February 6, 2025 • 48 mins
Curious about navigating the complexities of high-conflict divorce with more grace and empathy? Discover the transformative power of mediation and Collaborative Practice with our esteemed guest, Charmaine Panko, a seasoned lawyer, mediator and Collaborative practitioner from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Together, we unpack the challenges of navigating divorce with a high-conflict personality.
Journey with us as we explore the "divorce escalator" metaphor and how traditional adversarial court systems can heighten tensions instead of resolving them. Personal anecdotes and professional insights reveal the limitations of current legal frameworks in addressing the psychological and financial needs of families in turmoil. We champion a shift towards a more collaborative, problem-solving approach in legal education, aiming for a system that supports long-term planning and mutual understanding over win-lose battles.
Engage with us in a conversation about the benefits of interest-based negotiations, which focus on shared values rather than adversarial tactics. We highlight the critical importance of trust-building, especially in co-parenting scenarios, and how mediation can offer hope for high-conflict personalities.
© 2025 Weber Dispute Resolution. All rights reserved.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but
I've never had any beef with anyof them.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Well, I'm a very classic dad.
Welcome to the Three Wise Menof Divorce, money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
(00:30):
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
(00:53):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
Well, mark, here we are twowise men.
(01:16):
We're short of one of our wisemen we are.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
He's only temporarily um unavailable, so he will
return.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
We will allow Pete a day off.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
He's got the day off absolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But we are blessed with a third person, a wise
woman, and her name is Charmaine.
Charmaine Penko.
Did I say it right?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
You sure did.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Charmaine Penko Welcome.
Thank you, right, you sure did.
Charmaine panko welcome, thankyou.
Charmaine is a lawyer insaskatoon, canada, and and I
learned that, uh, they're.
They're not attorneys in canada, so we can't call her an
attorney, mark, she's a lawyer.
I knew she a lawyer.
(02:02):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I don't know, I don't know.
It's something to do with theCommonwealth, I think, because
they're barristers andsolicitors and we didn't want to
have to have two words, and sowe just put them together and
called ourselves lawyers, thoughlots of law firms call
themselves so-and-so law firmbarristers and solicitors
Barristers and solicitors,barristers and solicitors, but
you still have the same divisionof the barristers who can
(02:30):
represent you in court and thesolicitor, who has to actually
go find the barrister torepresent you in court because
you can't talk directly to abarrister, if I understand
correctly?
That might be part of the originstory of it all, or even how
they still do it in england, I'mnot sure.
Here everybody does everything,it's just they will carry
(02:53):
different.
You know ways of identifyingthemselves, so.
But indeed, lawyers is theright way to refer to me, though
I have been called an attorneybefore and I have still answered
to that.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Okay, well, don't judge us when we screw up.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Definitely not, Though I do want to know.
You said that I was fromSaskatoon, Canada, and here in
Canada we have provinces.
I know you folks have states,so I would like to hear you say
my province.
Do you know how to saySaskatchewan?
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Well, I'm going to copy you my province.
Do you know how to saysaskatchewan?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
well, I'm going to copy you.
Saskatchewan hey, very good,sometimes you can try to copy it
saskatoon saskatchewan that'sright.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Saskatchewan right, that's right.
It's all about the emphasis.
Peter Piper picked a pack ofpickled.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yeah, I was going to say say that three times real
fast Saskatoon, saskatchewan andhere we don't pick pickled
peppers, but we pick Saskatoonberries in Saskatoon,
saskatchewan.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So there you go.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We even have a baseball team now for the first
time ever, called the SaskatoonBerries.
So I'm not sure if they're anygood or not, but their name is
catchy.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So what are Saskatoon berries?
Are they?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
They're little berries that are kind of like
purpley in color and they'revery juicy and sweet and they're
native to our geographicallocation and you find little
bushes of them here and thereand as a kid that would be a fun
activity you do is take yourlittle bucket out and pick
Saskatoon berries.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Wow, okay.
Well, now I would like someSaskatoon pie.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Yes, and Saskatoon pie is very delicious, so you'll
have to come and visit.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I will Now.
I have a reason.
So you and I met, with ourinvolvement at the International
Academy of CollaborativeProfessionals, iacp, and we're
on a committee together and Igot to know you and realize that
you and I think similarly abouta lot of things, and one of the
(05:02):
things that we were talkingabout to our audience is how
mediation and collaborative,interdisciplinary, collaborative
practice can help with highconflict cases, and oftentimes
I'll hear people say, oh, that'sa high conflict case that
shouldn't go to mediation.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
And how would you respond to people that say that
I know what I would say, butyeah, well, you know my.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
my first response is a question back to them.
Is that well, if not mediation,then where?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Where do high conflict people go?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I mean you send them to court and they are going to
get some kind of direction fromthe court and then go out and
try to implement something whenthey haven't dealt with any of
their actual communicationdifficulties or the source of
their conflict and really justcontinue to escalate in that
conflict tornado and sometimesfor years and years and past the
point of anything that makessense from a spending of time as
well as financial resources.
So take that energy andredirect it into a process that
can really be supported and helpthem get to the root of their
(06:24):
issues.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That can really be supported and help them get to
the root of their issues.
Okay, Well, so you?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
know we always talk about the divorce escalator.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
You know you go to litigation.
You just get stuck on anescalator going the wrong
direction.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
It's going down to a bad place.
Oh, that's a great imagery.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
You know and what do you do when you try to get off
the escalator?
Sometimes it's hard and I thinkwith high conflict cases, the
dynamic between the parties,sometimes it's the personality
of the parties Court is a greatplace to get them more ramped up
is needing an interruption, andso if they are put into an
(07:09):
adversarial setting that's whatwe call the court system right,
it's adversarial.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's there, then, to further promote that conflict,
actually, because it's designedas a win-lose type of
environment.
You apply game theory to that.
What are you going to do?
You're going to just continue.
I love the imagery of anescalator, because you're going
to continue to try to reach forpower, going to continue to try
(07:34):
to manipulate what is possibleto manipulate within all of the
parameters of the courtenvironment.
Now, I don't know what you havewhere you're from, but here in
Saskatchewan we have anenvironment that's full of court
forms and rules and protocols,and you make a misstep along the
(07:58):
way and somebody can complainabout it and bring a different
court application, and it canjust continue, and so anybody
who's in a conflict pattern,they're going to always be
looking for the next thing tocomplain about, and that makes
it very difficult for them toget out of that environment.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Not the attorneys, but the lawyers often can drive
it the wrong way.
I have a case right now wherewife's lawyer is writing the
(08:48):
nastiest nasty grams and I'mtold he's somebody who is, you
know, mediation friendly andhe's accusing all sorts of abuse
and so on.
You know, it's like I and I Isuspect he's been kind of like
taken over by the case.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
You know that that happens and I remember that
happening early in my careerwhen I did litigation.
You become an extension of theconflict, you become an
extension of of the, you becomean extension of the dynamic and
you don't realize it.
You just think this is how I'msupposed to be and I think you
don't realize the amount ofdamage you're doing when you're
(09:16):
the litigating attorney by kindof continuing the conflict.
And you're seeing this maritalconflict I always think of, like
freud's theories on sex andviolence.
You see that playing out in thecourtroom and and um, it's very
damaging.
It's one of the reasons I gotout of litigation, because I
felt like I was doing more harmthan good.
(09:36):
But it takes a little bit oftime and usually there's an
experience that you have whereyou realize oh my gosh, I've
been co-opted, I've done moreharm than good and so I want to
change something.
Otherwise I'm not feeling atpeace with myself.
And then you've got theattorneys that feel, or the
lawyers that feel, verycomfortable being in that place.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Well, and I think part of it has to do with our
education, because it's aparadigm shift to see yourself
as an advocate in a differentway that is not synonymous with
adversarial behaviors.
So when we're taught in lawschool about how to advance the
(10:17):
interests of your clients at allcosts and you know it's this
notion of being a warriorcompared to a different
identification of being aproblem solver or somebody who's
walking alongside somebody whois seeking to interdisciplinary,
collaborative practice, becausepeople's pathway forward is not
(10:40):
just what is their legaloutcome of their case or whether
they got the right remedy underthe family property legislation
or they have a certain amountof time with their children.
(11:00):
It's about their psychological,emotional their children.
It's about their psychological,emotional and mental physical
health and well-being, theirfinancial health and well-being.
Right, mark?
It's so puzzling to me that inthe sort of what I like to call
conventional court systembecause I don't like calling it
traditional, because I actuallydon't think traditionally this
(11:23):
is how families sorted out theirmatters.
I mean, really this has beengoing on in this way since what?
The 1960s, but prior to that,when people had problems within
their family, they hadwraparound services from their
community and often their familymembers.
