October 31, 2024 • 52 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the Three Wisemen of Divorce Money, psych
and Law podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,marriage and family therapist
Pete Russos and attorney SeanWeber for a frank and casual
conversation about divorce,separation, co-parenting and the
(00:23):
difficult decisions real peoplelike you face during these
tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 60 years of divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
(00:46):
Well, it's that time of yearevery four years where so you're
not talking about Halloween.
I'm not talking about Halloween,but it is just as scary, if not
more Okay, where we'reinundated with commercials, even
if we don't live in a swingstate.
It's the political season, thepresidential election, and four
(01:13):
years ago we did a podcast onthis very subject and I'm
thinking it's probably a goodtime for an update.
You know, here we are in 2024.
A lot of the political dynamicsare still just as difficult, if
not more.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
So, if not more so I think that's true, Pete.
I think positions have becomeeven more entrenched over the
last four years.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
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 andI have political science
degrees.
Is that correct?
I have one, do you Yep Me?
too, Me too.
Oh, you too, pete.
All right, so we have threepolitical scientists, or at
least armchair politicalscientists, and I think one
thing we can be assured of isthat, no matter who wins the
(02:02):
presidential election, it's notgoing to just all of a sudden
make all the divisions go away.
In fact, it might exacerbatethe divisions.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yep, I agree.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
No matter who wins, it's going to be kind of bedlam,
I think, and it seems like it'sextraordinarily close.
The last time I looked at the538 forecast, it was a 52%
chance that Harris wins and a48% chance that Trump wins,
based on whatever their model is, and the polls look like
(02:32):
they're tied across the boardand it's just as close and all
the pundits are like we're notpredicting anything, we're not
going to predict nothing and thepolls have been so bad in
recent years that it's Well.
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
(02:52):
1% ahead in one poll or 2% aheadin another poll, you're still
within the margin of error.
So technically the polls won'tbe wrong.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Yeah, I want to know what that octopus that picks the
World Cup winners what they'repredicting for this?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
I think that we should just redo Groundhog Day
and basically decide it on thatbasis.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
If the yeah, one party wins if the groundhog sees
his shadow Exactly, or hershadow, or maybe it's a
non-binary groundhog?
Yes, yeah, and one party winsif it doesn't see the shadow.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, I mean it's one of a, really a slew of, or a
lot of different issues have thesame impact.
So you have one liberalDemocrat and a MAGA conservative
.
You have one religious personand one who is basically does
not believe.
You have differentdenominations, different
(04:04):
religions.
You have people from differentethnic backgrounds in America
who still fervently believe theinformation they receive from
the country they came from.
All those are the same kind ofconcept as what we're talking
about, right, sean?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
It's not just the political decisions today of
family value.
They don't tend to turn onfiscal policy.
I don't think I've seen adivorce where people are like,
well, he doesn't believe incutting taxes, so therefore I'm
not going to be married to him.
I've never heard that.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I did have a case where one guy thought it was
ridiculous to pay taxes and sohad been essentially cheating on
his taxes and having her signit for years, and then when she
found out this was a divorce,one of the reasons she wanted
the divorce.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
You know where I see political differences playing
out in terms of couples dynamicswould be when the partners are
not able to hold a sense ofrespect for the other person in
their viewpoint.
You know that they're able todisagree, disagree but still
respect the partner.
It's when they begin to loserespect for their partner
(05:31):
because of their viewpoints.
That is, I think, the kind ofslippery slope, if you will,
that leads to, and there'salways, I think, a broader
context.
It's never a singular issue,but I do think the thing that
ties the issues together is theloss of respect.
And then what I think it meansfor us in terms of divorce work
is when people are coming inconcerned about a position or a
(05:57):
viewpoint that the other personhas, they're wanting some kind
of remediation or adjudicationby the court that's going to
protect them and their childrenfrom exposure to certain things,
and we have to tell them inessence sorry, the court doesn't
(06:17):
have jurisdiction oversomething like this.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Yeah, or the court may have jurisdiction, but not
in a way that you like.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah .
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So we have a list that we kind of ad hoc put
together of issues that are kindof quasi-political or actually
overtly political that have comeup and caused complications in
a divorce case.
So the first one I want tothrow out is the issue of
whether to vaccinate or notvaccinate.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Actually, sean, can I broaden that a bit to just
broader issues around medicaltreatment?
And I'm thinking about how youknow the notion of joint legal
custody and how that applies toand how that applies to?
But whether it's you know,vaccinate or not, or a child
(07:07):
wants to get their ear pierced,one parent's for it, one parent
isn't that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That comes up and that kind of comes under values.
Yeah, so I think they're alittle bit distinguishable, like
the ear piercing versus thevaccine.
You know an?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
anti-vaxxer may not object to a to an ear piercing.
I I had a case, though, wherewife was a fervent believer in
alternative medicine and didn'twant to take to the child to a
regular doctor, and the husbandwas upset upset about that and I
.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I had a case where um one of the parties was an and
was against vaccination and didnot want to enroll the child in
public schools for fear that thechild would be forced to be
vaccinated.
And the husband was like I wantto vaccinate.
So here's where you know, yousaid you said, pete, you know
(08:00):
the court doesn't care aboutthese things.
The court will care aboutvaccinations, at least in
California.
So if there's a motion tovaccinate a child, the court is
going to side with vaccinationbecause 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 aside.
But if the court were to decidethis, the court would say go
(08:21):
vaccinate the kid.
And I think I've known peoplethat have like joint legal
custody or not.
They take their kid to getvaccinated without even asking
and then it's easier to ask forforgiveness than it is ask for
permission.
Nobody's going to complain, atleast on the court level, that
the child was vaccinated againstthe other parent's will.
Sorry, Pete, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
No, it's something like vaccination, is that I
imagine, as part of, I guess, toattend public school?
There are certain mandates.
What about the example Markgave, though, where one parent
wants to use alternativemedicine physicians and the
other parent wants to usetraditional Western?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
medicine.
It's going to come down to,depending on which jurisdiction
you're in the Daubert or Frytest for expert testimony Frye
test for expert testimonyMeaning is the expert that will
end up testifying in this caseabout what kind of medical
treatment the child shouldreceive, whether this is
something that is widelyaccepted or not.
And so I think you're going tofind in court at least in
(09:20):
California and I imagine in mostother jurisdictions you're
going to find the court sidingwith traditional medicine.
Again, I'm not making ajudgment call of what's right
here.
I'm just telling you that'swhat the courts do, and so
they're going to side withtraditional medicine.
So if you believe that crystalsare good enough and herbs and
whatever it is that you do, acourt may not agree a court may
(09:51):
not agree.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
The notion or the construct of joint legal custody
I know we've talked aboutbefore, sean, but could you do a
little refresher, andparticularly in the, you know
who gets to make a decisionabout, in this example, whether
a child goes.
You mentioned that somebody cango ahead and take a child, get
them vaccinated withoutinforming the other parent, and
(10:12):
then it's easier to ask forforgiveness rather than
permission, technically speaking.
Is the way that MSA istypically written makes that
possible?
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, the typical rule for joint legal custody and
this is most people, unlessthere's a really good reason why
one of the parents should nothave joint legal custody.
But typically what the courtsexpect is that the parties are
conferring with each other andagreeing on medical choices
before the medical choice ismade, unless it's like an
emergency situation.
If you're running somebody witha broken spleen to the hospital
(10:42):
and they take the spleen out,they're not going to expect you
to get permission or anappendectomy Right.
So there's there's anexpectation that there be
communication and cooperation,and if there's an objection,
then the court is going to haveto be put in a position to
decide if the parties can'tagree in a position to decide if
(11:08):
the parties can't agree.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Do you see, or how unusual is it for people to not
confer, to take action and thento find themselves in trouble
with the court because theyhaven't conferred with the other
?
Speaker 1 (11:16):
It depends on the nature of the issue, like one
question could be like do we domedication for ADHD or not?
There's enough of a wiggle roomin there that if you didn't
confer and didn't get permissionfrom the court and didn't
provide expert testimony orsomething like that that this
child actually needed Ritalin,and then you went and
administered Ritalin anyway, Ithink you could have a problem.
(11:38):
But let's say you go to thedoctor and the doctor prescribes
Ritalin and then one of the andthe doctor prescribes Ritalin
and then one of the partiesobjects to the prescription of
Ritalin and gets a secondopinion.
You know it can be a challenge,but again the courts tend to if
you're going to have atiebreaker, the judge isn't a
doctor, they're not going todecide, but they tend to side
(12:00):
with whoever the medicalprofessional is, unless there's
a difference of opinion betweenmedical professionals.
And then you're going to haveto apply evidence standards
based on what kind of experttestimony is allowed in.
Is this enough of a mainstreamconcern that the court is going
to side with it or not?
And this kind of goes to thepoint, pete of.
I always tell my clients stayin charge as soon as you don't
(12:25):
agree and you have to go to thecourt.
You've now turned over yourdecision to a stranger in black
robes who may not believe thesame way you do, you know.
But I think, like, like standardthings, like vaccinations I
mean I had one over the humanwith HPV, human papillomavirus,
and that one has had somecontroversy in the past because
(12:46):
it feels like, you know, is thiselective or not?
And I've never seen a courtupset with a parent for just
getting the HPV vaccine done.
And I've never seen a courtupset with a parent for just
getting the HPV vaccine done.
I've never seen a courtchastise anybody for getting a
vaccine done without permission.
