WHO MEETS WHO FIRST IN A COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE?

WHO MEETS WHO FIRST IN A COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE?

WHO MEETS WHO FIRST IN A COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE?
PRECLUDING THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS
Jerome H. Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A.
Florida Licensed Psychologist PY3449

WHO MEETS WHO FIRST?

Divorcing spouses come to the collaborative process via referral from friends or family, having found information on a web site, or because they think there is a “better way” to divorce and have found “collaborative”.

BUT once the process starts who meets who first once the process begins?

THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITATOR
A/K/A THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL

The Collaborative Divorce Model almost always involves the use of a neutral “communications facilitator” also referred to in some models of practice as a Mental Health Professional (MHP) who may have one or more of three primary roles

(a) divorce coach/communications specialist, and or

(b) child specialist, and or

(c) neutral expert.

While the timing of the MHP’s involvement (beginning, as needed, or as a consultant) may differ depending on (i) the nature of the case, and or (ii) the temperament and disposition of the spouses, and or (iii) the practice or theoretical orientation of the attorneys, and (iv) ultimately the clients’ ability to afford services. the MHP’s role is critical in shifting the parties’ mindset from one of fear and suspicion to one of openness and trust by hopefully helping the parties, and the attorneys, navigate through the inevitable raw emotions, fear, and sometimes overzealous advocacy, that may accompany the process so that more effort and time is spent on actual resolution.

The MHP’s neutrality – in whatever role or roles - will hopefully dramatically and positively affect the dynamics of the collaborative negotiations.

For most, if not all practice groups the MHP’s involvement is perceived as being absolutely fundamental to a successful collaboration because the MHP can bring a neutral voice to the table along with established skills as a mental health expert.

The questions remain however

• “In what order do you see the spouses?” and

• “Do you see them together or separately?”.

EXISTING PROTOCOLS FOR GUIDANCE
There are no practice protocols that address (or answer) the question posed above.

Protocols in the evolving field of collaborative law have not set forth a standardized manner of how mental health professionals participate and exercise their responsibilities in the collaborative process.

The establishment of rigid standards, let alone their imposition, could diminish the opportunity and incentive for innovation and for creative adaptations to unique circumstances .

Never the less, whatever the approach the goal of the mental health professional, is “to serve the interests of the clients in an impartial, unbiased, and independent manner” .

IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, AND INDEPENDENT:
If the goals of the MHP, and of the entire team on behalf of the participants, are to be achieved through an impartial, unbiased, and independent manner we have to look to what direction there is in either the collaborative literature, or in related fields:

The Texas Protocols of Practice for Mental Health Professionals to advise that “Mental health professionals should strive to maintain effective working relationships with the participants by avoiding the perception of bias” .

The nearest protocol for practice for licensed psychologists can be found in the APA’s Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings where, in a similar manner, psychologists are urged to avoid bias in family law proceedings as in:

¶5. Psychologists strive to function as impartial evaluators.
Rationale. Family law cases involve complex and emotionally charged disputes over highly personal matters, and the parties are often deeply invested in a specific outcome. The volatility of this situation is often exacerbated by a growing realization that there may be no resolution that will completely satisfy every person involved. In this contentious atmosphere, it is crucial that evaluators remain as free as possible of unwarranted bias or partiality.

Similarly for mental health professionals licensed in Florida (whether licensed under F.S. 490, or F.S. 491) are the AFCC’s Model Standards for Child Custody Evaluations (referring to evaluators’ responsibilities):
“Regardless of the manner in which arrangements for their services have been made and regardless of the source of remuneration, evaluators shall always function as impartial examiners”.

In sum if the participants’ perceptions of the mental health professional’s impartiality will be influenced by the nature of the mental health professional’s communications with the participants there must be no appearance of bias.

In my own work couples, with children and their parents in therapy, in the conduct of time sharing evaluations, and in my role as a parenting coordinator I have found that for any of the outcomes of these processes to be successful BOTH spouses / parents have to be engaged AND I have to create, and keep, a good working alliance with BOTH spouses / parents (despite the inevitable “bumps” along the way) throughout the course of my work with them.

I discovered early on in my career that meeting with one parent before the other (no matter the rationale – Mother before Father, or Father before Mother; OR Petitioner before Respondent, or Respondent before Petitioner) often as not doomed me to fighting an uphill battle with the parent (or spouse) who felt that they were “second in line” – often wondering what the “other” spouse or parent had said that might have poisoned the well.

Our clients in the collaborative process will one day be separating and going on to live separate lives - in the future – BUT now they must first come together (hopefully collaboratively) to agree on the terms of that separation

While I am certain that there are MHP’s who meet with one party first BEFORE the other, with an equally well reasoned rationale, my approach, based on my experience, and training, and NOT on any protocol (of which there are none) is to meet with both spouses / parents together – so that I can work under an umbrella that is not clouded by perceived bias.

Comments are closed.