So the current court system, theway that it's set up, the fact
(11:47):
that there is so littleattention given to the financial
impact and I don't mean thefinancial cost of participating
in it, I mean the financialimpact of the final outcome.
So I like to explain to ourclients that when you're
figuring out your propertydivision and your financial
(12:09):
support, with a mind to what areyour immediate needs, but also
what are your long-term goalsand what is that going to play
out like, it's super importantto look at it in both timeframes
.
And in our court system that isa win-lose or, as we know, it's
often lose-lose.
It's just applying that.
(12:31):
It's like the story from theBible right when it's just like
King Solomon says let's just cutthe baby in half.
Well, maybe you don't even havethe baby anymore then, and I
think we've seen this so much inthe financial outcomes of
separations, and so I know that.
You know you guys are the onesthat ask me the questions, but
(12:51):
I'm curious, mark, about whatyou know some of your
reflections have been at seeinghow the court system it really
escalates the conflict andcauses further damage from a
financial perspective.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, yes, yeah.
The reason I got into doingthis work is because I went
through what I nowaffectionately refer to as my
divorce from hell and went allthe way to a trial and the judge
(13:31):
understood nothing aboutfinances.
And here I am am a guy managingother people's money, you know,
um.
And so I got into it because Irealized that no lawyer goes to
law school because they lovearithmetic.
You know.
Now there are some lawyers arevery good with the money, but in
(13:53):
my experience it's 10% to 15%who are really good at it.
Some are horrendous.
Some, candidly, don't reallyunderstand what they are doing
in terms of consequences.
And just recently I saw a casewhere they were about to do a
(14:29):
settlement where they had takenone of the party capital gains
to her husband in the stocksthat were being transferred to
him and she was taking thelosses and the break-evens so
that future tax obligationswould be all in his column, and
the lawyers didn't even think tolook for that.
Now most lawyers would don'tget me wrong.
But at the same time, it's anindication of how a focus on the
(14:54):
law can take you away from anunintended consequence.
Nobody certainly the lawyerrepresenting the husband, didn't
want him to have a bad outcome,but it just wasn't the focus.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Exactly.
And so when you add highconflict into a lack of
knowledge and expertise and thisis in no way disparaging
lawyers or judges.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Well, please disparage, please disparage.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
It's just a recognition of the reality.
You know where there's conflictand disagreement and if the
conflict you know so I do a lotof training and one of the
things that we talk about arethe different kinds of conflicts
, so you know you can haveconflict that's a conflict in
the data, so the information.
(15:44):
So if people are in a highconflict situation and they're
arguing about the data, well,that's easy enough in quotation
marks, right, and that somebodycan go and get, let's say, it's
a difference of belief on whatthe family home is worth.
So one person can go and get anappraisal and the other person
can get an appraisal and youhope that both appraisals are
(16:08):
using the same formula andyou've got something that you
can work with, as opposed topeople's just their opinions.
Now, in a mediation context orin an interdisciplinary,
collaborative context, you canagree to use the same expert,
which is different than in theadversarial model, which is well
, I'll get my expert, you getyour expert, and we hope that
(16:31):
they have different opinions,because then we're going to
argue about them and so you'reperpetuating that conflict in
data.
You might have conflictconnected to structure, so how
the system itself is laid outand the steps to follow,
compared to in a mediation or acollaborative process where
(16:53):
everybody's like looking attheir calendars and coordinating
in advance and you don't havethey.
I mean, certainly you might havea meeting that has to be
rescheduled, but you are lesslikely to have these ongoing
adjournment requests becausepeople are trying to avoid and
and they're sometimesstrategically doing that because
(17:17):
they know it's going to causestress or pressure on the other
party.
So in an environment that'sinterest-based with the
professionals that are involved,like this is the other thing
that I think people lose sightof is that the parties
themselves can still be quitepositional and they can be
(17:37):
escalated because they'reemotionally dysregulated.
But if the professionals thatare working with them, their
mediator or their collaborativeprofessionals, are using
interest based principles todesign the process, then that
will help the parties to be ableto get somewhere.
It doesn't mean that they'renecessarily going to change
(18:00):
their own mindset, but we'regiving them a different process,
a different structure to workwithin.
Now, of course, if theirconflict comes from a values
difference, so they're both.
You know I like to use theexample because you know I have
some children that are vegansand some that are meat eaters,
and you know I can tell you youcan put them in the room
(18:21):
together all day long and you'renot going to convince the other
to see it the opposite waybecause they have difference of
opinion.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but
I've never had any beef with anyof them.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Well, I'm a very classic dad.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And so you could see where the ability to be able to
agree, to disagree, can exist inan interest-based process,
differently than in anadversarial process where
somebody has to be right.
So you have differences ofvalues, and somebody's value is
(19:07):
going to be checked off as well.
This one is going to win, thisis going to be the right one,
and yet that's not going toactually change the losing
party's closely held belief andattachment to that value.
So then what happens the nextday after they've received their
(19:28):
court order or their decision,their judgment?
The sun still comes up andthey're still living in that
environment where they havedifferent values, but now they
don't have any tools to functionwithin that reality.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I think that's a key the tools that the court has
available versus the tools thatpeople in mediation or in
collaborative practice have.
And you know, for example, thismorning I just met with a
couple and we were talking abouttheir shared values.
And you know, for example, thismorning I just met with a
couple and we were talking abouttheir shared values, and I
always make a list.
I call them the big rocks.
How do you get as many thingsinto a container as you can?
You start with your big rocksand then you work down to the
(20:04):
smaller rocks, and I was talkingto them about what were their
shared just kind of no-brainervalues, and we were able to have
a really important conversationabout what communication meant
to each of them, what, what kindof disciplinary procedures they
wanted to have with theirchildren.
You know how they saw the worlddifferently, but then where
(20:27):
they could see the world in thesame way, and you would never
get that opportunity in alitigated case to just be able
to talk about, well, what do weagree on?
That is just a no brainer valueand to find that they actually
had a very extensive list ofthings that they're now going to
use as a mission statement, ifyou will as they move forward in
(20:49):
their case, you know but to getto that point they have to
overcome the fear that's createdsocietally about entering a
divorce process yeah
Speaker 3 (21:00):
need a strong lawyer to protect me.
I don't trust him.
She had an affair.
Therefore she's probably lyingabout everything you know.
It's those kind of concernsthat drive people to that lawyer
who promises the world and weknow will not deliver and
(21:20):
disappoint and will frustrate.
Where they understand they canactually have a conversation
about divorce before they havethe conversation that gets down
into the nitty-gritty of exactlywhat they're going to do.
In other words, how are wegoing to divorce is the most
(21:43):
important conversationAbsolutely.
And who are we going to workwith and what kind of resources
do we need at the table?
Do we need them at the table?
Resources do we need at thetable?
Do we need them at the table?
Do we need them in the wingsand available as needed?
But to have that kind ofevaluation done at the start of
(22:04):
a case, you need to overcome thefear and it needs to be on one
side one person takes two totango, so one person doesn't,
one is too scared to engage.
And you're on that divorceescalator that I always talk
about.
That's always going down.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And part of how we can help people to get to a
different mindset about divorceis by the stories that are told.
You know, right now, thestories that are told around.
You know, at the coffee shopand people get together and they
are talking about theirterrible divorce because that's
(22:42):
interesting to talk about andthen that adds to that cultural
notion that it has to beterrible.
So you know, in my office oneof the things that we like to do
is we like to get people totell their successful stories,
you know, and post that on ourwebsite or talk about it on
social media and really try tohelp people see how there can be
(23:04):
a different outcome, a betteroutcome.
You know what's interesting forme?
My dad is 98 years old, he is aWorld War II vet and he was
married before he met my mom andlittle tidbits, you know,
family skeletons out of thecloset.
So my dad he was 17 years old,going into the army.
(23:26):
He married a woman who was fiveyears older than he was and
then, when he separated from her, he married my mom who is 17
years younger than him.
So you know, he got the best ofboth worlds there, I guess.
But I grew up in a family thatI had two half-brothers and I
never knew their biological mom.
(23:47):
She didn't really interact withour family, but there was never
anything in my family and ofcourse this was.
You know, it was much moreunusual back when my dad was
separating and divorcing thanmaybe it is now, but I do
remember one story that myparents would talk about, and
that was how my dad's mom so mypaternal grandmother sat my dad
(24:12):
down when he told them that hewas getting a divorce and he was
from a very religious family aswell, and so this wouldn't have
been an easy thing to talkabout, but my grandmother sat
him down and said you know,she'll always be a part of our
family, so you need to know thatwe support you, we love you and
(24:33):
you know Diane, who's my mom'sthat's my mom's name like well,
we accept her into the family aswell.
