The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
Navigating High-Conflict Divorce with Charmaine Panko
Curious about navigating the complexities of high-conflict divorce with more grace and empathy? Discover the transformative power of mediation and Collaborative Practice with our esteemed guest, Charmaine Panko, a seasoned lawyer, mediator and Collaborative practitioner from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Together, we unpack the challenges of navigating divorce with a high-conflict personality.
Journey with us as we explore the "divorce escalator" metaphor and how traditional adversarial court systems can heighten tensions instead of resolving them. Personal anecdotes and professional insights reveal the limitations of current legal frameworks in addressing the psychological and financial needs of families in turmoil. We champion a shift towards a more collaborative, problem-solving approach in legal education, aiming for a system that supports long-term planning and mutual understanding over win-lose battles.
Engage with us in a conversation about the benefits of interest-based negotiations, which focus on shared values rather than adversarial tactics. We highlight the critical importance of trust-building, especially in co-parenting scenarios, and how mediation can offer hope for high-conflict personalities.
© 2025 Weber Dispute Resolution. All rights reserved.
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.
You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but I've never had any beef with any of them.
Speaker 2:Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1:Well, I'm a very classic dad. 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. Well, mark, here we are two wise men. We're short of one of our wise men we are.
Speaker 3:He's only temporarily um unavailable, so he will return.
Speaker 1:We will allow Pete a day off.
Speaker 3:He's got the day off absolutely.
Speaker 1:But we are blessed with a third person, a wise woman, and her name is Charmaine. Charmaine Penko. Did I say it right?
Speaker 2:You sure did.
Speaker 1:Charmaine Penko Welcome. Thank you, right, you sure did. Charmaine panko welcome, thank you. Charmaine is a lawyer in saskatoon, canada, and and I learned that, uh, they're. They're not attorneys in canada, so we can't call her an attorney, mark, she's a lawyer. I knew she a lawyer. Why is that?
Speaker 2:I don't know, I don't know. It's something to do with the Commonwealth, I think, because they're barristers and solicitors and we didn't want to have to have two words, and so we just put them together and called ourselves lawyers, though lots of law firms call themselves so-and-so law firm barristers and solicitors Barristers and solicitors, barristers and solicitors, but you still have the same division of the barristers who can represent you in court and the solicitor, who has to actually go find the barrister to represent you in court because you can't talk directly to a barrister, if I understand correctly?
Speaker 2:That might be part of the origin story of it all, or even how they still do it in england, I'm not sure. Here everybody does everything, it's just they will carry different. You know ways of identifying themselves, so. But indeed, lawyers is the right way to refer to me, though I have been called an attorney before and I have still answered to that.
Speaker 1:Okay, well, don't judge us when we screw up.
Speaker 2:Definitely not, Though I do want to know. You said that I was from Saskatoon, Canada, and here in Canada we have provinces. I know you folks have states, so I would like to hear you say my province. Do you know how to say Saskatchewan?
Speaker 1:Well, I'm going to copy you my province. Do you know how to say saskatchewan?
Speaker 2:well, I'm going to copy you. Saskatchewan hey, very good, sometimes you can try to copy it saskatoon saskatchewan that's right.
Speaker 3:Saskatchewan right, that's right. It's all about the emphasis. Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was going to say say that three times real fast Saskatoon, saskatchewan and here we don't pick pickled peppers, but we pick Saskatoon berries in Saskatoon, saskatchewan.
Speaker 2:So there you go.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:We even have a baseball team now for the first time ever, called the Saskatoon Berries. So I'm not sure if they're any good or not, but their name is catchy.
Speaker 1:So what are Saskatoon berries? Are they?
Speaker 2:They're little berries that are kind of like purpley in color and they're very juicy and sweet and they're native to our geographical location and you find little bushes of them here and there and as a kid that would be a fun activity you do is take your little bucket out and pick Saskatoon berries.
Speaker 1:Wow, okay. Well, now I would like some Saskatoon pie.
Speaker 2:Yes, and Saskatoon pie is very delicious, so you'll have to come and visit.