And so you know, if I was Idon't advise people anymore
because I don't go to courtanymore really but if I were to
(13:08):
advise somebody who you knowagain not taking a side here,
just the pure law of it If I hada client who wanted the vaccine
versus the other client whodidn't want the vaccine, and I
was advising the client whowanted the vaccine, I would tell
them just go get it done, don'teven ask permission, just get
it done and then see whathappens after that, because I
don't think you would have anycourts objecting.
(13:31):
I think, by all means try toget permission, courts objecting
.
I think by all means try to getpermission, you know, but like,
if we're talking about COVIDvaccination or even more, not
even COVID like measles andpolio, courts are not going to
criticize someone for doing it.
In fact, they might criticizesomeone for not doing it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Didn't you have a move away issue, Sean, on
something where somebody wantedto move the child or the
children to a state where itwasn't mandatory?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
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 enrollthe child in public school or
not.
Oh gotcha, it was a matter of dowe enroll the child in public
school or not?
Oh gotcha, and then a parentwas ready to move away to
(14:26):
another jurisdiction where theremight be waivers for
requirements of vaccines.
And then this leads us into thenext issue that I think comes
up a lot, and it's kind of apolitical issue, it's kind of a
morality issue.
It depends on your point ofview, whether or not you support
your child in a gendertransition.
Do you engage in genderaffirming care or not?
And I've seen arguments thatare actually pretty compelling
(14:50):
on both sides.
I'll start with the side thatsays don't engage in gender
affirming care, and the pointthey make is well, a lot of this
is irreversible.
You have a minor who can'treally decide for themselves.
How right is this to take aminor and administer hormones
and other surgeries and thingslike that that could be
life-altering and irreversible?
(15:11):
And then you have the otherside that's like well, there's
also research that says if youdon't provide gender-affirming
care, you increase the risk ofsuicide and you increase the
risk of mental health problemsin other ways.
It seems like California isgenerally leaning towards
gender-affirming care.
We're California.
I think you might get adifferent outcome in Arkansas or
(15:35):
Florida, and I know of at leasttwo cases where one or both
parents were found to be abusiveof their child because they
chose to use the dead name ofthe child.
The child wanted to changetheir name to a gender of their
preferred gender and the parentsrefused to use that name and a
(16:06):
child welfare services workerfound that to be abusive.
And so then comes up well thenwe're moving to Texas, you know
that comes up.
But then what happens if theydon't agree?
You know like what?
If one of them is like all forthe gender affirming care and
the other one is not for thegender affirming care, how is
that going to play out in thecourt?
I think the court would sidewith at least in California,
(16:31):
would probably side with theperson that's more willing to do
gender affirming care If theydon't agree.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Peter, when you have these kind of disagreements with
your therapy couples, how doyou approach it?
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Well, the place that I always try to establish as a
foundation for the discussion isare these folks really able to
delineate between their genuineand focal concerns for their
child and how much of theirdisagreement really is a
(17:01):
manifestation or fueled byissues between the two of them?
And I think that if couples aregoing to be or co-parenting
partners are going to be able toresolve those kinds of
disagreements, it's because theyare really willing to focus
their attention on the interestof the child.
And that can often mean I'm abig believer and look, if you
(17:24):
have different opinion as itrelates to psychological
assessment or physical healthissues, who are the other
experts that you can consultwith to better understand what
is going on with your child andfor your child.
But people have to be willingto put their often their own
(17:45):
egos to the side in order to beable to work that
collaboratively and be moreobjective with their
co-parenting partner.
I think without that it'sreally difficult.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Well, and sometimes these issues bleed into
religious questions, likedifferent religious beliefs.
Oh my gosh, if my childtransitions their gender,
they're going to go to hell.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
And so and I'm not saying that's a good attitude or
not right but if you genuinelybelieve that this is, we're not
just fighting over, you know,some custody time, we're
fighting over our child'simmortal soul, and when the
parties can't agree on whatneeds to be done for the welfare
(18:28):
of the child's immortal soul,the court can't do anything with
that.
You know, there was a case I hadwhere we had two pastors of a
traditional Christiandenomination and one of them
decided to become Jehovah'sWitnesses and or a Jehovah's
(18:50):
Witness, and that caused allkinds of problems in their
co-parenting questions Are theygoing to celebrate Christmas or
not?
Health issues, are they goingto have a blood transfusion or
not, when there's an emergency.
It became a huge deal and againthat was a battle over the
(19:12):
child's soul.
It was more than just oh, wejust have differences of opinion
, it's.
They both felt compelled by Godhimself, but in different
directions.
But the court's not going todecide whether the Jehovah's
(19:33):
Witness perspective or thetraditional Christian
perspective is more valid.
But I think, scientifically, Ithink if there's going to be a
question about whether a kidgets a blood transfusion during
an emergency, the court willprobably side with the blood
transfusion.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
So here's something that is, you know, the other end
of the spectrum, the kinds ofissues that we're talking about,
but they come up very, verycommonly.
Um, a disagreement about thewhether or not a child can watch
a pg-13 movie or an r-ratedmovie.
You know the broader heading ofthe rules that mom and dad's
(20:12):
house being different Bedtimes.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah Seen battles over bedtimes.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Organic foods versus McDonald's.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
You took the kids to McDonald's.
You know we don't do that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
I've heard that one.
I need to have sole physicaland legal custody because he
went to Carl's Jr with the kids.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Doesn't work that way , the court.
Could you imagine if the courtwas like taking children away
from people that went to fastfood restaurants, how busy the
court would be?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
they're just not going to touch it yeah um well,
it also ties into the thequestion that you know the
comment that I have often madeto clients when they're having
challenges with their divorce,which is this doesn't start in a
vacuum.
There's a history here and itwould be unreasonable of either
(21:07):
of you to think that the divorceis going to be any easier than
the marriage was, and that'soften.
I don't know if it's a surprise, but people often react in a
surprised way when you say that.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
But I wonder, what do you do when there's like a
recent conversion, like myJehovah's Witness story where
she was recently converted to adifferent faith?
Or I had one case where the guysuddenly decided he was going
to be a survivalist and he wasbuilding bomb shelters in the
house and he was a prepper.
He was preparing for theapocalypse and um was was
storing ammo on site and wasweighing his kids trained in
(21:44):
weaponry, and um the otherperson 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 situationslike that?
Speaker 3 (21:56):
well, I think change like that you know.
so you're talking aboutsignificant unilateral changes
to the marital contract, if youwill, uh, but I think that that,
on smaller levels, those kindsof changes are things that
happen over the arc of arelationship and it's part of
the growth processes, if youwill, inherent to a relationship
(22:18):
.
And the bottom line, I think, isthat, regardless of whether or
not it's a big change or a smallchange, at the end of the day
the partners have to beevaluating whether or not
there's still enough of aconsensus between them about
what they want from theirrelationship, what's going to
satisfy them in life, such thatthere's enough of a consensus
(22:42):
that they can have arelationship that is at least
good enough for them both goingforward.
And so sometimes big changesmean, you know, people start a
relationship and they may viewit as being close to perfect a
relationship, and they may viewit as being close to perfect,
and then things begin to change.
And I really do think, and Iencourage people to think, in
(23:03):
terms of what is at least goodenough for you.
And so, if your partner hasbecome a survivalist, what is it
about that?
That renders for you therelationship or means that the
relationship can't be goodenough.
How curious are you about yourpartner's change in faith, and
what is it about that that makesthis relationship no longer
(23:25):
workable for you?
That you can make changes thatallow you to continue in a
relationship that is in someways changed but continues to be
at least good enough for youboth.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
You know, I have some personal experience in that
with my family, my own personalfamily.
You know my mom was quitedevout but then wasn't so devout
when she married my father andthen decided during the marriage
marriage after they had threekids that she was going to
become more devout in her faith.
And my father was like wait aminute, that's not what I signed
(24:03):
up for.
And so there were a number ofyears of tension, eventually
leading to an equilibrium wherethey were able to kind of accept
each other's point of views andthe kids had the choice of
following the path that theywanted to follow.
But I've also seen people insimilar circumstances where the
(24:24):
marriage didn't survive.
That, and I think thedifference is what you're
talking about, pete is that?
What are you willing to livewith in the change?
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Yeah, you know, the marriage that I'm so curious
about is James Carville and MaryMadeline.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Oh yeah, that's a fascinating one yeah, yeah, but
it survives.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Yeah, it survives and it thrives.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
In contrast is the Kellyanne Conway, and what's his
name?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
George Conway yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And they started as Republicans and then she became
MAGA with Trump and becameTrump's campaign advisor.
And then he went the otherdirection, became a never
Trumper and the marriage didn'tsurvive and it appeared that
their daughters suffered fromsignificant stress because of I
don't know.
I don't know enough to be ableto say I don't want to come here
(25:19):
and publicly announce that theydestroyed their kid or
something stupid like that.
I'm not trying to say that.
I'm just trying to say thatthere was some tension there and
they ended up getting divorced.
So what was the difference?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Yeah, yeah, sean, you've also pointed out in the
past that sometimes thepolitical views or beliefs of
the attorneys can be a challenge.
Yes, you know where you, youknow.
I don't know if it was a Muslimand a Jewish attorney, but
(25:51):
there was some similar sort ofsituation where the attorneys
were actually more of a problem.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
I don't want to out the attorneys, so I will just
say let's just say they were ontwo different political points
of view on the world stage, liketwo different nationalities
that were warring factions, andtheir behavior during the
negotiations were challenging.
Their behaviors werechallenging and I think it was
(26:19):
exacerbated by theseinternational political
differences.