But the first wife was alsoalways going to be in the family
, and I must have heard thatstory really early on in my life
.
I can't remember exactly when,but it was.
Something that always stuck withme is that, in the midst of
growing up and knowing otherpeople here and there that had
(24:55):
parents who were separating andhearing the stories.
It was actually incongruent forme from the beginning and one
of my half-brothers he alsoseparated when he was in his
early 30s and they had a sontogether.
And my second introduction tohow families separate or
(25:16):
reconfigure themselves wasmodeled by that brother who he
and his former wife and each oftheir new partners.
They traveled together and theyspent holidays together because
there was one child that theyshared, and so they maximized
his opportunities to spend timewith both parents and really
(25:38):
build memories, doing thingsthat he wouldn't have been able
to do if they were going to beangry at each other and
perpetuate this conflict.
So it's interesting to mesomething you ever do, that
exercise where it's like, hey,how did I become a lawyer?
And I'm not really sure.
I mean I did different thingsbefore I became a lawyer and I
never thought I'd practicefamily law.
(25:59):
But when I think about it and Ithink about what I think was
modeled for me and what Ibelieve to be possible and true
was much different than what wesee in Hollywood movies or what
people will talk about, and thatdoes create a different sense
of what is possible If peopleare afraid because all they're
(26:22):
hearing are the stories ofthings going bad, then you're
right, they're going to try toreach for power and really get
the most aggressive as a way ofprotecting themselves.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
Yeah, and it's fear-based, right.
I mean, you brought up thepoint of interest-based
negotiations and I think that'sso important to focus on
interest, because when you go tothe courtroom, it's all about
applying the law to somethingthat's happened in the past,
right?
Whereas when you're talkingabout interests, you're talking
(26:58):
about being hopeful for thefuture and what do I need in the
future?
And kind of recalibrating,getting people away from the
pain that happened in the pastand getting people focused on
well, what do I need now?
What's my proposal for myfuture situation?
I think is a really powerfulthing that we do in mediation
(27:19):
and collaborative, by the way,we probably ought to define for
some of our people that you know, if they listen to us all the
time, then they probably alreadyknow what the collaborative
practice is, but some might not.
So mediation is where you meetwith a neutral person, who's
basically Switzerland, whofacilitates a conversation and
helps you reach an agreement,and that person can be an
attorney, can be a therapist,can be a financial person, but
(27:43):
more than anything, they'retrained in dispute resolution
can help facilitate theconversation.
Collaborative practice, however, is when a team of people get
together and you have attorneysthat sign an agreement that says
they're never going to go tocourt.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Would that be lawyers .
Speaker 1 (27:58):
That would be lawyers .
Speaker 2 (28:00):
You can't Canada.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
The lawyer signing agreement.
I don't know how you do it upthere.
I mean, what we do here is thelawyers prepare a stipulation
that gets filed at court andsays we're never going to go to
court, we're foreverdisqualified from ever
litigating the case.
And then you would bring incoaches, mental health
professionals, back as coaches.
You'd bring in a financialperson like Mark who would come
in as a financial neutral, andeveryone signs the same
(28:23):
agreement that says we're nevergoing to litigate, and I do
think that changes the way theprofessionals interact with the
case.
It frees them to be able to bemore interest-based, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (28:36):
And also the nature of their correspondence with
each other too.
So you know, Mark, youmentioned earlier about, like,
how lawyers will write lettersand correspond, whereas on a
collaborative case, I mean, I'mgoing to pick up the phone
typically and I'm going to justchit chat with the other lawyer
(28:56):
or the rest of the team.
For that matter.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So you're not.
I can't tell you how many timesthe lawyer has said to the
other lawyer oh, just ignorethat nasty letter, I just did
that for my client.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I know that posturing and that does not do anything
to help build the trust that isin such a vulnerable and damaged
state.
So I'd like to talk to clientsabout how they are actually in a
trust deficit.
I mean, if you were to draw outa graph that says the amount of
(29:27):
time you know somebody and howmuch trust you have in them,
people that don't even know eachother will have a baseline
level of trust because we'lltypically, you know, at least
here in Canada I don't know whatit's like there for you folks,
but we might be at the libraryand if I have to go to the
washroom I might say to them hey, can you just watch my stuff?
I'll have a base level of trust, but when people, by the time
(29:51):
they get to us, they're in adeficit.
So, helping them have some babysteps, some little successes,
even the fact that they've shownup at a meeting can be a
success.
Your example, sean, of the.
What are some of their sharedvalues?
I mean that is some trustbuilding there and they come
(30:12):
back to another meeting andthey're building a little bit of
trust.
Comparing that to an adversarialmodel where each time an
affidavit is filed, each time anargument is made each time a
nasty letter is sent, you arefurther damaging the trust.
So you're not rebuilding.
So I guess this is making methink of your escalator example
(30:33):
not rebuilding.
So I guess this is making methink of your escalator example,
because you know it's the samething.
It's just further losing whatlittle trust there ever was.
And if they have to continue toco-parent together for the rest
of their lives, in whateverfashion that might be, to have
not even a base level of trustis just such a terrible loss for
(30:56):
them and for the children ofthe family yeah, I, you know, we
, we often say on this podcastthat people have the power to
write the divorce story thattheir children will tell their
grandchildren.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I love it, you know, um, and we usually get one of
two stories right.
It's usually either oh my gosh,it was awful, my parents were
always fighting.
They record all the time it wasa complete tug of war.
And those are the kids and theresearch backs this up as well
that struggle.
And then the other story is youknow, my parents got divorced.
(31:32):
I'm not sure why exactly, but Inever felt like I had to choose
between my parents and I alwaysknew I had two parents that
loved me, and and on and on.
And those people and theresearch backs this up do better
in life and I think I thinkparents, when they're facing a
divorce, can keep that in mindthat they have a real, enormous
(31:56):
amount of power to set the tonefor the rest of their children's
lives.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
And at some point, if their children are younger when
they divorce, they're going toface that question at least
internally.
I remember I divorced from myfirst wife when Nick was two and
a half three years old and whenhe was graduating.
No, when he was in college, Itook him out for sushi and I
(32:22):
asked him the question so whatwas it like for you growing up,
nick?
Well, you and mom are sodifferent.
I can't imagine you guys everbeing together.
Once he got that off his chest,he said but basically what you
said, but I never heard eitherof you say a bad word about the
other, and I knew that you bothloved me.
(32:43):
Somehow.
Somehow we did it right throughall the challenges.
This was before there wasmediation.
This was back in the early 80swhen, you know, I went to see
three lawyers and every singleone of them said I have to
represent you or the other.
I go, no, we know how we wantto do this and eventually I
found a woman who didn't say nofast enough, and that was it.
(33:07):
She just didn't say no fastenough and I had her and she
wrote up the agreement and weboth looked at it.
We didn't have anything mainlydebt but and a child of great
import.
But you know, somehow wemanaged to do it right without
any of these resources that nowexist for families that they can
(33:28):
draw upon to do the same thing,and they have people with
experience.
We were flying blind on this.
We just knew we didn't want tofight.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Well, you know, what that tells me, mark, is that you
were, your instincts led you toa better place, and I think a
lot of our listeners out therehave those same kind of
instincts.
They know what it ought to be,they know it shouldn't be a war,
but a problem to be solved.
But because of fear, or becauseof culture, or because of the
(33:57):
legal system, or whatever thelawyer told them when they first
met with that person, they getcaught on the escalator.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
And one of the messages that I hope that this
podcast brings to the world isthat you don't have to get on
the escalator and if you're onthe escalator, there is a way to
get off Absolutely.
And I think, charmaine, whatyou're bringing up the
importance of consensual disputeresolution options like
collaborative practice andmediation.
It's so important for what itbrings to the discussion,
(34:28):
because what we do in thecourtroom is not the right way
to transition a family.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
And the social science research is that this is
not the adversarial model, isnot the one that results in
happy, healthy, well-adjustedchildren.
And we had some changes to ourlegislation here in Canada, our
federal legislation a few yearsago, and in the legislation
(34:55):
itself it actually imposesduties on parents to protect
their children from the conflict.
But the irony is that theadversarial model is still the
process that's there for them towork through to protect their
children.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
So, in Saskatchewan, our government introduced
legislation that makes itmandatory for parents to
participate in a disputeresolution process before they
can even set foot into acourtroom.
So they have options they canparticipate in mediation, a
collaborative law process, workwith a parent coordinator, or
(35:32):
use arbitration, which, ofcourse, is still a
decision-making, adjudicativekind of a process, but it's one
that is not in open court andthere's more flexibility, and so
there's still a different vibe,if you will, than the regular
kind of litigation pathway, andso there's as you can expect, of
course, there's always somepushback whenever you are making
(35:55):
something mandatory, and ifit's something mandatory that
more traditionally, is thoughtof as a voluntary or consensual
kind of process, then people say, well, how can you actually do
mediation or collaborativepractice if you're kind of being
forced into it?