Speaker 1:I will Now. I have a reason. So you and I met, with our involvement at the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, iacp, and we're on a committee together and I got to know you and realize that you and I think similarly about a lot of things, and one of the things that we were talking about to our audience is how mediation and collaborative, interdisciplinary, collaborative practice can help with high conflict cases, and oftentimes I'll hear people say, oh, that's a high conflict case that shouldn't go to mediation.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And how would you respond to people that say that I know what I would say, but yeah, well, you know my.
Speaker 2:my first response is a question back to them. Is that well, if not mediation, then where?
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 3:Where do high conflict people go?
Speaker 2:I mean you send them to court and they are going to get some kind of direction from the court and then go out and try to implement something when they haven't dealt with any of their actual communication difficulties or the source of their conflict and really just continue to escalate in that conflict tornado and sometimes for years and years and past the point of anything that makes sense from a spending of time as well as financial resources. So take that energy and redirect it into a process that can really be supported and help them get to the root of their issues.
Speaker 1:That can really be supported and help them get to the root of their issues. Okay, Well, so you?
Speaker 2:know we always talk about the divorce escalator.
Speaker 1:You know you go to litigation. You just get stuck on an escalator going the wrong direction.
Speaker 2:It's going down to a bad place. Oh, that's a great imagery.
Speaker 1:You know and what do you do when you try to get off the escalator? Sometimes it's hard and I think with high conflict cases, the dynamic between the parties, sometimes it's the personality of the parties Court is a great place to get them more ramped up is needing an interruption, and so if they are put into an adversarial setting that's what we call the court system right, it's adversarial.
Speaker 2:It's there, then, to further promote that conflict, actually, because it's designed as a win-lose type of environment. You apply game theory to that. What are you going to do? You're going to just continue. I love the imagery of an escalator, because you're going to continue to try to reach for power, going to continue to try to manipulate what is possible to manipulate within all of the parameters of the court environment. Now, I don't know what you have where you're from, but here in Saskatchewan we have an environment that's full of court forms and rules and protocols, and you make a misstep along the way and somebody can complain about it and bring a different court application, and it can just continue, and so anybody who's in a conflict pattern, they're going to always be looking for the next thing to complain about, and that makes it very difficult for them to get out of that environment.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's true. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3:Not the attorneys, but the lawyers often can drive it the wrong way. I have a case right now where wife's lawyer is writing the nastiest nasty grams and I'm told he's somebody who is, you know, mediation friendly and he's accusing all sorts of abuse and so on. You know, it's like I and I I suspect he's been kind of like taken over by the case.
Speaker 1:You know that that happens and I remember that happening early in my career when I did litigation. You become an extension of the conflict, you become an extension of of the, you become an extension of the dynamic and you don't realize it. You just think this is how I'm supposed to be and I think you don't realize the amount of damage you're doing when you're the litigating attorney by kind of continuing the conflict. And you're seeing this marital conflict I always think of, like freud's theories on sex and violence. You see that playing out in the courtroom and and um, it's very damaging. It's one of the reasons I got out of litigation, because I felt like I was doing more harm than good. But it takes a little bit of time and usually there's an experience that you have where you realize oh my gosh, I've been co-opted, I've done more harm than good and so I want to change something. Otherwise I'm not feeling at peace with myself. And then you've got the attorneys that feel, or the lawyers that feel, very comfortable being in that place.
Speaker 2:Well, and I think part of it has to do with our education, because it's a paradigm shift to see yourself as an advocate in a different way that is not synonymous with adversarial behaviors. So when we're taught in law school about how to advance the interests of your clients at all costs and you know it's this notion of being a warrior compared to a different identification of being a problem solver or somebody who's walking alongside somebody who is seeking to interdisciplinary, collaborative practice, because people's pathway forward is not just what is their legal outcome of their case or whether they got the right remedy under the family property legislation or they have a certain amount of time with their children. It's about their psychological, emotional their children. It's about their psychological, emotional and mental physical health and well-being, their financial health and well-being. Right, mark? It's so puzzling to me that in the sort of what I like to call conventional court system because I don't like calling it traditional, because I actually don't think traditionally this is how families sorted out their matters. I mean, really this has been going on in this way since what? The 1960s, but prior to that, when people had problems within their family, they had wraparound services from their community and often their family members.