I also had a case where therewas a husband and wife.
The husband was a specialforces IDF, you know, Israeli
Defense Force person and thewife was much more of a liberal
Israeli he was very much aNetanyahu fan and she was very
(26:40):
much not and that ultimately ledto their divorce because she
believed in a two-state solutionand he thought that was next to
treasonous and blasphemous.
That was an irreconcilabledifference for them.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
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 knowhow having the right resources
at the table enable clients toget through even terribly
difficult situations like this.
But, as you can see, in thiscase the problems are legal and
(27:20):
emotional, not so much financial, although they can have
financial impact.
You know, I'm sure thesurvivalists were spending lots
of money on guns and ammo thatperhaps the wife didn't agree on
.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
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 wouldrefuse to just have a
traditional 401k.
Everything was in gold andsilver.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
So they had some differences of opinion regarding
investment.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
But.
But having somebody at thetable can help the clients, you
know, in a way that Pete talkedabout of, of of trying to see
what they can live with, becausethat's really what, candidly,
divorce ends up being.
I don't like this settlementfinancially, but I guess I can
(28:08):
live with it.
How many times have we heardthat?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Well, and how many times have we told clients that
we're doing our job?
You're both both going to be alittle disappointed in the
outcome.
Yeah, yeah, I think, when youget away, I think and this is
kind of a thing like mediationit's more successful when people
are not black and whitethinkers.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
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, thatmeans I lost.
If you lose something, thatmeans I win.
And it's not that there's grays, and so when helping the
clients be able to see the graysis helpful, now, I don't think
(28:49):
I'm going to get into asituation where I'm trying to
help them see the grays in theirone's a MAGA and the other is a
liberal democrat progressive.
I don't want to get into like apolitical reconciliation,
because I think that's notappropriate for me to do,
because I think that's notappropriate for me to do, but
(29:12):
getting into, okay.
So you believe in thisparticular value for your family
and you believe in thisparticular value that seems at
odds.
Is there a way for us to find avalue that you both could live
with, that you could sign on asa family?
Because, guess what, with thedivorce, your family is not
ending.
Everybody is still here.
You know just being able tolearn how to disagree agreeably.
And I think, pete, you hit onsomething at the beginning of
our conversation.
(29:32):
It's about respect.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yes, yep.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
And I mean this is a very broad generalization, but
I'm trying to think if I've everhad a case where, you know, a
couple has come in and they'veidentified the, the singular
issue that's led to the demiseof their relationship, you know,
like everything was workinggreat until that's not what it
happened, you know.
(29:55):
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 otherissues, and that goes to, to
mark your, your point, you knowthat that in some ways and I
don't want this to sound glib orcavalier, but it's always
interesting to me that peopleare surprised, or when people
(30:17):
are surprised by the fact thatthey're struggling around
something, when, if you take alook at the history and the
dynamic and the challenges thatthat they might've had
historically being curious witheach other, showing each other
respect that they're surprisedthen that that they're having
this specific tension around anissue and wanting to end their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
I've heard you say on a number of cases that we've
been involved in Pete.
You'll say you know, it's notthat you don't communicate well,
you communicate in a veryexcellent way.
It's just you don't agreeExactly and you think that means
you don't communicate, it justmeans, you don't agree.
And so then the question is ifyou don't agree, is that okay?
Speaker 3 (30:58):
And why does a lack of agreement somehow become a
justification for disrespectingor losing respect for the other
person?
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Well, I think the reason for that is that our
political discourse has becomemore and more strident and more
and more.
You're with us or you'reagainst us.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
It's very siloed.
Exactly, you know like, youwatch television, and you tend
to watch the networks that youagree with.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
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'regoing to watch Fox.
If you're progressive, you'regoing to watch MSNBC.
Right, and you tend to listento those podcasts.
I noticed that, looking at myYouTube history, I get YouTube
stuff suggested to me.
Well, youtube's going tosuggest the things that it
thinks I want to watch, and so Ialways get a particular point
(31:47):
of view suggested to me.
Well, YouTube is going tosuggest the things that it
thinks I want to watch, and so Ialways get a particular point
of view suggested to me and I'mlike, oh my gosh, youtube even
knows yeah, yeah, understandswhere my silo is, and I try to
(32:09):
resist that.
If, if, if I'm getting a bunchof suggestions, I try to then
watch things that are notnecessarily suggested to me so I
get a different point of view.
It's the mediator in me alwayswanting to find the grays.
I I try to watch all thenetworks, not just one of them,
even when I want to throwsomething at the television
because I don't agree with themas I was once told, it's just a
machine.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It can't hear you, right?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Well, you know, that's another point, mark, that
I think is important for us tobring up, and that is that the
mediator you know, when you'reworking with a neutral mediator
like us, yeah, the mediator isgoing to have political points
of view, and how do you remainneutral as a mediator when you
(32:52):
have somebody before you thatyou just fundamentally disagree
with?
Speaker 2 (32:55):
And the interesting thing I've found in mediation is
, if they, like me, they bothassume that whatever their view
is my view too, and I don'tdisavow them of that.
I allow that fantasy tocontinue because it allows me to
maintain the neutrality I needin the process, and if I
violated that, it would go away.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
I have had.
I can count on one hand thecases.
One of them was with a vaccinecase where they asked me, well,
what's your point of view onthis?
And I have to come back and Ihave to say, well, my point of
view doesn't matter, but Ishould disclose that.
So sometimes I feel like I needto disclose this is a life
(33:38):
experience that I've had that'sled me to a certain point of
view, and so you should knowthat, that I have that bias.
But I am working not to let thebias affect my work with you,
um, but you have the right toknow that I have that bias and
then you can choose whether youwant to continue with me as a
mediator and and most of thetime people really respect that
when I do it but I don't I dothat very rarely I've never done
(34:01):
it only when I think it reallycan affect.
um, it could affect the case,but I try not to let them ever
see me sweat.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
I just push back very hard, if that question ever
comes back.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
It's irrelevant what I think.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
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 scaleone way or the other, it would
only make the case moredifficult.
That's exactly what I tellpeople.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
And there's a lot of wisdom in that, Mark.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Well, it avoids me having to get into a situation
where I'm taking a side, andonce you've taken a side on one
thing, your neutrality iscompromised I always want to
know um what is the theimportance of that information
(34:57):
for that person you know mypoint of view, what is important
?
Speaker 3 (35:02):
what would tell me what it would mean?
What does what does that matter?
If it matters, tell me whatthat is and what Does that
matter?
If it matters, tell me whatthat is.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
What kind of responses have you had to that
question?
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Well, this is the way I preface it.
I'll say well, I'm not going tododge your question, but I want
to understand more about it.
And then, in going through itand it's not like this has
happened a lot of times, butmost of the time people withdraw
(35:32):
the question.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
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 (35:44):
Well, actually, where I like to go with it is, you
know, it's interesting, there'sthis parallel processes that are
happening.
Each of the parties is havingto really think about whether or
not they believe I have theirbest interests at heart.
What I say is you know, ifyou've got to think about that
question and if you don't thinkI have your best interests at
(36:05):
heart, I would be the first oneto say you shouldn't be working
with me.
And they also are making thatassessment of each other as well
.
So it's a way of bringing that,what I think is a really
important question for people toground themselves in, to settle
themselves down when they hearsomething that maybe pisses them
off or makes them uncomfortableor afraid, but also evaluating
(36:27):
my role with them.
So, again, I make it clear I'llanswer the question, but before
we go there, let's talk aboutthis now what's happening
between us?
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
A challenge I've had is I attended a seminar where we
were talking about beingdiverse and open and not having
microaggressions.
Is I attended a seminar wherewe were talking about being, you
know, diverse and open and nothaving microaggressions?
Speaker 3 (36:51):
And.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
I left that seminar with the admonition to make sure
I put my pronouns on my Zoomprofile so that when they see me
they'll see Sean Weber and thenhe him profile, so that when
they see me they'll see SeanWeber and then he him, and the
(37:12):
problem I've had with that thenis that does show a certain
point of view and you can say,well, you're right to do that
and you should just stand forthat.
But I've had clients that havereally lost respect for me
because I did that.
And so I've learned to be verycareful and judicious in how I
use the pronouns.
You know, because sometimes youknow if you get, say, you've
(37:35):
got a person, you get a couple,and you don't know what their
political views are or whattheir moral views are, and that
can be a lightning rod that canbe triggering.
And then I know I see thecounterpoint Well, it can be
triggering if rod that can betriggering.
And then I know I see the thecounterpoint Well, it can be
triggering if you don't do it,and so I don't know what to do
with it.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
To be honest, yeah, I mean I think that the position
that I've taken, one that justresonates for me, is you know,
I'll ask, I will answer thequestion if anybody asks me, and
I try to remember to ask thequestion, but I don't do a
really good job of rememberingto do that all the time and
(38:21):
again.
I guess my hope is and that'shard if you're meeting somebody
for the first time and there'sgoing to be that snap initial
judgment but my hope is that, asa relationship developed, there
are graces and allowances thatyou know we're making towards
clients and that clients aremaking towards us, the
(38:42):
inevitable missteps that happeninteractionally.
And I think those are powerfulprocess moment, parallel process
, moments when we make a mistakeor somebody's feelings get hurt
and we deal with it in anappropriate and respectful way
and the person on the other sidesees us doing that.
I think that's powerfulmodeling.
(39:03):
I mean these are humaninteractions.
Right, that's powerful modeling.
I mean these are humaninteractions right.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
I've seen that work too, when you do a mea culpa and
it doesn't really matter withwhich party it is.