But here's what I think, though, is that people don't know what
they don't know.
(36:16):
I mean, if you talk to somebodyon the street about mediation,
often they're still getting itmixed up with meditation, or
they think you're talkingmedication, and I say to people
all the time until Amazon stopsauto-correcting me when I'm
searching for books aboutmediation that we're still not
fully, you know, as well enoughknown in society as we need to
(36:42):
be.
So making it mandatory forsomebody to actually participate
in something that gives themsome hope perhaps Hope that they
didn't realize was evenpossible, I think is a step in
the right direction, and I thinkthe majority of people and
parents really do want to havesomething that they can engage
(37:06):
in that doesn't cost them awhole bunch of money, doesn't
drag on for years and isn't highconflict, and those people will
still get caught up in anemotional escalation at times or
have an amygdala hijack orthere'll be something where
they're good people behavingpoorly, and if they can work
(37:27):
with well-trained professionalsthat can get them back on track,
it's going to benefit everybody.
Now there's a smaller percentageof bad people who can't do
anything but behave poorly, andthose people are the ones that
maybe have bigger issues, somebigger difficulties.
This isn't just about being inconflict or even high conflict.
(37:51):
This is about maybe having apersonality disorder or
something that actuallycompromises your ability to
think in these ways, and I'm ahuge fan of Bill Eddy's work.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Oh yeah, he's a good friend of ours, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
San Diego with us, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Oh, amazing.
So you know, as you know, andprobably many of your listeners
do too, that Bill Eddy will talkabout you know, just forget
about it if there are certainpersonality types that he does
not believe could have insightinto their behavior and the
impact of their behavior.
And yet, even with those peopleyou can engage in an
(38:33):
out-of-court, non-adversarialprocess that, if you can
identify what some of theirneeds are and help them using
you know, I like the earapproach, that empathy and
attention and respect, becausepeople with difficult
personalities tend to pushpeople away, which then further
(38:55):
escalates their strategiesaround conflict because they
don't know what else to do.
So, even in those verydifficult situations, utilizing
a process that can address needsthat another process can't is
worth a shot.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know I've had a lot of conversations with Bill
about that very subject and evenhe will say his test is well,
will they be better in court?
Will be better for this personto be in court, even with the
high conflict personality?
And I can attest to the workI've done.
I've been able to mediate caseswith high conflict
(39:39):
personalities, with people thatjust overtly narcissist or
borderline or both, and it canbe done.
It's not necessarily easy.
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Well, it's rare that we were not able to.
Sean and I do a lot of casestogether where we're able to
sort of tag team it, and thereare times when your own stuff
gets caught up in a case andthere are times when Sean and I
have turned to each other andsay, said you know, this guy
(40:10):
pushes my buttons yeah I meanthis guy, yeah, when he does
that, I don't like it.
you need to step in and be thegrown-up in the room because and
so we get engaged in thisdynamic that this couple are so
familiar with and are so adeptat playing their roles within
(40:33):
that.
It's very easy for us to getco-opted into that and to
maintain neutrality.
You have to be aggressive aboutit.
You have to be an aggressiveneutral.
You can't be a passive neutral,you'll get co an aggressive
neutral.
You can't be a passive neutral,you'll get co-opted.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Yes, I think that's very good yeah.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
And a big part of that is engaging in reflective
practice.
So one of the things that weteach and we run a mediation
practice group because, you know, frankly, for a lot of people
who practice mediation, unlessyou are part of a larger
organization, it's kind of asolitary profession.
So you know you do your work,but it's very helpful to have a
(41:12):
group that you can come into anddebrief, while protecting
confidentiality of your clients.
But, you know, just to be ableto say, hey, what are two things
that I did really well in thatmediation or that worked well?
And here's something that Iwould wish to do differently, or
I want to try differently, or Iwant to get somebody's input
(41:33):
into, because it is hard, likeit's an active engagement.
You have to have intentionalityand especially when maybe you
don't like one of the parties orboth of the parties for that
matter and keeping yourself outof it, reminding yourself that
this is actually their conflictand how they choose to move
(41:55):
forward, whether it's by way ofhaving a written agreement or
not, is actually that's theirjourney, to go on, and we're
there to help facilitate it.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
that's their journey to go on and we're there to help
facilitate it.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
You know, I had an experienceactually was a case I did with
Bill.
Bill Eddy was the mediator andI was working with Sean Skillen,
who was also my.
We do a lot of trainingtogether and I think if there
were three people in Californiathat could mediate a case with
high conflict personalitieswe're the three and very
(42:28):
difficult clients.
And I was particularly triggeredby the wife's behavior.
She was very borderline, herbehavior and my guy was very
narcissistic and might've evenbeen sociopathic.
Wow, and and um, I couldn'tfigure out what it was.
It was triggering me so muchand Sean was like kick me under
the table.
What's going wrong with you?
You're so upset.
You're not usually like thisand I finally realized what
(42:50):
happened.
I found a picture of mybrother's ex-wife no, and it
could have been her sister.
Oh, wow, Dead ringer, you know.
So I realized I was beingtriggered by things that this
person hadn't even done.
She was just guilty by lookinglike someone and, you know, as a
(43:14):
practitioner, recognizing thatyou're human, you know I would
do meditation before and afterthe meetings and it went better.
I will also say we did notsettle that case, because these
people were pretty difficult.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
But it's a rarity Sean that we don't complete
cases.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
It is rare.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
It's a rarity, I mean , we had that case that kept
coming back and after six yearswe told them we can't do any
more for you, remember?
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
But they're rarities.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
They're rarities.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
They're rarely we.
It's not always the experienceI hope for in in the case, you
don't always get the change, youdon't always get the
realization that they can bebetter ex-spouses than they were
spouses, which is, of course,the hope as we enter into this
work and at the end of it it'striage sometimes Just get the
(44:06):
deal done, get them across thefinish line.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Have you done the MSA yet?
Speaker 3 (44:10):
You know.
So I get that, we get there.
But the opportunity existswithin this format or these two
formats that doesn't exist forthat kind of healing and growth
to occur at all in the courtprocess.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
Well, every now and then.
You know, when we had Stu onour podcast with Mark and he
talked about every now and thenStu Webb, the father of
collaborative divorce, thegrandfather of collaborative
divorce, as we call him he saidevery now, and you get this
moment where you just have thisdeep, deep, deep silence.
It's this transformative momentwhere people finally hear each
(44:49):
other and they're not fighting,and then something changes, you
know, and that that is abrilliant moment, something I
live for as a practitioner.
I'm sure you and mark andcharmaine experience that too,
that when those happen, it it'sa real pain, but it's wonderful
to see people be able to getthrough a process in a way that
(45:17):
doesn't destroy what was left oftheir relationship.
Speaker 3 (45:20):
That honors what they were able to achieve and honors
what was good about therelationship.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So there's more than one way todo this, and it's not
necessarily go to court.
Well, we have been talking forclose to an hour.
This is a good conversation.
I'd love to have more of aconversation with you, but at
some point I guess we have tostop.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Well, and thank you so much for inviting me.
Well, and thank you so much for, you know, inviting me, and
certainly from the Canadianperspective.
You know we're well known formaking apologies about things
and getting along with people,but even here we have high
conflict situations and peoplewho need a little bit of
(46:03):
encouragement, and so I think,like I guess, a message that I'm
hoping the listeners, whereverthey're from and whatever their
circumstances are, is that theycan take away the message of
there is hope, because thereisn't at least in my opinion,
there isn't a oh, mediation andcollaborative practice is only
(46:25):
for these people.
I think that there's room forall types of conflict and it's
really about the team ofprofessionals that are working
with you.
Speaker 1 (46:36):
I agree completely so .
So, charmaine, I'm on yourwebsite right now.
It's commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
That's right I know some people think that's an
oxymoron, but I think it's agood selling feature.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
Well, I always say I'm the dolphin lawyer.
I'm a dolphin instead of ashark.
I like it.
So, commonsenselawyercom.
Is that where they should go ifthey want to book time with you
.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
That's where they should go, Absolutely yes.
Speaker 1 (47:03):
Okay, great.
And then, Mark, if somebodywanted to get a hold of you to
talk about the financial aspectsof their divorce, what?
Speaker 3 (47:09):
should they do, Go to my website pacdivorcecom
P-A-C-D-I-V-O-R-Ccom, andthere's a contact form on there.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Okay, and if anybody wants to talk to me about
mediation or the legal aspectsof divorce, or the legal aspects
of divorce, my website isWeberDisputeResolutioncom.