Speaker 2:So the current court system, the way that it's set up, the fact that there is so little attention given to the financial impact and I don't mean the financial cost of participating in it, I mean the financial impact of the final outcome.
Speaker 2:So I like to explain to our clients that when you're figuring out your property division and your financial support, with a mind to what are your immediate needs, but also what are your long-term goals and what is that going to play out like, it's super important to look at it in both timeframes. And in our court system that is a win-lose or, as we know, it's often lose-lose. It's just applying that. It's like the story from the Bible right when it's just like King Solomon says let's just cut the baby in half. Well, maybe you don't even have the baby anymore then, and I think we've seen this so much in the financial outcomes of separations, and so I know that. You know you guys are the ones that ask me the questions, but I'm curious, mark, about what you know some of your reflections have been at seeing how the court system it really escalates the conflict and causes further damage from a financial perspective.
Speaker 3:Well, yes, yeah. The reason I got into doing this work is because I went through what I now affectionately refer to as my divorce from hell and went all the way to a trial and the judge understood nothing about finances. And here I am am a guy managing other people's money, you know, um. And so I got into it because I realized that no lawyer goes to law school because they love arithmetic. You know. Now there are some lawyers are very good with the money, but in my experience it's 10% to 15% who are really good at it. Some are horrendous.
Speaker 3:Some, candidly, don't really understand what they are doing in terms of consequences. And just recently I saw a case where they were about to do a settlement where they had taken one of the party capital gains to her husband in the stocks that were being transferred to him and she was taking the losses and the break-evens so that future tax obligations would be all in his column, and the lawyers didn't even think to look for that. Now most lawyers would don't get me wrong. But at the same time, it's an indication of how a focus on the law can take you away from an unintended consequence. Nobody certainly the lawyer representing the husband, didn't want him to have a bad outcome, but it just wasn't the focus.
Speaker 2:Exactly. And so when you add high conflict into a lack of knowledge and expertise and this is in no way disparaging lawyers or judges.
Speaker 1:Well, please disparage, please disparage.
Speaker 2:It's just a recognition of the reality. You know where there's conflict and disagreement and if the conflict you know so I do a lot of training and one of the things that we talk about are the different kinds of conflicts, so you know you can have conflict that's a conflict in the data, so the information. So if people are in a high conflict situation and they're arguing about the data, well, that's easy enough in quotation marks, right, and that somebody can go and get, let's say, it's a difference of belief on what the family home is worth. So one person can go and get an appraisal and the other person can get an appraisal and you hope that both appraisals are using the same formula and you've got something that you can work with, as opposed to people's just their opinions. Now, in a mediation context or in an interdisciplinary, collaborative context, you can agree to use the same expert, which is different than in the adversarial model, which is well, I'll get my expert, you get your expert, and we hope that they have different opinions, because then we're going to argue about them and so you're perpetuating that conflict in data.
Speaker 2:You might have conflict connected to structure, so how the system itself is laid out and the steps to follow, compared to in a mediation or a collaborative process where everybody's like looking at their calendars and coordinating in advance and you don't have they.
Speaker 2:I mean, certainly you might have a meeting that has to be rescheduled, but you are less likely to have these ongoing adjournment requests because people are trying to avoid and and they're sometimes strategically doing that because they know it's going to cause stress or pressure on the other party.
Speaker 2:So in an environment that's interest-based with the professionals that are involved, like this is the other thing that I think people lose sight of is that the parties themselves can still be quite positional and they can be escalated because they're emotionally dysregulated. But if the professionals that are working with them, their mediator or their collaborative professionals, are using interest based principles to design the process, then that will help the parties to be able to get somewhere. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to change their own mindset, but we're giving them a different process, a different structure to work within. Now, of course, if their conflict comes from a values difference, so they're both. You know I like to use the example because you know I have some children that are vegans and some that are meat eaters, and you know I can tell you you can put them in the room together all day long and you're not going to convince the other to see it the opposite way because they have difference of opinion.