You're right.
I think it elevates yourneutrality.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah Well, and then the challenge for the
practitioner really is beingable to have I say it's the two
like two television screens inyour thinking, and one side is
the very neutral screen.
That's what you're presentingto the couple and you're not
letting any of your biases showup on the first screen.
(39:43):
And then you have a secondscreen that's kind of like your
private secret screen that youhave, and that's where you're
like oh my God, I can't believethey said that kind of thing
when you let your biases be.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
You know, and I realized that I mean my role is
different from both of yourroles as true neutrals.
And in my role, this is part ofwhat I talk about with people.
You know, as we've talked aboutsee, how honest do you want me
to be with you now?
And I'm thinking about it morein terms of the notion of
(40:18):
judgments I think people arepaying me for my judgments,
people are paying you guys foryour judgments, but when I'm
working with people in the realmof you know, self-management
and emotions and reactivity,there are those times where the
worst thing I could do would beto be neutral.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
I see that when I play the role of an attorney,
yeah, I can't be neutral.
And I also think there's adifference.
When you think of neutrality interms of a car engine, that
means you're not engaged at all.
You're just kind of rollingdown the highway, right, right,
when your car is in neutral, andthen when you put it in gear,
then you're engaged.
And I think neutrality for amediator does not mean you're
(41:01):
not engaged.
Right, right, you're engaged.
And I think neutrality for amediator does not mean you're
not engaged Right, right, right,you're driving the car
somewhere.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
It's just, you're not choosing where we're going.
Exactly the destination.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
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 (41:18):
Okay, If we can't agree then we put the brake on
and we just park the car and inthe metaphor, sometimes I have
to say you're going in the wrongdirection.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yes, that's the difference right Between the
role of a mediator and the roleof someone who's aligned or in
the role of providing a healingheart right.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
Although there are times when I will say you know,
we can carry on down this roadif you think it's being
productive when it's obviouslynot, frankly, and so I will try
to stop people going indirections that are
counterproductive if I make theexecutive decision that this is
(41:59):
not a conversation that's goingto be helpful and that's what
they're paying me for in a way.
You don't want to go through atwo-hour session and achieve
nothing.
They had a fight in front of athird party who wouldn't put
their finger on the scale.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
Well, yeah, we're in control of the process, they're
in control of the outcomes.
Speaker 2 (42:15):
Exactly.
Somebody wrote a wonderfularticle about that some years
ago that I still quote.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
Oh yeah, article about that some years ago that I
still quote oh yeah, it's agentleman by the name of peter
broussos about a wife and familytherapist, indeed about, about
the airplane analogy rightcharger 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 tooperate the aircraft you don't
tell them there won't be aco-pilot, that they're not going
to stop to refuel, but you tellthem there won't be a co-pilot,
that they're not going to stopto refuel.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
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 (42:49):
Like no, you're going to New Orleans, yeah, yeah, no,
that was a good article.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
Yeah, yeah, I mean that was.
It's interesting.
Over the years, how many peoplehave contacted me asking to use
it, Cause I think it reallydescribes what we do and it was
very helpful because we were, atthat time, all struggling with.
Speaker 2 (43:14):
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 theclients want to do something
that we firmly, as professionals, believe is counterproductive?
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Although I remember when we were looking at models
for collaborative practice, pete, you and I had a conversation.
I said well, what happens whenyour airplane turns into a
slow-moving barge with nocaptain?
Or seven captains just floatingdown a river with no rudder.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
Well.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Well, gentlemen, I think we've done it again.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
We have that was yeah , peter, you want to say
something.
Speaker 3 (43:51):
No, no, yeah, I was literally yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
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 Statesthey're triggered on some level
about the politics.
Yeah, it seems to be apervasive thing.
I do think you ever watch StarTrek.
Remember that Star Trek wherethey went down to the paradise
planet and even Spock got thespores in his brain and all of a
(44:16):
sudden now he's loving peopleand smiling and being emotional
and he wants to live on the andthe whole crew has gotten the
spores in him and they're goingto live on this planet and live
in paradise.
And Kirk is the only one that'simmune to it and that's because
he's basically pissed off thathe's lost his ship and he
realized that the thing thatbroke people out of their trance
(44:36):
was to irritate them.
I do remember this, rememberthat, and he got in a fight had
spock like almost kill himbecause he got him into a fight,
called his mother a computerand his father a dictionary or
something like that.
And and then they fit.
He and spock figured out nowthat spock has been broken from
the cure, that they could send asignal to the planet which was
a very high-pitched sound.
(44:57):
It was barely audible and itwasn't.
It was was a bad sound, it wasjust enough to irritate you.
And I think that's what's goingon right now.
There's this high pitch soundout there that's just irritating
everybody and making them wantto fight with each other and and
it it.
I do think it's bleeding intomarriages and I do think at
(45:18):
least during the COVID andbeyond, people's marriages were
struggling because of it.
But also the people's reactionsto what used to be kind of
benign questions are far moretriggering for them than they
used to be.
I have no science to back thisup.
It's purely anecdotal, but thisis kind of what I'm
experiencing.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
And I think to me, part of it is just heightened
anxiety.
When we started, you guys askedme if I'm seeing a lot of
people that are coming in andtalking about political issues
clients and I remember and Isaid you know there's been very
little of that, but I'mremembering and this absolutely
parallels four years ago howliterally the months leading up
(45:58):
to the election my practice gotslower and literally the day
after the election I got busyagain and I think that there was
this wait and see attitude.
I think people were anxious.
They're wondering how is thisgoing to play out.
They were putting things off,that's.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
But it was literally like clockwork.
Yeah, there's a.
I'll share a personal story.
I dated a lady back in theearly nineties and about two or
three years ago we bumped intoeach other in a grocery store
and we decided to have lunch.
Now we dated and even livedtogether for a few months when
(46:42):
she was changing her place.
Politics never came up At ourlunch.
Politics came up immediatelyand we were kind of both betting
each other to see which side ofthe spectrum we fell on.
It wouldn't have even come upback 30 years ago.
Now it's a qualifying questionfor who you date.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
You put it on your matchcom profile.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
What your politics are, because and this is kind of
a you know, trump voters don'twant to date progressives, and
vice versa.
Yeah, and I think it is a greatrealignment.
I think people are siloingagain.
You know siloing Not only areyou watching the television
(47:27):
programs that you agree with,but you're also dating the
people that you agree with, andyou're less likely to want to be
in a long-term relationshipwith someone that you disagree
with fundamentally aboutpolitics or morality or whatever
it is.
And I don't know, is that a badthing?
I think it is, probably.
I think it is.
Speaker 2 (47:46):
I really do.
I believe that if we can't getalong on an interpersonal basis,
society is in a worse place.
Speaker 3 (47:59):
You're talking about a progression of intolerance.
Yes, that is, I think, reallyworrisome.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
I can't tell you how many times I've talked to a
client about how compromise is agood thing, it's not a bad
thing, and the conversationinevitably ends with the client
saying could you please dosomething about Washington as a
mediator?
Like well, they won't hire mefor that.
But I do think that there isthe work we do in divorce,
(48:31):
mediation or any kind ofmediation to understand that
peace is not the absence ofconflict, it's the absence of
solutions to the conflict, andthat you don't always get what
you want and sometimes acompromise means up, giving up
something that you want so thatyou get more of something else,
and that that's okay.
It's not a bad word tocompromise, it's a good thing.
(48:52):
I think, until people start toembrace that or understand that
or be at peace with that and notmaking everything about a
battle of good and evil thisfalse binary with that, and not
making everything about a battleof good and evil this false
binary, I think until thathappens we're going to keep
struggling politically in thiscountry and I think it'll keep
the divorce attorneys busy.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
Well, it's a full employment act for us, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (49:17):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yeah, badly yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:19):
Well, on that happy note.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Yeah, you're right, we have done it again, and I
think I made us do it longer.
Speaker 1 (49:27):
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 toaffect me.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
What are my?
Speaker 1 (49:39):
exit strategies and do I have enough ammunition?
Speaker 2 (49:43):
affect me and what are my exit strategies, and do I
have enough ammunition?
If, two weeks from today, youdon't appear on the podcast?
Um, then I will know that.
What has happened so?
Speaker 1 (49:48):
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 myobservation of politics over the
year.
It's never as bad as they sayit is and it's never as good as
they say it is, Except whenyou're talking about our program
.
It's every bit as good as wesay it is.
(50:09):
And then some, and then some.
All right, well, pete, if theywanted to get a hold of you to
talk about their emotionaltriggering while they're going
through the political season,what should they?
Speaker 3 (50:18):
do.
Easiest way to get a hold of meis through my website,
peterrousoscomP-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, and
the Contact Me page on mywebsite.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
And Mark if they're worried about the status of
their wealth as they considertheir divorce and which
administration will becontrolling the economy, what
should they do?
Speaker 2 (50:45):
They should go to my website, Pacific Divorce
Management.
The website is packdivorce, allone word dot com, and there's a
contact form on there.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
And if you need a mediator with a legal background
, contactWeberDisputeResolutioncom.
That'sWeberDisputeResolutioncom,
that's WeberDisputeResolutioncom, and we'll match you with the
appropriate mediator to settleyour dispute.
Although I don't know if we'regoing to be able to fix
Thanksgiving All, right, well,until next time.
(51:15):
Thanks everybody.
Speaker 2 (51:16):
Bye-bye.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Thanks for listening to another episode of the Three
Wisemen of Divorce.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
(51:39):
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Thank you.