All one word, weber, with one Bdispute, like we had a fight
and resolution, like we solveditcom, and we'll be happy to
match you with a practitionerthat can help you solve your
(47:38):
case.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
And if you're just looking for some entertainment
mixed in with some legal content, you can follow me on TikTok.
My handle is atcommonsenselawyercom, at
commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
That's it All right, very good, well, thanks for
being with us.
Thank you.
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
(48:15):
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
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
(48:39):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but
I've never had any beef with anyof them.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Well, I'm a very classic dad.
Welcome to the Three Wise Menof Divorce, money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
(00:30):
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
(00:53):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
Well, mark, here we are twowise men.
(01:16):
We're short of one of our wisemen we are.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
He's only temporarily um unavailable, so he will
return.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
We will allow Pete a day off.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
He's got the day off absolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But we are blessed with a third person, a wise
woman, and her name is Charmaine.
Charmaine Penko.
Did I say it right?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
You sure did.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Charmaine Penko Welcome.
Thank you, right, you sure did.
Charmaine panko welcome, thankyou.
Charmaine is a lawyer insaskatoon, canada, and and I
learned that, uh, they're.
They're not attorneys in canada, so we can't call her an
attorney, mark, she's a lawyer.
I knew she a lawyer.
(02:02):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I don't know, I don't know.
It's something to do with theCommonwealth, I think, because
they're barristers andsolicitors and we didn't want to
have to have two words, and sowe just put them together and
called ourselves lawyers, thoughlots of law firms call
themselves so-and-so law firmbarristers and solicitors
Barristers and solicitors,barristers and solicitors, but
you still have the same divisionof the barristers who can
(02:30):
represent you in court and thesolicitor, who has to actually
go find the barrister torepresent you in court because
you can't talk directly to abarrister, if I understand
correctly?
That might be part of the originstory of it all, or even how
they still do it in england, I'mnot sure.
Here everybody does everything,it's just they will carry
(02:53):
different.
You know ways of identifyingthemselves, so.
But indeed, lawyers is theright way to refer to me, though
I have been called an attorneybefore and I have still answered
to that.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Okay, well, don't judge us when we screw up.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Definitely not, Though I do want to know.
You said that I was fromSaskatoon, Canada, and here in
Canada we have provinces.
I know you folks have states,so I would like to hear you say
my province.
Do you know how to saySaskatchewan?
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Well, I'm going to copy you my province.
Do you know how to saysaskatchewan?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
well, I'm going to copy you.
Saskatchewan hey, very good,sometimes you can try to copy it
saskatoon saskatchewan that'sright.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Saskatchewan right, that's right.
It's all about the emphasis.
Peter Piper picked a pack ofpickled.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yeah, I was going to say say that three times real
fast Saskatoon, saskatchewan andhere we don't pick pickled
peppers, but we pick Saskatoonberries in Saskatoon,
saskatchewan.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So there you go.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We even have a baseball team now for the first
time ever, called the SaskatoonBerries.
So I'm not sure if they're anygood or not, but their name is
catchy.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So what are Saskatoon berries?
Are they?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
They're little berries that are kind of like
purpley in color and they'revery juicy and sweet and they're
native to our geographicallocation and you find little
bushes of them here and thereand as a kid that would be a fun
activity you do is take yourlittle bucket out and pick
Saskatoon berries.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Wow, okay.
Well, now I would like someSaskatoon pie.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Yes, and Saskatoon pie is very delicious, so you'll
have to come and visit.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I will Now.
I have a reason.
So you and I met, with ourinvolvement at the International
Academy of CollaborativeProfessionals, iacp, and we're
on a committee together and Igot to know you and realize that
you and I think similarly abouta lot of things, and one of the
(05:02):
things that we were talkingabout to our audience is how
mediation and collaborative,interdisciplinary, collaborative
practice can help with highconflict cases, and oftentimes
I'll hear people say, oh, that'sa high conflict case that
shouldn't go to mediation.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
And how would you respond to people that say that
I know what I would say, butyeah, well, you know my.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
my first response is a question back to them.
Is that well, if not mediation,then where?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Where do high conflict people go?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I mean you send them to court and they are going to
get some kind of direction fromthe court and then go out and
try to implement something whenthey haven't dealt with any of
their actual communicationdifficulties or the source of
their conflict and really justcontinue to escalate in that
conflict tornado and sometimesfor years and years and past the
point of anything that makessense from a spending of time as
well as financial resources.
So take that energy andredirect it into a process that
can really be supported and helpthem get to the root of their
(06:24):
issues.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That can really be supported and help them get to
the root of their issues.
Okay, Well, so you?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
know we always talk about the divorce escalator.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
You know you go to litigation.
You just get stuck on anescalator going the wrong
direction.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
It's going down to a bad place.
Oh, that's a great imagery.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
You know and what do you do when you try to get off
the escalator?
Sometimes it's hard and I thinkwith high conflict cases, the
dynamic between the parties,sometimes it's the personality
of the parties Court is a greatplace to get them more ramped up
is needing an interruption, andso if they are put into an
(07:09):
adversarial setting that's whatwe call the court system right,
it's adversarial.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's there, then, to further promote that conflict,
actually, because it's designedas a win-lose type of
environment.
You apply game theory to that.
What are you going to do?
You're going to just continue.
I love the imagery of anescalator, because you're going
to continue to try to reach forpower, going to continue to try
(07:34):
to manipulate what is possibleto manipulate within all of the
parameters of the courtenvironment.
Now, I don't know what you havewhere you're from, but here in
Saskatchewan we have anenvironment that's full of court
forms and rules and protocols,and you make a misstep along the
(07:58):
way and somebody can complainabout it and bring a different
court application, and it canjust continue, and so anybody
who's in a conflict pattern,they're going to always be
looking for the next thing tocomplain about, and that makes
it very difficult for them toget out of that environment.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Not the attorneys, but the lawyers often can drive
it the wrong way.
I have a case right now wherewife's lawyer is writing the
(08:48):
nastiest nasty grams and I'mtold he's somebody who is, you
know, mediation friendly andhe's accusing all sorts of abuse
and so on.
You know, it's like I and I Isuspect he's been kind of like
taken over by the case.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
You know that that happens and I remember that
happening early in my careerwhen I did litigation.
You become an extension of theconflict, you become an
extension of of the, you becomean extension of the dynamic and
you don't realize it.
You just think this is how I'msupposed to be and I think you
don't realize the amount ofdamage you're doing when you're
(09:16):
the litigating attorney by kindof continuing the conflict.
And you're seeing this maritalconflict I always think of, like
freud's theories on sex andviolence.
You see that playing out in thecourtroom and and um, it's very
damaging.
It's one of the reasons I gotout of litigation, because I
felt like I was doing more harmthan good.
(09:36):
But it takes a little bit oftime and usually there's an
experience that you have whereyou realize oh my gosh, I've
been co-opted, I've done moreharm than good and so I want to
change something.
Otherwise I'm not feeling atpeace with myself.
And then you've got theattorneys that feel, or the
lawyers that feel, verycomfortable being in that place.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Well, and I think part of it has to do with our
education, because it's aparadigm shift to see yourself
as an advocate in a differentway that is not synonymous with
adversarial behaviors.
So when we're taught in lawschool about how to advance the
(10:17):
interests of your clients at allcosts and you know it's this
notion of being a warriorcompared to a different
identification of being aproblem solver or somebody who's
walking alongside somebody whois seeking to interdisciplinary,
collaborative practice, becausepeople's pathway forward is not
(10:40):
just what is their legaloutcome of their case or whether
they got the right remedy underthe family property legislation
or they have a certain amountof time with their children.
(11:00):
It's about their psychological,emotional their children.
It's about their psychological,emotional and mental physical
health and well-being, theirfinancial health and well-being.
Right, mark?
It's so puzzling to me that inthe sort of what I like to call
conventional court systembecause I don't like calling it
traditional, because I actuallydon't think traditionally this
(11:23):
is how families sorted out theirmatters.
I mean, really this has beengoing on in this way since what?
The 1960s, but prior to that,when people had problems within
their family, they hadwraparound services from their
community and often their familymembers.
So the current court system, theway that it's set up, the fact
(11:47):
that there is so littleattention given to the financial
impact and I don't mean thefinancial cost of participating
in it, I mean the financialimpact of the final outcome.
So I like to explain to ourclients that when you're
figuring out your propertydivision and your financial
(12:09):
support, with a mind to what areyour immediate needs, but also
what are your long-term goalsand what is that going to play
out like, it's super importantto look at it in both timeframes
.
And in our court system that isa win-lose or, as we know, it's
often lose-lose.
It's just applying that.
(12:31):
It's like the story from theBible right when it's just like
King Solomon says let's just cutthe baby in half.