Speaker 1:You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but I've never had any beef with any of them.
Speaker 2:Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1:Well, I'm a very classic dad.
Speaker 2:And so you could see where the ability to be able to agree, to disagree, can exist in an interest-based process, differently than in an adversarial process where somebody has to be right. So you have differences of values, and somebody's value is going to be checked off as well. This one is going to win, this is going to be the right one, and yet that's not going to actually change the losing party's closely held belief and attachment to that value. So then what happens the next day after they've received their court order or their decision, their judgment? The sun still comes up and they're still living in that environment where they have different values, but now they don't have any tools to function within that reality.
Speaker 1:I think that's a key the tools that the court has available versus the tools that people in mediation or in collaborative practice have. And you know, for example, this morning I just met with a couple and we were talking about their shared values. And you know, for example, this morning I just met with a couple and we were talking about their shared values, and I always make a list. I call them the big rocks. How do you get as many things into a container as you can? You start with your big rocks and then you work down to the smaller rocks, and I was talking to them about what were their shared just kind of no-brainer values, and we were able to have a really important conversation about what communication meant to each of them, what, what kind of disciplinary procedures they wanted to have with their children. You know how they saw the world differently, but then where they could see the world in the same way, and you would never get that opportunity in a litigated case to just be able to talk about, well, what do we agree on? That is just a no brainer value and to find that they actually had a very extensive list of things that they're now going to use as a mission statement, if you will as they move forward in their case, you know but to get to that point they have to overcome the fear that's created societally about entering a divorce process yeah
Speaker 3:need a strong lawyer to protect me. I don't trust him. She had an affair. Therefore she's probably lying about everything you know. It's those kind of concerns that drive people to that lawyer who promises the world and we know will not deliver and disappoint and will frustrate. Where they understand they can actually have a conversation about divorce before they have the conversation that gets down into the nitty-gritty of exactly what they're going to do. In other words, how are we going to divorce is the most important conversation Absolutely. And who are we going to work with and what kind of resources do we need at the table? Do we need them at the table? Resources do we need at the table? Do we need them at the table? Do we need them in the wings and available as needed? But to have that kind of evaluation done at the start of a case, you need to overcome the fear and it needs to be on one side one person takes two to tango, so one person doesn't, one is too scared to engage.
Speaker 3:And you're on that divorce escalator that I always talk about. That's always going down.
Speaker 2:And part of how we can help people to get to a different mindset about divorce is by the stories that are told. You know, right now, the stories that are told around. You know, at the coffee shop and people get together and they are talking about their terrible divorce because that's interesting to talk about and then that adds to that cultural notion that it has to be terrible. So you know, in my office one of the things that we like to do is we like to get people to tell their successful stories, you know, and post that on our website or talk about it on social media and really try to help people see how there can be a different outcome, a better outcome. You know what's interesting for me?
Speaker 2:My dad is 98 years old, he is a World War II vet and he was married before he met my mom and little tidbits, you know, family skeletons out of the closet. So my dad he was 17 years old, going into the army. He married a woman who was five years older than he was and then, when he separated from her, he married my mom who is 17 years younger than him. So you know, he got the best of both worlds there, I guess. But I grew up in a family that I had two half-brothers and I never knew their biological mom. She didn't really interact with our family, but there was never anything in my family and of course this was. You know, it was much more unusual back when my dad was separating and divorcing than maybe it is now, but I do remember one story that my parents would talk about, and that was how my dad's mom so my paternal grandmother sat my dad down when he told them that he was getting a divorce and he was from a very religious family as well, and so this wouldn't have been an easy thing to talk about, but my grandmother sat him down and said you know, she'll always be a part of our family, so you need to know that we support you, we love you and you know Diane, who's my mom's that's my mom's name like well, we accept her into the family as well. But the first wife was also always going to be in the family, and I must have heard that story really early on in my life. I can't remember exactly when, but it was.