Welcome to the Three Wisemen of Divorce Money, psych
and Law podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,marriage and family therapist
Pete Russos and attorney SeanWeber for a frank and casual
conversation about divorce,separation, co-parenting and the
(00:23):
difficult decisions real peoplelike you face during these
tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 60 years of divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
(00:46):
Well, it's that time of yearevery four years where so you're
not talking about Halloween.
I'm not talking about Halloween,but it is just as scary, if not
more Okay, where we'reinundated with commercials, even
if we don't live in a swingstate.
It's the political season, thepresidential election, and four
(01:13):
years ago we did a podcast onthis very subject and I'm
thinking it's probably a goodtime for an update.
You know, here we are in 2024.
A lot of the political dynamicsare still just as difficult, if
not more.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
So, if not more so I think that's true, Pete.
I think positions have becomeeven more entrenched over the
last four years.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
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 andI have political science
degrees.
Is that correct?
I have one, do you Yep Me?
too, Me too.
Oh, you too, pete.
All right, so we have threepolitical scientists, or at
least armchair politicalscientists, and I think one
thing we can be assured of isthat, no matter who wins the
(02:02):
presidential election, it's notgoing to just all of a sudden
make all the divisions go away.
In fact, it might exacerbatethe divisions.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yep, I agree.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
No matter who wins, it's going to be kind of bedlam,
I think, and it seems like it'sextraordinarily close.
The last time I looked at the538 forecast, it was a 52%
chance that Harris wins and a48% chance that Trump wins,
based on whatever their model is, and the polls look like
(02:32):
they're tied across the boardand it's just as close and all
the pundits are like we're notpredicting anything, we're not
going to predict nothing and thepolls have been so bad in
recent years that it's Well.
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
(02:52):
1% ahead in one poll or 2% aheadin another poll, you're still
within the margin of error.
So technically the polls won'tbe wrong.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Yeah, I want to know what that octopus that picks the
World Cup winners what they'repredicting for this?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
I think that we should just redo Groundhog Day
and basically decide it on thatbasis.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
If the yeah, one party wins if the groundhog sees
his shadow Exactly, or hershadow, or maybe it's a
non-binary groundhog?
Yes, yeah, and one party winsif it doesn't see the shadow.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, I mean it's one of a, really a slew of, or a
lot of different issues have thesame impact.
So you have one liberalDemocrat and a MAGA conservative
.
You have one religious personand one who is basically does
not believe.
You have differentdenominations, different
(04:04):
religions.
You have people from differentethnic backgrounds in America
who still fervently believe theinformation they receive from
the country they came from.
All those are the same kind ofconcept as what we're talking
about, right, sean?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
It's not just the political decisions today of
family value.
They don't tend to turn onfiscal policy.
I don't think I've seen adivorce where people are like,
well, he doesn't believe incutting taxes, so therefore I'm
not going to be married to him.
I've never heard that.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I did have a case where one guy thought it was
ridiculous to pay taxes and sohad been essentially cheating on
his taxes and having her signit for years, and then when she
found out this was a divorce,one of the reasons she wanted
the divorce.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
You know where I see political differences playing
out in terms of couples dynamicswould be when the partners are
not able to hold a sense ofrespect for the other person in
their viewpoint.
You know that they're able todisagree, disagree but still
respect the partner.
It's when they begin to loserespect for their partner
(05:31):
because of their viewpoints.
That is, I think, the kind ofslippery slope, if you will,
that leads to, and there'salways, I think, a broader
context.
It's never a singular issue,but I do think the thing that
ties the issues together is theloss of respect.
And then what I think it meansfor us in terms of divorce work
is when people are coming inconcerned about a position or a
(05:57):
viewpoint that the other personhas, they're wanting some kind
of remediation or adjudicationby the court that's going to
protect them and their childrenfrom exposure to certain things,
and we have to tell them inessence sorry, the court doesn't
(06:17):
have jurisdiction oversomething like this.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Yeah, or the court may have jurisdiction, but not
in a way that you like.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah .
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So we have a list that we kind of ad hoc put
together of issues that are kindof quasi-political or actually
overtly political that have comeup and caused complications in
a divorce case.
So the first one I want tothrow out is the issue of
whether to vaccinate or notvaccinate.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Actually, sean, can I broaden that a bit to just
broader issues around medicaltreatment?
And I'm thinking about how youknow the notion of joint legal
custody and how that applies toand how that applies to?
But whether it's you know,vaccinate or not, or a child
(07:07):
wants to get their ear pierced,one parent's for it, one parent
isn't that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That comes up and that kind of comes under values.
Yeah, so I think they're alittle bit distinguishable, like
the ear piercing versus thevaccine.
You know an?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
anti-vaxxer may not object to a to an ear piercing.
I I had a case, though, wherewife was a fervent believer in
alternative medicine and didn'twant to take to the child to a
regular doctor, and the husbandwas upset upset about that and I
.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I had a case where um one of the parties was an and
was against vaccination and didnot want to enroll the child in
public schools for fear that thechild would be forced to be
vaccinated.
And the husband was like I wantto vaccinate.
So here's where you know, yousaid you said, pete, you know
(08:00):
the court doesn't care aboutthese things.
The court will care aboutvaccinations, at least in
California.
So if there's a motion tovaccinate a child, the court is
going to side with vaccinationbecause 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 aside.
But if the court were to decidethis, the court would say go
(08:21):
vaccinate the kid.
And I think I've known peoplethat have like joint legal
custody or not.
They take their kid to getvaccinated without even asking
and then it's easier to ask forforgiveness than it is ask for
permission.
Nobody's going to complain, atleast on the court level, that
the child was vaccinated againstthe other parent's will.
Sorry, Pete, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
No, it's something like vaccination, is that I
imagine, as part of, I guess, toattend public school?
There are certain mandates.
What about the example Markgave, though, where one parent
wants to use alternativemedicine physicians and the
other parent wants to usetraditional Western?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
medicine.
It's going to come down to,depending on which jurisdiction
you're in the Daubert or Frytest for expert testimony Frye
test for expert testimonyMeaning is the expert that will
end up testifying in this caseabout what kind of medical
treatment the child shouldreceive, whether this is
something that is widelyaccepted or not.
And so I think you're going tofind in court at least in
(09:20):
California and I imagine in mostother jurisdictions you're
going to find the court sidingwith traditional medicine.
Again, I'm not making ajudgment call of what's right
here.
I'm just telling you that'swhat the courts do, and so
they're going to side withtraditional medicine.
So if you believe that crystalsare good enough and herbs and
whatever it is that you do, acourt may not agree a court may
(09:51):
not agree.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
The notion or the construct of joint legal custody
I know we've talked aboutbefore, sean, but could you do a
little refresher, andparticularly in the, you know
who gets to make a decisionabout, in this example, whether
a child goes.
You mentioned that somebody cango ahead and take a child, get
them vaccinated withoutinforming the other parent, and
(10:12):
then it's easier to ask forforgiveness rather than
permission, technically speaking.
Is the way that MSA istypically written makes that
possible?
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, the typical rule for joint legal custody and
this is most people, unlessthere's a really good reason why
one of the parents should nothave joint legal custody.
But typically what the courtsexpect is that the parties are
conferring with each other andagreeing on medical choices
before the medical choice ismade, unless it's like an
emergency situation.
If you're running somebody witha broken spleen to the hospital
(10:42):
and they take the spleen out,they're not going to expect you
to get permission or anappendectomy Right.
So there's there's anexpectation that there be
communication and cooperation,and if there's an objection,
then the court is going to haveto be put in a position to
decide if the parties can'tagree in a position to decide if
(11:08):
the parties can't agree.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Do you see, or how unusual is it for people to not
confer, to take action and thento find themselves in trouble
with the court because theyhaven't conferred with the other
?
Speaker 1 (11:16):
It depends on the nature of the issue, like one
question could be like do we domedication for ADHD or not?
There's enough of a wiggle roomin there that if you didn't
confer and didn't get permissionfrom the court and didn't
provide expert testimony orsomething like that that this
child actually needed Ritalin,and then you went and
administered Ritalin anyway, Ithink you could have a problem.
(11:38):
But let's say you go to thedoctor and the doctor prescribes
Ritalin and then one of the andthe doctor prescribes Ritalin
and then one of the partiesobjects to the prescription of
Ritalin and gets a secondopinion.
You know it can be a challenge,but again the courts tend to if
you're going to have atiebreaker, the judge isn't a
doctor, they're not going todecide, but they tend to side
(12:00):
with whoever the medicalprofessional is, unless there's
a difference of opinion betweenmedical professionals.
And then you're going to haveto apply evidence standards
based on what kind of experttestimony is allowed in.
Is this enough of a mainstreamconcern that the court is going
to side with it or not?
And this kind of goes to thepoint, pete of.
I always tell my clients stayin charge as soon as you don't
(12:25):
agree and you have to go to thecourt.
You've now turned over yourdecision to a stranger in black
robes who may not believe thesame way you do, you know.
But I think, like, like standardthings, like vaccinations I
mean I had one over the humanwith HPV, human papillomavirus,
and that one has had somecontroversy in the past because
(12:46):
it feels like, you know, is thiselective or not?
And I've never seen a courtupset with a parent for just
getting the HPV vaccine done.
And I've never seen a courtupset with a parent for just
getting the HPV vaccine done.
I've never seen a courtchastise anybody for getting a
vaccine done without permission.