Well, maybe you don't even havethe baby anymore then, and I
think we've seen this so much inthe financial outcomes of
separations, and so I know that.
You know you guys are the onesthat ask me the questions, but
(12:51):
I'm curious, mark, about whatyou know some of your
reflections have been at seeinghow the court system it really
escalates the conflict andcauses further damage from a
financial perspective.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, yes, yeah.
The reason I got into doingthis work is because I went
through what I nowaffectionately refer to as my
divorce from hell and went allthe way to a trial and the judge
(13:31):
understood nothing aboutfinances.
And here I am am a guy managingother people's money, you know,
um.
And so I got into it because Irealized that no lawyer goes to
law school because they lovearithmetic.
You know.
Now there are some lawyers arevery good with the money, but in
(13:53):
my experience it's 10% to 15%who are really good at it.
Some are horrendous.
Some, candidly, don't reallyunderstand what they are doing
in terms of consequences.
And just recently I saw a casewhere they were about to do a
(14:29):
settlement where they had takenone of the party capital gains
to her husband in the stocksthat were being transferred to
him and she was taking thelosses and the break-evens so
that future tax obligationswould be all in his column, and
the lawyers didn't even think tolook for that.
Now most lawyers would don'tget me wrong.
But at the same time, it's anindication of how a focus on the
(14:54):
law can take you away from anunintended consequence.
Nobody certainly the lawyerrepresenting the husband, didn't
want him to have a bad outcome,but it just wasn't the focus.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Exactly.
And so when you add highconflict into a lack of
knowledge and expertise and thisis in no way disparaging
lawyers or judges.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Well, please disparage, please disparage.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
It's just a recognition of the reality.
You know where there's conflictand disagreement and if the
conflict you know so I do a lotof training and one of the
things that we talk about arethe different kinds of conflicts
, so you know you can haveconflict that's a conflict in
the data, so the information.
(15:44):
So if people are in a highconflict situation and they're
arguing about the data, well,that's easy enough in quotation
marks, right, and that somebodycan go and get, let's say, it's
a difference of belief on whatthe family home is worth.
So one person can go and get anappraisal and the other person
can get an appraisal and youhope that both appraisals are
(16:08):
using the same formula andyou've got something that you
can work with, as opposed topeople's just their opinions.
Now, in a mediation context orin an interdisciplinary,
collaborative context, you canagree to use the same expert,
which is different than in theadversarial model, which is well
, I'll get my expert, you getyour expert, and we hope that
(16:31):
they have different opinions,because then we're going to
argue about them and so you'reperpetuating that conflict in
data.
You might have conflictconnected to structure, so how
the system itself is laid outand the steps to follow,
compared to in a mediation or acollaborative process where
(16:53):
everybody's like looking attheir calendars and coordinating
in advance and you don't havethey.
I mean, certainly you might havea meeting that has to be
rescheduled, but you are lesslikely to have these ongoing
adjournment requests becausepeople are trying to avoid and
and they're sometimesstrategically doing that because
(17:17):
they know it's going to causestress or pressure on the other
party.
So in an environment that'sinterest-based with the
professionals that are involved,like this is the other thing
that I think people lose sightof is that the parties
themselves can still be quitepositional and they can be
(17:37):
escalated because they'reemotionally dysregulated.
But if the professionals thatare working with them, their
mediator or their collaborativeprofessionals, are using
interest based principles todesign the process, then that
will help the parties to be ableto get somewhere.
It doesn't mean that they'renecessarily going to change
(18:00):
their own mindset, but we'regiving them a different process,
a different structure to workwithin.
Now, of course, if theirconflict comes from a values
difference, so they're both.
You know I like to use theexample because you know I have
some children that are vegansand some that are meat eaters,
and you know I can tell you youcan put them in the room
(18:21):
together all day long and you'renot going to convince the other
to see it the opposite waybecause they have difference of
opinion.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
You know, I've known a lot of vegans in my life, but
I've never had any beef with anyof them.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Now, that is a very classic dad joke there, I think.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Well, I'm a very classic dad.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And so you could see where the ability to be able to
agree, to disagree, can exist inan interest-based process,
differently than in anadversarial process where
somebody has to be right.
So you have differences ofvalues, and somebody's value is
(19:07):
going to be checked off as well.
This one is going to win, thisis going to be the right one,
and yet that's not going toactually change the losing
party's closely held belief andattachment to that value.
So then what happens the nextday after they've received their
(19:28):
court order or their decision,their judgment?
The sun still comes up andthey're still living in that
environment where they havedifferent values, but now they
don't have any tools to functionwithin that reality.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I think that's a key the tools that the court has
available versus the tools thatpeople in mediation or in
collaborative practice have.
And you know, for example, thismorning I just met with a
couple and we were talking abouttheir shared values.
And you know, for example, thismorning I just met with a
couple and we were talking abouttheir shared values, and I
always make a list.
I call them the big rocks.
How do you get as many thingsinto a container as you can?
You start with your big rocksand then you work down to the
(20:04):
smaller rocks, and I was talkingto them about what were their
shared just kind of no-brainervalues, and we were able to have
a really important conversationabout what communication meant
to each of them, what, what kindof disciplinary procedures they
wanted to have with theirchildren.
You know how they saw the worlddifferently, but then where
(20:27):
they could see the world in thesame way, and you would never
get that opportunity in alitigated case to just be able
to talk about, well, what do weagree on?
That is just a no brainer valueand to find that they actually
had a very extensive list ofthings that they're now going to
use as a mission statement, ifyou will as they move forward in
(20:49):
their case, you know but to getto that point they have to
overcome the fear that's createdsocietally about entering a
divorce process yeah
Speaker 3 (21:00):
need a strong lawyer to protect me.
I don't trust him.
She had an affair.
Therefore she's probably lyingabout everything you know.
It's those kind of concernsthat drive people to that lawyer
who promises the world and weknow will not deliver and
(21:20):
disappoint and will frustrate.
Where they understand they canactually have a conversation
about divorce before they havethe conversation that gets down
into the nitty-gritty of exactlywhat they're going to do.
In other words, how are wegoing to divorce is the most
(21:43):
important conversationAbsolutely.
And who are we going to workwith and what kind of resources
do we need at the table?
Do we need them at the table?
Resources do we need at thetable?
Do we need them at the table?
Do we need them in the wingsand available as needed?
But to have that kind ofevaluation done at the start of
(22:04):
a case, you need to overcome thefear and it needs to be on one
side one person takes two totango, so one person doesn't,
one is too scared to engage.
And you're on that divorceescalator that I always talk
about.
That's always going down.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And part of how we can help people to get to a
different mindset about divorceis by the stories that are told.
You know, right now, thestories that are told around.
You know, at the coffee shopand people get together and they
are talking about theirterrible divorce because that's
(22:42):
interesting to talk about andthen that adds to that cultural
notion that it has to beterrible.
So you know, in my office oneof the things that we like to do
is we like to get people totell their successful stories,
you know, and post that on ourwebsite or talk about it on
social media and really try tohelp people see how there can be
(23:04):
a different outcome, a betteroutcome.
You know what's interesting forme?
My dad is 98 years old, he is aWorld War II vet and he was
married before he met my mom andlittle tidbits, you know,
family skeletons out of thecloset.
So my dad he was 17 years old,going into the army.
(23:26):
He married a woman who was fiveyears older than he was and
then, when he separated from her, he married my mom who is 17
years younger than him.
So you know, he got the best ofboth worlds there, I guess.
But I grew up in a family thatI had two half-brothers and I
never knew their biological mom.
(23:47):
She didn't really interact withour family, but there was never
anything in my family and ofcourse this was.
You know, it was much moreunusual back when my dad was
separating and divorcing thanmaybe it is now, but I do
remember one story that myparents would talk about, and
that was how my dad's mom so mypaternal grandmother sat my dad
(24:12):
down when he told them that hewas getting a divorce and he was
from a very religious family aswell, and so this wouldn't have
been an easy thing to talkabout, but my grandmother sat
him down and said you know,she'll always be a part of our
family, so you need to know thatwe support you, we love you and
(24:33):
you know Diane, who's my mom'sthat's my mom's name like well,
we accept her into the family aswell.
But the first wife was alsoalways going to be in the family
, and I must have heard thatstory really early on in my life
.
I can't remember exactly when,but it was.
Something that always stuck withme is that, in the midst of
growing up and knowing otherpeople here and there that had
(24:55):
parents who were separating andhearing the stories.
It was actually incongruent forme from the beginning and one
of my half-brothers he alsoseparated when he was in his
early 30s and they had a sontogether.
And my second introduction tohow families separate or
(25:16):
reconfigure themselves wasmodeled by that brother who he
and his former wife and each oftheir new partners.