Speaker 2:Something that always stuck with me is that, in the midst of growing up and knowing other people here and there that had parents who were separating and hearing the stories. It was actually incongruent for me from the beginning and one of my half-brothers he also separated when he was in his early 30s and they had a son together. And my second introduction to how families separate or reconfigure themselves was modeled by that brother who he and his former wife and each of their new partners. They traveled together and they spent holidays together because there was one child that they shared, and so they maximized his opportunities to spend time with both parents and really build memories, doing things that he wouldn't have been able to do if they were going to be angry at each other and perpetuate this conflict.
Speaker 2:So it's interesting to me something you ever do, that exercise where it's like, hey, how did I become a lawyer? And I'm not really sure. I mean I did different things before I became a lawyer and I never thought I'd practice family law. But when I think about it and I think about what I think was modeled for me and what I believe to be possible and true was much different than what we see in Hollywood movies or what people will talk about, and that does create a different sense of what is possible If people are afraid because all they're hearing are the stories of things going bad, then you're right, they're going to try to reach for power and really get the most aggressive as a way of protecting themselves.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it's fear-based, right. I mean, you brought up the point of interest-based negotiations and I think that's so important to focus on interest, because when you go to the courtroom, it's all about applying the law to something that's happened in the past, right? Whereas when you're talking about interests, you're talking about being hopeful for the future and what do I need in the future? And kind of recalibrating, getting people away from the pain that happened in the past and getting people focused on well, what do I need now? What's my proposal for my future situation?
Speaker 1:I think is a really powerful thing that we do in mediation and collaborative, by the way, we probably ought to define for some of our people that you know, if they listen to us all the time, then they probably already know what the collaborative practice is, but some might not. So mediation is where you meet with a neutral person, who's basically Switzerland, who facilitates a conversation and helps you reach an agreement, and that person can be an attorney, can be a therapist, can be a financial person, but more than anything, they're trained in dispute resolution can help facilitate the conversation. Collaborative practice, however, is when a team of people get together and you have attorneys that sign an agreement that says they're never going to go to court.
Speaker 3:Would that be lawyers.
Speaker 1:That would be lawyers.
Speaker 2:You can't Canada.
Speaker 1:The lawyer signing agreement. I don't know how you do it up there. I mean, what we do here is the lawyers prepare a stipulation that gets filed at court and says we're never going to go to court, we're forever disqualified from ever litigating the case. And then you would bring in coaches, mental health professionals, back as coaches. You'd bring in a financial person like Mark who would come in as a financial neutral, and everyone signs the same agreement that says we're never going to litigate, and I do think that changes the way the professionals interact with the case. It frees them to be able to be more interest-based, doesn't it?
Speaker 2:And also the nature of their correspondence with each other too. So you know, Mark, you mentioned earlier about, like, how lawyers will write letters and correspond, whereas on a collaborative case, I mean, I'm going to pick up the phone typically and I'm going to just chit chat with the other lawyer or the rest of the team. For that matter.
Speaker 3:So you're not. I can't tell you how many times the lawyer has said to the other lawyer oh, just ignore that nasty letter, I just did that for my client.
Speaker 2:I know that posturing and that does not do anything to help build the trust that is in such a vulnerable and damaged state. So I'd like to talk to clients about how they are actually in a trust deficit. I mean, if you were to draw out a graph that says the amount of time you know somebody and how much trust you have in them, people that don't even know each other will have a baseline level of trust because we'll typically, you know, at least here in Canada I don't know what it's like there for you folks, but we might be at the library and if I have to go to the washroom I might say to them hey, can you just watch my stuff? I'll have a base level of trust, but when people, by the time they get to us, they're in a deficit. So, helping them have some baby steps, some little successes, even the fact that they've shown up at a meeting can be a success. Your example, sean, of the. What are some of their shared values? I mean that is some trust building there and they come back to another meeting and they're building a little bit of trust.