And so you know, if I was Idon't advise people anymore
because I don't go to courtanymore really but if I were to
(13:08):
advise somebody who you knowagain not taking a side here,
just the pure law of it If I hada client who wanted the vaccine
versus the other client whodidn't want the vaccine, and I
was advising the client whowanted the vaccine, I would tell
them just go get it done, don'teven ask permission, just get
it done and then see whathappens after that, because I
don't think you would have anycourts objecting.
(13:31):
I think, by all means try toget permission, courts objecting
.
I think by all means try to getpermission, you know, but like,
if we're talking about COVIDvaccination or even more, not
even COVID like measles andpolio, courts are not going to
criticize someone for doing it.
In fact, they might criticizesomeone for not doing it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Didn't you have a move away issue, Sean, on
something where somebody wantedto move the child or the
children to a state where itwasn't mandatory?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
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 enrollthe child in public school or
not.
Oh gotcha, it was a matter of dowe enroll the child in public
school or not?
Oh gotcha, and then a parentwas ready to move away to
(14:26):
another jurisdiction where theremight be waivers for
requirements of vaccines.
And then this leads us into thenext issue that I think comes
up a lot, and it's kind of apolitical issue, it's kind of a
morality issue.
It depends on your point ofview, whether or not you support
your child in a gendertransition.
Do you engage in genderaffirming care or not?
And I've seen arguments thatare actually pretty compelling
(14:50):
on both sides.
I'll start with the side thatsays don't engage in gender
affirming care, and the pointthey make is well, a lot of this
is irreversible.
You have a minor who can'treally decide for themselves.
How right is this to take aminor and administer hormones
and other surgeries and thingslike that that could be
life-altering and irreversible?
(15:11):
And then you have the otherside that's like well, there's
also research that says if youdon't provide gender-affirming
care, you increase the risk ofsuicide and you increase the
risk of mental health problemsin other ways.
It seems like California isgenerally leaning towards
gender-affirming care.
We're California.
I think you might get adifferent outcome in Arkansas or
(15:35):
Florida, and I know of at leasttwo cases where one or both
parents were found to be abusiveof their child because they
chose to use the dead name ofthe child.
The child wanted to changetheir name to a gender of their
preferred gender and the parentsrefused to use that name and a
(16:06):
child welfare services workerfound that to be abusive.
And so then comes up well thenwe're moving to Texas, you know
that comes up.
But then what happens if theydon't agree?
You know like what?
If one of them is like all forthe gender affirming care and
the other one is not for thegender affirming care, how is
that going to play out in thecourt?
I think the court would sidewith at least in California,
(16:31):
would probably side with theperson that's more willing to do
gender affirming care If theydon't agree.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Peter, when you have these kind of disagreements with
your therapy couples, how doyou approach it?
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Well, the place that I always try to establish as a
foundation for the discussion isare these folks really able to
delineate between their genuineand focal concerns for their
child and how much of theirdisagreement really is a
(17:01):
manifestation or fueled byissues between the two of them?
And I think that if couples aregoing to be or co-parenting
partners are going to be able toresolve those kinds of
disagreements, it's because theyare really willing to focus
their attention on the interestof the child.
And that can often mean I'm abig believer and look, if you
(17:24):
have different opinion as itrelates to psychological
assessment or physical healthissues, who are the other
experts that you can consultwith to better understand what
is going on with your child andfor your child.
But people have to be willingto put their often their own
(17:45):
egos to the side in order to beable to work that
collaboratively and be moreobjective with their
co-parenting partner.
I think without that it'sreally difficult.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Well, and sometimes these issues bleed into
religious questions, likedifferent religious beliefs.
Oh my gosh, if my childtransitions their gender,
they're going to go to hell.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
And so and I'm not saying that's a good attitude or
not right but if you genuinelybelieve that this is, we're not
just fighting over, you know,some custody time, we're
fighting over our child'simmortal soul, and when the
parties can't agree on whatneeds to be done for the welfare
(18:28):
of the child's immortal soul,the court can't do anything with
that.
You know, there was a case I hadwhere we had two pastors of a
traditional Christiandenomination and one of them
decided to become Jehovah'sWitnesses and or a Jehovah's
(18:50):
Witness, and that caused allkinds of problems in their
co-parenting questions Are theygoing to celebrate Christmas or
not?
Health issues, are they goingto have a blood transfusion or
not, when there's an emergency.
It became a huge deal and againthat was a battle over the
(19:12):
child's soul.
It was more than just oh, wejust have differences of opinion
, it's.
They both felt compelled by Godhimself, but in different
directions.
But the court's not going todecide whether the Jehovah's
(19:33):
Witness perspective or thetraditional Christian
perspective is more valid.
But I think, scientifically, Ithink if there's going to be a
question about whether a kidgets a blood transfusion during
an emergency, the court willprobably side with the blood
transfusion.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
So here's something that is, you know, the other end
of the spectrum, the kinds ofissues that we're talking about,
but they come up very, verycommonly.
Um, a disagreement about thewhether or not a child can watch
a pg-13 movie or an r-ratedmovie.
You know the broader heading ofthe rules that mom and dad's
(20:12):
house being different Bedtimes.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah Seen battles over bedtimes.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Organic foods versus McDonald's.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
You took the kids to McDonald's.
You know we don't do that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
I've heard that one.
I need to have sole physicaland legal custody because he
went to Carl's Jr with the kids.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Doesn't work that way , the court.
Could you imagine if the courtwas like taking children away
from people that went to fastfood restaurants, how busy the
court would be?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
they're just not going to touch it yeah um well,
it also ties into the thequestion that you know the
comment that I have often madeto clients when they're having
challenges with their divorce,which is this doesn't start in a
vacuum.
There's a history here and itwould be unreasonable of either
(21:07):
of you to think that the divorceis going to be any easier than
the marriage was, and that'soften.
I don't know if it's a surprise, but people often react in a
surprised way when you say that.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
But I wonder, what do you do when there's like a
recent conversion, like myJehovah's Witness story where
she was recently converted to adifferent faith?
Or I had one case where the guysuddenly decided he was going
to be a survivalist and he wasbuilding bomb shelters in the
house and he was a prepper.
He was preparing for theapocalypse and um was was
storing ammo on site and wasweighing his kids trained in
(21:44):
weaponry, and um the otherperson 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 situationslike that?
Speaker 3 (21:56):
well, I think change like that you know.
so you're talking aboutsignificant unilateral changes
to the marital contract, if youwill, uh, but I think that that,
on smaller levels, those kindsof changes are things that
happen over the arc of arelationship and it's part of
the growth processes, if youwill, inherent to a relationship
(22:18):
.
And the bottom line, I think, isthat, regardless of whether or
not it's a big change or a smallchange, at the end of the day
the partners have to beevaluating whether or not
there's still enough of aconsensus between them about
what they want from theirrelationship, what's going to
satisfy them in life, such thatthere's enough of a consensus
(22:42):
that they can have arelationship that is at least
good enough for them both goingforward.
And so sometimes big changesmean, you know, people start a
relationship and they may viewit as being close to perfect a
relationship, and they may viewit as being close to perfect,
and then things begin to change.
And I really do think, and Iencourage people to think, in
(23:03):
terms of what is at least goodenough for you.
And so, if your partner hasbecome a survivalist, what is it
about that?
That renders for you therelationship or means that the
relationship can't be goodenough.
How curious are you about yourpartner's change in faith, and
what is it about that that makesthis relationship no longer
(23:25):
workable for you?
That you can make changes thatallow you to continue in a
relationship that is in someways changed but continues to be
at least good enough for youboth.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
You know, I have some personal experience in that
with my family, my own personalfamily.
You know my mom was quitedevout but then wasn't so devout
when she married my father andthen decided during the marriage
marriage after they had threekids that she was going to
become more devout in her faith.
And my father was like wait aminute, that's not what I signed
(24:03):
up for.
And so there were a number ofyears of tension, eventually
leading to an equilibrium wherethey were able to kind of accept
each other's point of views andthe kids had the choice of
following the path that theywanted to follow.
But I've also seen people insimilar circumstances where the
(24:24):
marriage didn't survive.
That, and I think thedifference is what you're
talking about, pete is that?
What are you willing to livewith in the change?
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Yeah, you know, the marriage that I'm so curious
about is James Carville and MaryMadeline.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Oh yeah, that's a fascinating one yeah, yeah, but
it survives.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Yeah, it survives and it thrives.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
In contrast is the Kellyanne Conway, and what's his
name?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
George Conway yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And they started as Republicans and then she became
MAGA with Trump and becameTrump's campaign advisor.
And then he went the otherdirection, became a never
Trumper and the marriage didn'tsurvive and it appeared that
their daughters suffered fromsignificant stress because of I
don't know.
I don't know enough to be ableto say I don't want to come here
(25:19):
and publicly announce that theydestroyed their kid or
something stupid like that.
I'm not trying to say that.
I'm just trying to say thatthere was some tension there and
they ended up getting divorced.
So what was the difference?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Yeah, yeah, sean, you've also pointed out in the
past that sometimes thepolitical views or beliefs of
the attorneys can be a challenge.
Yes, you know where you, youknow.
I don't know if it was a Muslimand a Jewish attorney, but
(25:51):
there was some similar sort ofsituation where the attorneys
were actually more of a problem.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
I don't want to out the attorneys, so I will just
say let's just say they were ontwo different political points
of view on the world stage, liketwo different nationalities
that were warring factions, andtheir behavior during the
negotiations were challenging.
Their behaviors werechallenging and I think it was
(26:19):
exacerbated by theseinternational political
differences.