They traveled together and theyspent holidays together because
there was one child that theyshared, and so they maximized
his opportunities to spend timewith both parents and really
(25:38):
build memories, doing thingsthat he wouldn't have been able
to do if they were going to beangry at each other and
perpetuate this conflict.
So it's interesting to mesomething you ever do, that
exercise where it's like, hey,how did I become a lawyer?
And I'm not really sure.
I mean I did different thingsbefore I became a lawyer and I
never thought I'd practicefamily law.
(25:59):
But when I think about it and Ithink about what I think was
modeled for me and what Ibelieve to be possible and true
was much different than what wesee in Hollywood movies or what
people will talk about, and thatdoes create a different sense
of what is possible If peopleare afraid because all they're
(26:22):
hearing are the stories ofthings going bad, then you're
right, they're going to try toreach for power and really get
the most aggressive as a way ofprotecting themselves.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
Yeah, and it's fear-based, right.
I mean, you brought up thepoint of interest-based
negotiations and I think that'sso important to focus on
interest, because when you go tothe courtroom, it's all about
applying the law to somethingthat's happened in the past,
right?
Whereas when you're talkingabout interests, you're talking
(26:58):
about being hopeful for thefuture and what do I need in the
future?
And kind of recalibrating,getting people away from the
pain that happened in the pastand getting people focused on
well, what do I need now?
What's my proposal for myfuture situation?
I think is a really powerfulthing that we do in mediation
(27:19):
and collaborative, by the way,we probably ought to define for
some of our people that you know, if they listen to us all the
time, then they probably alreadyknow what the collaborative
practice is, but some might not.
So mediation is where you meetwith a neutral person, who's
basically Switzerland, whofacilitates a conversation and
helps you reach an agreement,and that person can be an
attorney, can be a therapist,can be a financial person, but
(27:43):
more than anything, they'retrained in dispute resolution
can help facilitate theconversation.
Collaborative practice, however, is when a team of people get
together and you have attorneysthat sign an agreement that says
they're never going to go tocourt.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Would that be lawyers .
Speaker 1 (27:58):
That would be lawyers .
Speaker 2 (28:00):
You can't Canada.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
The lawyer signing agreement.
I don't know how you do it upthere.
I mean, what we do here is thelawyers prepare a stipulation
that gets filed at court andsays we're never going to go to
court, we're foreverdisqualified from ever
litigating the case.
And then you would bring incoaches, mental health
professionals, back as coaches.
You'd bring in a financialperson like Mark who would come
in as a financial neutral, andeveryone signs the same
(28:23):
agreement that says we're nevergoing to litigate, and I do
think that changes the way theprofessionals interact with the
case.
It frees them to be able to bemore interest-based, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (28:36):
And also the nature of their correspondence with
each other too.
So you know, Mark, youmentioned earlier about, like,
how lawyers will write lettersand correspond, whereas on a
collaborative case, I mean, I'mgoing to pick up the phone
typically and I'm going to justchit chat with the other lawyer
(28:56):
or the rest of the team.
For that matter.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So you're not.
I can't tell you how many timesthe lawyer has said to the
other lawyer oh, just ignorethat nasty letter, I just did
that for my client.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I know that posturing and that does not do anything
to help build the trust that isin such a vulnerable and damaged
state.
So I'd like to talk to clientsabout how they are actually in a
trust deficit.
I mean, if you were to draw outa graph that says the amount of
(29:27):
time you know somebody and howmuch trust you have in them,
people that don't even know eachother will have a baseline
level of trust because we'lltypically, you know, at least
here in Canada I don't know whatit's like there for you folks,
but we might be at the libraryand if I have to go to the
washroom I might say to them hey, can you just watch my stuff?
I'll have a base level of trust, but when people, by the time
(29:51):
they get to us, they're in adeficit.
So, helping them have some babysteps, some little successes,
even the fact that they've shownup at a meeting can be a
success.
Your example, sean, of the.
What are some of their sharedvalues?
I mean that is some trustbuilding there and they come
(30:12):
back to another meeting andthey're building a little bit of
trust.
Comparing that to an adversarialmodel where each time an
affidavit is filed, each time anargument is made each time a
nasty letter is sent, you arefurther damaging the trust.
So you're not rebuilding.
So I guess this is making methink of your escalator example
(30:33):
not rebuilding.
So I guess this is making methink of your escalator example,
because you know it's the samething.
It's just further losing whatlittle trust there ever was.
And if they have to continue toco-parent together for the rest
of their lives, in whateverfashion that might be, to have
not even a base level of trustis just such a terrible loss for
(30:56):
them and for the children ofthe family yeah, I, you know, we
, we often say on this podcastthat people have the power to
write the divorce story thattheir children will tell their
grandchildren.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I love it, you know, um, and we usually get one of
two stories right.
It's usually either oh my gosh,it was awful, my parents were
always fighting.
They record all the time it wasa complete tug of war.
And those are the kids and theresearch backs this up as well
that struggle.
And then the other story is youknow, my parents got divorced.
(31:32):
I'm not sure why exactly, but Inever felt like I had to choose
between my parents and I alwaysknew I had two parents that
loved me, and and on and on.
And those people and theresearch backs this up do better
in life and I think I thinkparents, when they're facing a
divorce, can keep that in mindthat they have a real, enormous
(31:56):
amount of power to set the tonefor the rest of their children's
lives.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
And at some point, if their children are younger when
they divorce, they're going toface that question at least
internally.
I remember I divorced from myfirst wife when Nick was two and
a half three years old and whenhe was graduating.
No, when he was in college, Itook him out for sushi and I
(32:22):
asked him the question so whatwas it like for you growing up,
nick?
Well, you and mom are sodifferent.
I can't imagine you guys everbeing together.
Once he got that off his chest,he said but basically what you
said, but I never heard eitherof you say a bad word about the
other, and I knew that you bothloved me.
(32:43):
Somehow.
Somehow we did it right throughall the challenges.
This was before there wasmediation.
This was back in the early 80swhen, you know, I went to see
three lawyers and every singleone of them said I have to
represent you or the other.
I go, no, we know how we wantto do this and eventually I
found a woman who didn't say nofast enough, and that was it.
(33:07):
She just didn't say no fastenough and I had her and she
wrote up the agreement and weboth looked at it.
We didn't have anything mainlydebt but and a child of great
import.
But you know, somehow wemanaged to do it right without
any of these resources that nowexist for families that they can
(33:28):
draw upon to do the same thing,and they have people with
experience.
We were flying blind on this.
We just knew we didn't want tofight.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Well, you know, what that tells me, mark, is that you
were, your instincts led you toa better place, and I think a
lot of our listeners out therehave those same kind of
instincts.
They know what it ought to be,they know it shouldn't be a war,
but a problem to be solved.
But because of fear, or becauseof culture, or because of the
(33:57):
legal system, or whatever thelawyer told them when they first
met with that person, they getcaught on the escalator.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
And one of the messages that I hope that this
podcast brings to the world isthat you don't have to get on
the escalator and if you're onthe escalator, there is a way to
get off Absolutely.
And I think, charmaine, whatyou're bringing up the
importance of consensual disputeresolution options like
collaborative practice andmediation.
It's so important for what itbrings to the discussion,
(34:28):
because what we do in thecourtroom is not the right way
to transition a family.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
And the social science research is that this is
not the adversarial model, isnot the one that results in
happy, healthy, well-adjustedchildren.
And we had some changes to ourlegislation here in Canada, our
federal legislation a few yearsago, and in the legislation
(34:55):
itself it actually imposesduties on parents to protect
their children from the conflict.
But the irony is that theadversarial model is still the
process that's there for them towork through to protect their
children.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
So, in Saskatchewan, our government introduced
legislation that makes itmandatory for parents to
participate in a disputeresolution process before they
can even set foot into acourtroom.
So they have options they canparticipate in mediation, a
collaborative law process, workwith a parent coordinator, or
(35:32):
use arbitration, which, ofcourse, is still a
decision-making, adjudicativekind of a process, but it's one
that is not in open court andthere's more flexibility, and so
there's still a different vibe,if you will, than the regular
kind of litigation pathway, andso there's as you can expect, of
course, there's always somepushback whenever you are making
(35:55):
something mandatory, and ifit's something mandatory that
more traditionally, is thoughtof as a voluntary or consensual
kind of process, then people say, well, how can you actually do
mediation or collaborativepractice if you're kind of being
forced into it?
But here's what I think, though, is that people don't know what
they don't know.
(36:16):
I mean, if you talk to somebodyon the street about mediation,
often they're still getting itmixed up with meditation, or
they think you're talkingmedication, and I say to people
all the time until Amazon stopsauto-correcting me when I'm
searching for books aboutmediation that we're still not
fully, you know, as well enoughknown in society as we need to
(36:42):
be.