Speaker 2:Comparing that to an adversarial model where each time an affidavit is filed, each time an argument is made each time a nasty letter is sent, you are further damaging the trust. So you're not rebuilding. So I guess this is making me think of your escalator example not rebuilding. So I guess this is making me think of your escalator example, because you know it's the same thing. It's just further losing what little trust there ever was. And if they have to continue to co-parent together for the rest of their lives, in whatever fashion that might be, to have not even a base level of trust is just such a terrible loss for them and for the children of the family yeah, I, you know, we, we often say on this podcast that people have the power to write the divorce story that their children will tell their grandchildren.
Speaker 1:I love it, you know, um, and we usually get one of two stories right. It's usually either oh my gosh, it was awful, my parents were always fighting. They record all the time it was a complete tug of war. And those are the kids and the research backs this up as well that struggle. And then the other story is you know, my parents got divorced. I'm not sure why exactly, but I never felt like I had to choose between my parents and I always knew I had two parents that loved me, and and on and on. And those people and the research backs this up do better in life and I think I think parents, when they're facing a divorce, can keep that in mind that they have a real, enormous amount of power to set the tone for the rest of their children's lives.
Speaker 3:And at some point, if their children are younger when they divorce, they're going to face that question at least internally.
Speaker 3:I remember I divorced from my first wife when Nick was two and a half three years old and when he was graduating. No, when he was in college, I took him out for sushi and I asked him the question so what was it like for you growing up, nick? Well, you and mom are so different. I can't imagine you guys ever being together. Once he got that off his chest, he said but basically what you said, but I never heard either of you say a bad word about the other, and I knew that you both loved me. Somehow. Somehow we did it right through all the challenges.
Speaker 3:This was before there was mediation. This was back in the early 80s when, you know, I went to see three lawyers and every single one of them said I have to represent you or the other. I go, no, we know how we want to do this and eventually I found a woman who didn't say no fast enough, and that was it. She just didn't say no fast enough and I had her and she wrote up the agreement and we both looked at it. We didn't have anything mainly debt but and a child of great import. But you know, somehow we managed to do it right without any of these resources that now exist for families that they can draw upon to do the same thing, and they have people with experience. We were flying blind on this. We just knew we didn't want to fight.
Speaker 1:Well, you know, what that tells me, mark, is that you were, your instincts led you to a better place, and I think a lot of our listeners out there have those same kind of instincts. They know what it ought to be, they know it shouldn't be a war, but a problem to be solved. But because of fear, or because of culture, or because of the legal system, or whatever the lawyer told them when they first met with that person, they get caught on the escalator.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And one of the messages that I hope that this podcast brings to the world is that you don't have to get on the escalator and if you're on the escalator, there is a way to get off Absolutely. And I think, charmaine, what you're bringing up the importance of consensual dispute resolution options like collaborative practice and mediation. It's so important for what it brings to the discussion, because what we do in the courtroom is not the right way to transition a family.
Speaker 2:And the social science research is that this is not the adversarial model, is not the one that results in happy, healthy, well-adjusted children. And we had some changes to our legislation here in Canada, our federal legislation a few years ago, and in the legislation itself it actually imposes duties on parents to protect their children from the conflict. But the irony is that the adversarial model is still the process that's there for them to work through to protect their children.
Speaker 3:Exactly.
Speaker 2:So, in Saskatchewan, our government introduced legislation that makes it mandatory for parents to participate in a dispute resolution process before they can even set foot into a courtroom. So they have options they can participate in mediation, a collaborative law process, work with a parent coordinator, or use arbitration, which, of course, is still a decision-making, adjudicative kind of a process, but it's one that is not in open court and there's more flexibility, and so there's still a different vibe, if you will, than the regular kind of litigation pathway, and so there's as you can expect, of course, there's always some pushback whenever you are making something mandatory, and if it's something mandatory that more traditionally, is thought of as a voluntary or consensual kind of process, then people say, well, how can you actually do mediation or collaborative practice if you're kind of being forced into it? But here's what I think, though, is that people don't know what they don't know. I mean, if you talk to somebody on the street about mediation, often they're still getting it mixed up with meditation, or they think you're talking medication, and I say to people all the time until Amazon stops auto-correcting me when I'm searching for books about mediation that we're still not fully, you know, as well enough known in society as we need to be. So making it mandatory for somebody to actually participate in something that gives them some hope perhaps Hope that they didn't realize was even possible, I think is a step in the right direction, and I think the majority of people and parents really do want to have something that they can engage in that doesn't cost them a whole bunch of money, doesn't drag on for years and isn't high conflict, and those people will still get caught up in an emotional escalation at times or have an amygdala hijack or there'll be something where they're good people behaving poorly, and if they can work with well-trained professionals that can get them back on track, it's going to benefit everybody.