I also had a case where therewas a husband and wife.
The husband was a specialforces IDF, you know, Israeli
Defense Force person and thewife was much more of a liberal
Israeli he was very much aNetanyahu fan and she was very
(26:40):
much not and that ultimately ledto their divorce because she
believed in a two-state solutionand he thought that was next to
treasonous and blasphemous.
That was an irreconcilabledifference for them.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
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 knowhow having the right resources
at the table enable clients toget through even terribly
difficult situations like this.
But, as you can see, in thiscase the problems are legal and
(27:20):
emotional, not so much financial, although they can have
financial impact.
You know, I'm sure thesurvivalists were spending lots
of money on guns and ammo thatperhaps the wife didn't agree on
.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
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 wouldrefuse to just have a
traditional 401k.
Everything was in gold andsilver.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
So they had some differences of opinion regarding
investment.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
But.
But having somebody at thetable can help the clients, you
know, in a way that Pete talkedabout of, of of trying to see
what they can live with, becausethat's really what, candidly,
divorce ends up being.
I don't like this settlementfinancially, but I guess I can
(28:08):
live with it.
How many times have we heardthat?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Well, and how many times have we told clients that
we're doing our job?
You're both both going to be alittle disappointed in the
outcome.
Yeah, yeah, I think, when youget away, I think and this is
kind of a thing like mediationit's more successful when people
are not black and whitethinkers.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
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, thatmeans I lost.
If you lose something, thatmeans I win.
And it's not that there's grays, and so when helping the
clients be able to see the graysis helpful, now, I don't think
(28:49):
I'm going to get into asituation where I'm trying to
help them see the grays in theirone's a MAGA and the other is a
liberal democrat progressive.
I don't want to get into like apolitical reconciliation,
because I think that's notappropriate for me to do,
because I think that's notappropriate for me to do, but
(29:12):
getting into, okay.
So you believe in thisparticular value for your family
and you believe in thisparticular value that seems at
odds.
Is there a way for us to find avalue that you both could live
with, that you could sign on asa family?
Because, guess what, with thedivorce, your family is not
ending.
Everybody is still here.
You know just being able tolearn how to disagree agreeably.
And I think, pete, you hit onsomething at the beginning of
our conversation.
(29:32):
It's about respect.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yes, yep.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
And I mean this is a very broad generalization, but
I'm trying to think if I've everhad a case where, you know, a
couple has come in and they'veidentified the, the singular
issue that's led to the demiseof their relationship, you know,
like everything was workinggreat until that's not what it
happened, you know.
(29:55):
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 otherissues, and that goes to, to
mark your, your point, you knowthat that in some ways and I
don't want this to sound glib orcavalier, but it's always
interesting to me that peopleare surprised, or when people
(30:17):
are surprised by the fact thatthey're struggling around
something, when, if you take alook at the history and the
dynamic and the challenges thatthat they might've had
historically being curious witheach other, showing each other
respect that they're surprisedthen that that they're having
this specific tension around anissue and wanting to end their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
I've heard you say on a number of cases that we've
been involved in Pete.
You'll say you know, it's notthat you don't communicate well,
you communicate in a veryexcellent way.
It's just you don't agreeExactly and you think that means
you don't communicate, it justmeans, you don't agree.
And so then the question is ifyou don't agree, is that okay?
Speaker 3 (30:58):
And why does a lack of agreement somehow become a
justification for disrespectingor losing respect for the other
person?
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Well, I think the reason for that is that our
political discourse has becomemore and more strident and more
and more.
You're with us or you'reagainst us.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
It's very siloed.
Exactly, you know like, youwatch television, and you tend
to watch the networks that youagree with.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
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'regoing to watch Fox.
If you're progressive, you'regoing to watch MSNBC.
Right, and you tend to listento those podcasts.
I noticed that, looking at myYouTube history, I get YouTube
stuff suggested to me.
Well, youtube's going tosuggest the things that it
thinks I want to watch, and so Ialways get a particular point
(31:47):
of view suggested to me.
Well, YouTube is going tosuggest the things that it
thinks I want to watch, and so Ialways get a particular point
of view suggested to me and I'mlike, oh my gosh, youtube even
knows yeah, yeah, understandswhere my silo is, and I try to
(32:09):
resist that.
If, if, if I'm getting a bunchof suggestions, I try to then
watch things that are notnecessarily suggested to me so I
get a different point of view.
It's the mediator in me alwayswanting to find the grays.
I I try to watch all thenetworks, not just one of them,
even when I want to throwsomething at the television
because I don't agree with themas I was once told, it's just a
machine.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It can't hear you, right?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Well, you know, that's another point, mark, that
I think is important for us tobring up, and that is that the
mediator you know, when you'reworking with a neutral mediator
like us, yeah, the mediator isgoing to have political points
of view, and how do you remainneutral as a mediator when you
(32:52):
have somebody before you thatyou just fundamentally disagree
with?
Speaker 2 (32:55):
And the interesting thing I've found in mediation is
, if they, like me, they bothassume that whatever their view
is my view too, and I don'tdisavow them of that.
I allow that fantasy tocontinue because it allows me to
maintain the neutrality I needin the process, and if I
violated that, it would go away.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
I have had.
I can count on one hand thecases.
One of them was with a vaccinecase where they asked me, well,
what's your point of view onthis?
And I have to come back and Ihave to say, well, my point of
view doesn't matter, but Ishould disclose that.
So sometimes I feel like I needto disclose this is a life
(33:38):
experience that I've had that'sled me to a certain point of
view, and so you should knowthat, that I have that bias.
But I am working not to let thebias affect my work with you,
um, but you have the right toknow that I have that bias and
then you can choose whether youwant to continue with me as a
mediator and and most of thetime people really respect that
when I do it but I don't I dothat very rarely I've never done
(34:01):
it only when I think it reallycan affect.
um, it could affect the case,but I try not to let them ever
see me sweat.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
I just push back very hard, if that question ever
comes back.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
It's irrelevant what I think.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
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 scaleone way or the other, it would
only make the case moredifficult.
That's exactly what I tellpeople.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
And there's a lot of wisdom in that, Mark.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Well, it avoids me having to get into a situation
where I'm taking a side, andonce you've taken a side on one
thing, your neutrality iscompromised I always want to
know um what is the theimportance of that information
(34:57):
for that person you know mypoint of view, what is important
?
Speaker 3 (35:02):
what would tell me what it would mean?
What does what does that matter?
If it matters, tell me whatthat is and what Does that
matter?
If it matters, tell me whatthat is.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
What kind of responses have you had to that
question?
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Well, this is the way I preface it.
I'll say well, I'm not going tododge your question, but I want
to understand more about it.
And then, in going through itand it's not like this has
happened a lot of times, butmost of the time people withdraw
(35:32):
the question.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
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 (35:44):
Well, actually, where I like to go with it is, you
know, it's interesting, there'sthis parallel processes that are
happening.
Each of the parties is havingto really think about whether or
not they believe I have theirbest interests at heart.
What I say is you know, ifyou've got to think about that
question and if you don't thinkI have your best interests at
(36:05):
heart, I would be the first oneto say you shouldn't be working
with me.
And they also are making thatassessment of each other as well
.
So it's a way of bringing that,what I think is a really
important question for people toground themselves in, to settle
themselves down when they hearsomething that maybe pisses them
off or makes them uncomfortableor afraid, but also evaluating
(36:27):
my role with them.
So, again, I make it clear I'llanswer the question, but before
we go there, let's talk aboutthis now what's happening
between us?
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
A challenge I've had is I attended a seminar where we
were talking about beingdiverse and open and not having
microaggressions.
Is I attended a seminar wherewe were talking about being, you
know, diverse and open and nothaving microaggressions?
Speaker 3 (36:51):
And.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
I left that seminar with the admonition to make sure
I put my pronouns on my Zoomprofile so that when they see me
they'll see Sean Weber and thenhe him profile, so that when
they see me they'll see SeanWeber and then he him, and the
(37:12):
problem I've had with that thenis that does show a certain
point of view and you can say,well, you're right to do that
and you should just stand forthat.
But I've had clients that havereally lost respect for me
because I did that.
And so I've learned to be verycareful and judicious in how I
use the pronouns.
You know, because sometimes youknow if you get, say, you've
(37:35):
got a person, you get a couple,and you don't know what their
political views are or whattheir moral views are, and that
can be a lightning rod that canbe triggering.
And then I know I see thecounterpoint Well, it can be
triggering if rod that can betriggering.
And then I know I see the thecounterpoint Well, it can be
triggering if you don't do it,and so I don't know what to do
with it.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
To be honest, yeah, I mean I think that the position
that I've taken, one that justresonates for me, is you know,
I'll ask, I will answer thequestion if anybody asks me, and
I try to remember to ask thequestion, but I don't do a
really good job of rememberingto do that all the time and
(38:21):
again.
I guess my hope is and that'shard if you're meeting somebody
for the first time and there'sgoing to be that snap initial
judgment but my hope is that, asa relationship developed, there
are graces and allowances thatyou know we're making towards
clients and that clients aremaking towards us, the
(38:42):
inevitable missteps that happeninteractionally.
And I think those are powerfulprocess moment, parallel process
, moments when we make a mistakeor somebody's feelings get hurt
and we deal with it in anappropriate and respectful way
and the person on the other sidesees us doing that.
I think that's powerfulmodeling.
(39:03):
I mean these are humaninteractions.
Right, that's powerful modeling.
I mean these are humaninteractions right.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
I've seen that work too, when you do a mea culpa and
it doesn't really matter withwhich party it is.
