going on right now. There's this high pitch sound out there that's just irritating everybody and making them want to fight with each other and and it it. I do think it's bleeding into marriages and I do think at least during the COVID and beyond, people's marriages were struggling because of it. But also the people's reactions to what used to be kind of benign questions are far more triggering for them than they used to be. I have no science to back this up. It's purely anecdotal, but this is kind of what I'm experiencing.
Speaker 3:And I think to me, part of it is just heightened anxiety. When we started, you guys asked me if I'm seeing a lot of people that are coming in and talking about political issues clients and I remember and I said you know there's been very little of that, but I'm remembering and this absolutely parallels four years ago how literally the months leading up to the election my practice got slower and literally the day after the election I got busy again and I think that there was this wait and see attitude. I think people were anxious. They're wondering how is this going to play out. They were putting things off, that's.
Speaker 2:But it was literally like clockwork.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's a. I'll share a personal story. I dated a lady back in the early nineties and about two or three years ago we bumped into each other in a grocery store and we decided to have lunch. Now we dated and even lived together for a few months when she was changing her place. Politics never came up At our lunch. Politics came up immediately and we were kind of both betting each other to see which side of the spectrum we fell on. It wouldn't have even come up back 30 years ago. Now it's a qualifying question for who you date.
Speaker 1:You put it on your matchcom profile.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:What your politics are, because and this is kind of a you know, trump voters don't want to date progressives, and vice versa. Yeah, and I think it is a great realignment. I think people are siloing again. You know siloing Not only are you watching the television programs that you agree with, but you're also dating the people that you agree with, and you're less likely to want to be in a long-term relationship with someone that you disagree with fundamentally about politics or morality or whatever it is. And I don't know, is that a bad thing? I think it is, probably. I think it is.
Speaker 2:I really do. I believe that if we can't get along on an interpersonal basis, society is in a worse place.
Speaker 3:You're talking about a progression of intolerance. Yes, that is, I think, really worrisome.
Speaker 1:I can't tell you how many times I've talked to a client about how compromise is a good thing, it's not a bad thing, and the conversation inevitably ends with the client saying could you please do something about Washington as a mediator?
Speaker 1:Like well, they won't hire me for that. But I do think that there is the work we do in divorce, mediation or any kind of mediation to understand that peace is not the absence of conflict, it's the absence of solutions to the conflict, and that you don't always get what you want and sometimes a compromise means up, giving up something that you want so that you get more of something else, and that that's okay. It's not a bad word to compromise, it's a good thing. I think, until people start to embrace that or understand that or be at peace with that and not making everything about a battle of good and evil this false binary with that, and not making everything about a battle of good and evil this false binary, I think until that happens we're going to keep struggling politically in this country and I think it'll keep the divorce attorneys busy.
Speaker 2:Well, it's a full employment act for us, isn't it?
Speaker 1:Unfortunately.
Speaker 2:Yeah, badly yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, on that happy note.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you're right, we have done it again, and I think I made us do it longer.
Speaker 1:Well, I think I'm going to go home and consider my apocalyptic preparation and, whether or not you know, the coming apocalypse is going to affect me.
Speaker 2:What are my?
Speaker 1:exit strategies and do I have enough ammunition?
Speaker 2:affect me and what are my exit strategies, and do I have enough ammunition? If, two weeks from today, you don't appear on the podcast? Um, then I will know that. What has happened so?
Speaker 1:that I've moved to a bunker in um, north dakota. Now we'll see. I don't think. Here's what I do know about my observation of politics over the year. It's never as bad as they say it is and it's never as good as they say it is, Except when you're talking about our program. It's every bit as good as we say it is. And then some, and then some. All right, well, pete, if they wanted to get a hold of you to talk about their emotional triggering while they're going through the political season, what should they?
Speaker 3:do. Easiest way to get a hold of me is through my website, peterrousoscom P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, and the Contact Me page on my website.
Speaker 1:And Mark if they're worried about the status of their wealth as they consider their divorce and which administration will be controlling the economy, what should they do?
Speaker 2:They should go to my website, Pacific Divorce Management. The website is packdivorce, all one word dot com, and there's a contact form on there.
Speaker 1:And if you need a mediator with a legal background, contact WeberDisputeResolutioncom. That's WeberDisputeResolutioncom, that's WeberDisputeResolutioncom, and we'll match you with the appropriate mediator to settle your dispute. Although I don't know if we're going to be able to fix Thanksgiving All, right, well, until next time. Thanks everybody.
Speaker 2:Bye-bye.
Speaker 1:Thanks for listening to another episode of the Three Wisemen of Divorce. Thanks for listening to another episode of the Three Wisemen of Divorce Money, psych and Law. If you like what you heard, be sure to subscribe, leave us a review and share with others who may 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. Thank you.