Speaker 2:Now there's a smaller percentage of bad people who can't do anything but behave poorly, and those people are the ones that maybe have bigger issues, some bigger difficulties. This isn't just about being in conflict or even high conflict. This is about maybe having a personality disorder or something that actually compromises your ability to think in these ways, and I'm a huge fan of Bill Eddy's work.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, he's a good friend of ours, yeah.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah.
Speaker 1:San Diego with us, yeah.
Speaker 2:Oh, amazing. So you know, as you know, and probably many of your listeners do too, that Bill Eddy will talk about you know, just forget about it if there are certain personality types that he does not believe could have insight into their behavior and the impact of their behavior. And yet, even with those people you can engage in an out-of-court, non-adversarial process that, if you can identify what some of their needs are and help them using you know, I like the ear approach, that empathy and attention and respect, because people with difficult personalities tend to push people away, which then further escalates their strategies around conflict because they don't know what else to do. So, even in those very difficult situations, utilizing a process that can address needs that another process can't is worth a shot.
Speaker 1:You know I've had a lot of conversations with Bill about that very subject and even he will say his test is well, will they be better in court? Will be better for this person to be in court, even with the high conflict personality? And I can attest to the work I've done. I've been able to mediate cases with high conflict personalities, with people that just overtly narcissist or borderline or both, and it can be done. It's not necessarily easy.
Speaker 3:Well, it's rare that we were not able to. Sean and I do a lot of cases together where we're able to sort of tag team it, and there are times when your own stuff gets caught up in a case and there are times when Sean and I have turned to each other and say, said you know, this guy pushes my buttons yeah I mean this guy, yeah, when he does that, I don't like it.
Speaker 3:you need to step in and be the grown-up in the room because and so we get engaged in this dynamic that this couple are so familiar with and are so adept at playing their roles within that. It's very easy for us to get co-opted into that and to maintain neutrality. You have to be aggressive about it. You have to be an aggressive neutral. You can't be a passive neutral, you'll get co an aggressive neutral. You can't be a passive neutral, you'll get co-opted.
Speaker 1:Yes, I think that's very good yeah.
Speaker 2:And a big part of that is engaging in reflective practice.
Speaker 2:So one of the things that we teach and we run a mediation practice group because, you know, frankly, for a lot of people who practice mediation, unless you are part of a larger organization, it's kind of a solitary profession. So you know you do your work, but it's very helpful to have a group that you can come into and debrief, while protecting confidentiality of your clients. But, you know, just to be able to say, hey, what are two things that I did really well in that mediation or that worked well? And here's something that I would wish to do differently, or I want to try differently, or I want to get somebody's input into, because it is hard, like it's an active engagement. You have to have intentionality and especially when maybe you don't like one of the parties or both of the parties for that matter and keeping yourself out of it, reminding yourself that this is actually their conflict and how they choose to move forward, whether it's by way of having a written agreement or not, is actually that's their journey, to go on, and we're there to help facilitate it.
Speaker 1:that's their journey to go on and we're there to help facilitate it. Yeah, that's absolutely true. You know, I had an experience actually was a case I did with Bill. Bill Eddy was the mediator and I was working with Sean Skillen, who was also my. We do a lot of training together and I think if there were three people in California that could mediate a case with high conflict personalities we're the three and very difficult clients.