You're right.
I think it elevates yourneutrality.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah Well, and then the challenge for the
practitioner really is beingable to have I say it's the two
like two television screens inyour thinking, and one side is
the very neutral screen.
That's what you're presentingto the couple and you're not
letting any of your biases showup on the first screen.
(39:43):
And then you have a secondscreen that's kind of like your
private secret screen that youhave, and that's where you're
like oh my God, I can't believethey said that kind of thing
when you let your biases be.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
You know, and I realized that I mean my role is
different from both of yourroles as true neutrals.
And in my role, this is part ofwhat I talk about with people.
You know, as we've talked aboutsee, how honest do you want me
to be with you now?
And I'm thinking about it morein terms of the notion of
(40:18):
judgments I think people arepaying me for my judgments,
people are paying you guys foryour judgments, but when I'm
working with people in the realmof you know, self-management
and emotions and reactivity,there are those times where the
worst thing I could do would beto be neutral.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
I see that when I play the role of an attorney,
yeah, I can't be neutral.
And I also think there's adifference.
When you think of neutrality interms of a car engine, that
means you're not engaged at all.
You're just kind of rollingdown the highway, right, right,
when your car is in neutral, andthen when you put it in gear,
then you're engaged.
And I think neutrality for amediator does not mean you're
(41:01):
not engaged.
Right, right, you're engaged.
And I think neutrality for amediator does not mean you're
not engaged Right, right, right,you're driving the car
somewhere.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
It's just, you're not choosing where we're going.
Exactly the destination.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
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 (41:18):
Okay, If we can't agree then we put the brake on
and we just park the car and inthe metaphor, sometimes I have
to say you're going in the wrongdirection.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yes, that's the difference right Between the
role of a mediator and the roleof someone who's aligned or in
the role of providing a healingheart right.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
Although there are times when I will say you know,
we can carry on down this roadif you think it's being
productive when it's obviouslynot, frankly, and so I will try
to stop people going indirections that are
counterproductive if I make theexecutive decision that this is
(41:59):
not a conversation that's goingto be helpful and that's what
they're paying me for in a way.
You don't want to go through atwo-hour session and achieve
nothing.
They had a fight in front of athird party who wouldn't put
their finger on the scale.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
Well, yeah, we're in control of the process, they're
in control of the outcomes.
Speaker 2 (42:15):
Exactly.
Somebody wrote a wonderfularticle about that some years
ago that I still quote.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
Oh yeah, article about that some years ago that I
still quote oh yeah, it's agentleman by the name of peter
broussos about a wife and familytherapist, indeed about, about
the airplane analogy rightcharger 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 tooperate the aircraft you don't
tell them there won't be aco-pilot, that they're not going
to stop to refuel, but you tellthem there won't be a co-pilot,
that they're not going to stopto refuel.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
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 (42:49):
Like no, you're going to New Orleans, yeah, yeah, no,
that was a good article.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
Yeah, yeah, I mean that was.
It's interesting.
Over the years, how many peoplehave contacted me asking to use
it, Cause I think it reallydescribes what we do and it was
very helpful because we were, atthat time, all struggling with.
Speaker 2 (43:14):
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 theclients want to do something
that we firmly, as professionals, believe is counterproductive?
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Although I remember when we were looking at models
for collaborative practice, pete, you and I had a conversation.
I said well, what happens whenyour airplane turns into a
slow-moving barge with nocaptain?
Or seven captains just floatingdown a river with no rudder.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
Well.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Well, gentlemen, I think we've done it again.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
We have that was yeah , peter, you want to say
something.
Speaker 3 (43:51):
No, no, yeah, I was literally yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
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 Statesthey're triggered on some level
about the politics.
Yeah, it seems to be apervasive thing.
I do think you ever watch StarTrek.
Remember that Star Trek wherethey went down to the paradise
planet and even Spock got thespores in his brain and all of a
(44:16):
sudden now he's loving peopleand smiling and being emotional
and he wants to live on the andthe whole crew has gotten the
spores in him and they're goingto live on this planet and live
in paradise.
And Kirk is the only one that'simmune to it and that's because
he's basically pissed off thathe's lost his ship and he
realized that the thing thatbroke people out of their trance
(44:36):
was to irritate them.
I do remember this, rememberthat, and he got in a fight had
spock like almost kill himbecause he got him into a fight,
called his mother a computerand his father a dictionary or
something like that.
And and then they fit.
He and spock figured out nowthat spock has been broken from
the cure, that they could send asignal to the planet which was
a very high-pitched sound.
(44:57):
It was barely audible and itwasn't.
It was was a bad sound, it wasjust enough to irritate you.
And I think that's what's goingon right now.
There's this high pitch soundout there that's just irritating
everybody and making them wantto fight with each other and and
it it.
I do think it's bleeding intomarriages and I do think at
(45:18):
least during the COVID andbeyond, people's marriages were
struggling because of it.
But also the people's reactionsto what used to be kind of
benign questions are far moretriggering for them than they
used to be.
I have no science to back thisup.
It's purely anecdotal, but thisis kind of what I'm
experiencing.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
And I think to me, part of it is just heightened
anxiety.
When we started, you guys askedme if I'm seeing a lot of
people that are coming in andtalking about political issues
clients and I remember and Isaid you know there's been very
little of that, but I'mremembering and this absolutely
parallels four years ago howliterally the months leading up
(45:58):
to the election my practice gotslower and literally the day
after the election I got busyagain and I think that there was
this wait and see attitude.
I think people were anxious.
They're wondering how is thisgoing to play out.
They were putting things off,that's.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
But it was literally like clockwork.
Yeah, there's a.
I'll share a personal story.
I dated a lady back in theearly nineties and about two or
three years ago we bumped intoeach other in a grocery store
and we decided to have lunch.
Now we dated and even livedtogether for a few months when
(46:42):
she was changing her place.
Politics never came up At ourlunch.
Politics came up immediatelyand we were kind of both betting
each other to see which side ofthe spectrum we fell on.
It wouldn't have even come upback 30 years ago.
Now it's a qualifying questionfor who you date.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
You put it on your matchcom profile.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
What your politics are, because and this is kind of
a you know, trump voters don'twant to date progressives, and
vice versa.
Yeah, and I think it is a greatrealignment.
I think people are siloingagain.
You know siloing Not only areyou watching the television
(47:27):
programs that you agree with,but you're also dating the
people that you agree with, andyou're less likely to want to be
in a long-term relationshipwith someone that you disagree
with fundamentally aboutpolitics or morality or whatever
it is.
And I don't know, is that a badthing?
I think it is, probably.
I think it is.
Speaker 2 (47:46):
I really do.
I believe that if we can't getalong on an interpersonal basis,
society is in a worse place.
Speaker 3 (47:59):
You're talking about a progression of intolerance.
Yes, that is, I think, reallyworrisome.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
I can't tell you how many times I've talked to a
client about how compromise is agood thing, it's not a bad
thing, and the conversationinevitably ends with the client
saying could you please dosomething about Washington as a
mediator?
Like well, they won't hire mefor that.
But I do think that there isthe work we do in divorce,
(48:31):
mediation or any kind ofmediation to understand that
peace is not the absence ofconflict, it's the absence of
solutions to the conflict, andthat you don't always get what
you want and sometimes acompromise means up, giving up
something that you want so thatyou get more of something else,
and that that's okay.
It's not a bad word tocompromise, it's a good thing.
(48:52):
I think, until people start toembrace that or understand that
or be at peace with that and notmaking everything about a
battle of good and evil thisfalse binary with that, and not
making everything about a battleof good and evil this false
binary, I think until thathappens we're going to keep
struggling politically in thiscountry and I think it'll keep
the divorce attorneys busy.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
Well, it's a full employment act for us, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (49:17):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yeah, badly yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:19):
Well, on that happy note.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Yeah, you're right, we have done it again, and I
think I made us do it longer.
Speaker 1 (49:27):
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 toaffect me.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
What are my?
Speaker 1 (49:39):
exit strategies and do I have enough ammunition?
Speaker 2 (49:43):
affect me and what are my exit strategies, and do I
have enough ammunition?
If, two weeks from today, youdon't appear on the podcast?
Um, then I will know that.
What has happened so?
Speaker 1 (49:48):
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 myobservation of politics over the
year.
It's never as bad as they sayit is and it's never as good as
they say it is, Except whenyou're talking about our program
.
It's every bit as good as wesay it is.
(50:09):
And then some, and then some.
All right, well, pete, if theywanted to get a hold of you to
talk about their emotionaltriggering while they're going
through the political season,what should they?
Speaker 3 (50:18):
do.
Easiest way to get a hold of meis through my website,
peterrousoscomP-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, and
the Contact Me page on mywebsite.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
And Mark if they're worried about the status of
their wealth as they considertheir divorce and which
administration will becontrolling the economy, what
should they do?
Speaker 2 (50:45):
They should go to my website, Pacific Divorce
Management.
The website is packdivorce, allone word dot com, and there's a
contact form on there.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
And if you need a mediator with a legal background
, contactWeberDisputeResolutioncom.
That'sWeberDisputeResolutioncom,
that's WeberDisputeResolutioncom, and we'll match you with the
appropriate mediator to settleyour dispute.
Although I don't know if we'regoing to be able to fix
Thanksgiving All, right, well,until next time.
(51:15):
Thanks everybody.
Speaker 2 (51:16):
Bye-bye.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Thanks for listening to another episode of the Three
Wisemen of Divorce.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
(51:39):
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.