So making it mandatory forsomebody to actually participate
in something that gives themsome hope perhaps Hope that they
didn't realize was evenpossible, I think is a step in
the right direction, and I thinkthe majority of people and
parents really do want to havesomething that they can engage
(37:06):
in that doesn't cost them awhole bunch of money, doesn't
drag on for years and isn't highconflict, and those people will
still get caught up in anemotional escalation at times or
have an amygdala hijack orthere'll be something where
they're good people behavingpoorly, and if they can work
(37:27):
with well-trained professionalsthat can get them back on track,
it's going to benefit everybody.
Now there's a smaller percentageof bad people who can't do
anything but behave poorly, andthose people are the ones that
maybe have bigger issues, somebigger difficulties.
This isn't just about being inconflict or even high conflict.
(37:51):
This is about maybe having apersonality disorder or
something that actuallycompromises your ability to
think in these ways, and I'm ahuge fan of Bill Eddy's work.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Oh yeah, he's a good friend of ours, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
San Diego with us, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Oh, amazing.
So you know, as you know, andprobably many of your listeners
do too, that Bill Eddy will talkabout you know, just forget
about it if there are certainpersonality types that he does
not believe could have insightinto their behavior and the
impact of their behavior.
And yet, even with those peopleyou can engage in an
(38:33):
out-of-court, non-adversarialprocess that, if you can
identify what some of theirneeds are and help them using
you know, I like the earapproach, that empathy and
attention and respect, becausepeople with difficult
personalities tend to pushpeople away, which then further
(38:55):
escalates their strategiesaround conflict because they
don't know what else to do.
So, even in those verydifficult situations, utilizing
a process that can address needsthat another process can't is
worth a shot.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know I've had a lot of conversations with Bill
about that very subject and evenhe will say his test is well,
will they be better in court?
Will be better for this personto be in court, even with the
high conflict personality?
And I can attest to the workI've done.
I've been able to mediate caseswith high conflict
(39:39):
personalities, with people thatjust overtly narcissist or
borderline or both, and it canbe done.
It's not necessarily easy.
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Well, it's rare that we were not able to.
Sean and I do a lot of casestogether where we're able to
sort of tag team it, and thereare times when your own stuff
gets caught up in a case andthere are times when Sean and I
have turned to each other andsay, said you know, this guy
(40:10):
pushes my buttons yeah I meanthis guy, yeah, when he does
that, I don't like it.
you need to step in and be thegrown-up in the room because and
so we get engaged in thisdynamic that this couple are so
familiar with and are so adeptat playing their roles within
(40:33):
that.
It's very easy for us to getco-opted into that and to
maintain neutrality.
You have to be aggressive aboutit.
You have to be an aggressiveneutral.
You can't be a passive neutral,you'll get co an aggressive
neutral.
You can't be a passive neutral,you'll get co-opted.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Yes, I think that's very good yeah.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
And a big part of that is engaging in reflective
practice.
So one of the things that weteach and we run a mediation
practice group because, you know, frankly, for a lot of people
who practice mediation, unlessyou are part of a larger
organization, it's kind of asolitary profession.
So you know you do your work,but it's very helpful to have a
(41:12):
group that you can come into anddebrief, while protecting
confidentiality of your clients.
But, you know, just to be ableto say, hey, what are two things
that I did really well in thatmediation or that worked well?
And here's something that Iwould wish to do differently, or
I want to try differently, or Iwant to get somebody's input
(41:33):
into, because it is hard, likeit's an active engagement.
You have to have intentionalityand especially when maybe you
don't like one of the parties orboth of the parties for that
matter and keeping yourself outof it, reminding yourself that
this is actually their conflictand how they choose to move
(41:55):
forward, whether it's by way ofhaving a written agreement or
not, is actually that's theirjourney, to go on, and we're
there to help facilitate it.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
that's their journey to go on and we're there to help
facilitate it.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
You know, I had an experienceactually was a case I did with
Bill.
Bill Eddy was the mediator andI was working with Sean Skillen,
who was also my.
We do a lot of trainingtogether and I think if there
were three people in Californiathat could mediate a case with
high conflict personalitieswe're the three and very
(42:28):
difficult clients.
And I was particularly triggeredby the wife's behavior.
She was very borderline, herbehavior and my guy was very
narcissistic and might've evenbeen sociopathic.
Wow, and and um, I couldn'tfigure out what it was.
It was triggering me so muchand Sean was like kick me under
the table.
What's going wrong with you?
You're so upset.
You're not usually like thisand I finally realized what
(42:50):
happened.
I found a picture of mybrother's ex-wife no, and it
could have been her sister.
Oh, wow, Dead ringer, you know.
So I realized I was beingtriggered by things that this
person hadn't even done.
She was just guilty by lookinglike someone and, you know, as a
(43:14):
practitioner, recognizing thatyou're human, you know I would
do meditation before and afterthe meetings and it went better.
I will also say we did notsettle that case, because these
people were pretty difficult.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
But it's a rarity Sean that we don't complete
cases.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
It is rare.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
It's a rarity, I mean , we had that case that kept
coming back and after six yearswe told them we can't do any
more for you, remember?
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
But they're rarities.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
They're rarities.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
They're rarely we.
It's not always the experienceI hope for in in the case, you
don't always get the change, youdon't always get the
realization that they can bebetter ex-spouses than they were
spouses, which is, of course,the hope as we enter into this
work and at the end of it it'striage sometimes Just get the
(44:06):
deal done, get them across thefinish line.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Have you done the MSA yet?
Speaker 3 (44:10):
You know.
So I get that, we get there.
But the opportunity existswithin this format or these two
formats that doesn't exist forthat kind of healing and growth
to occur at all in the courtprocess.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
Well, every now and then.
You know, when we had Stu onour podcast with Mark and he
talked about every now and thenStu Webb, the father of
collaborative divorce, thegrandfather of collaborative
divorce, as we call him he saidevery now, and you get this
moment where you just have thisdeep, deep, deep silence.
It's this transformative momentwhere people finally hear each
(44:49):
other and they're not fighting,and then something changes, you
know, and that that is abrilliant moment, something I
live for as a practitioner.
I'm sure you and mark andcharmaine experience that too,
that when those happen, it it'sa real pain, but it's wonderful
to see people be able to getthrough a process in a way that
(45:17):
doesn't destroy what was left oftheir relationship.
Speaker 3 (45:20):
That honors what they were able to achieve and honors
what was good about therelationship.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So there's more than one way todo this, and it's not
necessarily go to court.
Well, we have been talking forclose to an hour.
This is a good conversation.
I'd love to have more of aconversation with you, but at
some point I guess we have tostop.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Well, and thank you so much for inviting me.
Well, and thank you so much for, you know, inviting me, and
certainly from the Canadianperspective.
You know we're well known formaking apologies about things
and getting along with people,but even here we have high
conflict situations and peoplewho need a little bit of
(46:03):
encouragement, and so I think,like I guess, a message that I'm
hoping the listeners, whereverthey're from and whatever their
circumstances are, is that theycan take away the message of
there is hope, because thereisn't at least in my opinion,
there isn't a oh, mediation andcollaborative practice is only
(46:25):
for these people.
I think that there's room forall types of conflict and it's
really about the team ofprofessionals that are working
with you.
Speaker 1 (46:36):
I agree completely so .
So, charmaine, I'm on yourwebsite right now.
It's commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
That's right I know some people think that's an
oxymoron, but I think it's agood selling feature.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
Well, I always say I'm the dolphin lawyer.
I'm a dolphin instead of ashark.
I like it.
So, commonsenselawyercom.
Is that where they should go ifthey want to book time with you
.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
That's where they should go, Absolutely yes.
Speaker 1 (47:03):
Okay, great.
And then, Mark, if somebodywanted to get a hold of you to
talk about the financial aspectsof their divorce, what?
Speaker 3 (47:09):
should they do, Go to my website pacdivorcecom
P-A-C-D-I-V-O-R-Ccom, andthere's a contact form on there.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Okay, and if anybody wants to talk to me about
mediation or the legal aspectsof divorce, or the legal aspects
of divorce, my website isWeberDisputeResolutioncom.
All one word, weber, with one Bdispute, like we had a fight
and resolution, like we solveditcom, and we'll be happy to
match you with a practitionerthat can help you solve your
(47:38):
case.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
And if you're just looking for some entertainment
mixed in with some legal content, you can follow me on TikTok.
My handle is atcommonsenselawyercom, at
commonsenselawyercom.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
That's it All right, very good, well, thanks for
being with us.
Thank you.
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
(48:15):
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
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
(48:39):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
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.