Speaker 1:And I was particularly triggered by the wife's behavior. She was very borderline, her behavior and my guy was very narcissistic and might've even been sociopathic. Wow, and and um, I couldn't figure out what it was. It was triggering me so much and Sean was like kick me under the table. What's going wrong with you? You're so upset. You're not usually like this and I finally realized what happened. I found a picture of my brother's ex-wife no, and it could have been her sister. Oh, wow, Dead ringer, you know. So I realized I was being triggered by things that this person hadn't even done. She was just guilty by looking like someone and, you know, as a practitioner, recognizing that you're human, you know I would do meditation before and after the meetings and it went better. I will also say we did not settle that case, because these people were pretty difficult.
Speaker 3:But it's a rarity Sean that we don't complete cases.
Speaker 1:It is rare.
Speaker 3:It's a rarity, I mean, we had that case that kept coming back and after six years we told them we can't do any more for you, remember?
Speaker 1:Oh yeah.
Speaker 3:But they're rarities.
Speaker 1:They're rarities.
Speaker 3:They're rarely we. It's not always the experience I hope for in in the case, you don't always get the change, you don't always get the realization that they can be better ex-spouses than they were spouses, which is, of course, the hope as we enter into this work and at the end of it it's triage sometimes Just get the deal done, get them across the finish line.
Speaker 1:Have you done the MSA yet?
Speaker 3:You know. So I get that, we get there. But the opportunity exists within this format or these two formats that doesn't exist for that kind of healing and growth to occur at all in the court process.
Speaker 1:Well, every now and then. You know, when we had Stu on our podcast with Mark and he talked about every now and then Stu Webb, the father of collaborative divorce, the grandfather of collaborative divorce, as we call him he said every now, and you get this moment where you just have this deep, deep, deep silence. It's this transformative moment where people finally hear each other and they're not fighting, and then something changes, you know, and that that is a brilliant moment, something I live for as a practitioner. I'm sure you and mark and charmaine experience that too, that when those happen, it it's a real pain, but it's wonderful to see people be able to get through a process in a way that doesn't destroy what was left of their relationship.
Speaker 3:That honors what they were able to achieve and honors what was good about the relationship. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there's more than one way to do this, and it's not necessarily go to court. Well, we have been talking for close to an hour. This is a good conversation. I'd love to have more of a conversation with you, but at some point I guess we have to stop.
Speaker 2:Well, and thank you so much for inviting me. Well, and thank you so much for, you know, inviting me, and certainly from the Canadian perspective. You know we're well known for making apologies about things and getting along with people, but even here we have high conflict situations and people who need a little bit of encouragement, and so I think, like I guess, a message that I'm hoping the listeners, wherever they're from and whatever their circumstances are, is that they can take away the message of there is hope, because there isn't at least in my opinion, there isn't a oh, mediation and collaborative practice is only for these people. I think that there's room for all types of conflict and it's really about the team of professionals that are working with you.
Speaker 1:I agree completely so. So, charmaine, I'm on your website right now. It's commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 2:That's right I know some people think that's an oxymoron, but I think it's a good selling feature.
Speaker 1:Well, I always say I'm the dolphin lawyer. I'm a dolphin instead of a shark. I like it. So, commonsenselawyercom. Is that where they should go if they want to book time with you.
Speaker 2:That's where they should go, Absolutely yes.
Speaker 1:Okay, great. And then, Mark, if somebody wanted to get a hold of you to talk about the financial aspects of their divorce, what?
Speaker 3:should they do, Go to my website pacdivorcecom P-A-C-D-I-V-O-R-Ccom, and there's a contact form on there.
Speaker 1:Okay, and if anybody wants to talk to me about mediation or the legal aspects of divorce, or the legal aspects of divorce, my website is WeberDisputeResolutioncom. All one word, weber, with one B dispute, like we had a fight and resolution, like we solved itcom, and we'll be happy to match you with a practitioner that can help you solve your case.
Speaker 2:And if you're just looking for some entertainment mixed in with some legal content, you can follow me on TikTok. My handle is at commonsenselawyercom, at commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 1:That's it All right, very good, well, thanks for being with us. Thank you. 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.