April 8, 2025 • 35 mins
Divorce unfolds in two parallel universes: the cold, mechanical world of legal proceedings and the raw, messy landscape of human emotions. When these worlds collide, many discover that what matters most to them personally holds little to no relevance in court. This disconnect can leave people feeling unheard and unable to move forward.
We dive deep into the concept of "legally irrelevant" issues that carry enormous emotional weight—betrayal from affairs, resentment over financial power imbalances, religious conflicts about raising children, and the unspoken promises broken through divorce. These emotionally charged issues may not sway a judge, but they absolutely impact people's willingness to negotiate and their ability to co-parent effectively after divorce.
Through real-world examples from our decades of combined experience, we explore how alternative approaches like mediation and collaborative divorce create sacred space for necessary emotional processing. We share strategies for reframing painful conversations, acknowledging hurt without assigning blame, and shifting focus from past grievances to future relationships—especially when children are involved.
The conversation takes a powerful turn when we discuss how parents "write the divorce story their children will tell." By defining personal mission statements and values early in the process, divorcing couples create foundations that support them through difficult conversations and set the stage for healthier post-divorce family dynamics.
Whether you're contemplating divorce, in the middle of one, or supporting someone who is, this episode offers wisdom about addressing the human side of legal separation. The law may be an imperfect tool for healing emotional wounds, but with the right approach, you can honor both the legal and emotional aspects of divorce.
What emotional issues are you struggling with that might seem "irrelevant" to the legal process? We'd love to hear your thoughts and questions.
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):
I have a bone to pick with the two of you.
Uh-oh, did you guys notice thatI didn't take the opportunity,
the low-hanging fruit joke abouthow some people feel they get
screwed in a divorce process?
And I didn't get any creditfrom the two of you for my
maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
And, I would point out, the podcast is not yet over
.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I still have time.
I was disappointed because Ilob a softball like consensual
sex at you and you just sitthere.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing,
and that is so, unlike you andquite irrelevant.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Frankly.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Marriage and family therapistPete Russo's and attorney Sean
(01:03):
Weber for a Frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co-parenting and thedifficult decisions real people
like you face during thesetough 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
(01:25):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
All right.
Well, you want to start us off,mark?
It sounds like you've got anidea of how to start it.
I can try.
I can just do it.
I don't care.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
If I can remember what I said, you you usually are
an mc here.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
all right, well, I can just start it.
I can just start it, yeah, allright, okay, hello, gentlemen,
hello, hello.
We are, uh, here to talk aboutaspects of divorce, like we do
every week, and we have talkedabout all of those relevant
issues.
The legally relevant things.
We've already talked about thatyou know, like child support
(02:10):
and spousal support, and we'vetalked about property division
and things like that.
But one thing that we may wantto spend a little time on are
the relevancy of the irrelevantissues, and what I mean by that
is sometimes there are issuesthat come up in a divorce that
the courts, legally, are notequipped to deal with.
(02:31):
Most jurisdictions, in theUnited States at least, are
no-fault states, so whose faultit is doesn't come up.
Issues of affairs don't come upin court, or other things like
what happened during themarriage or religious issues.
There's a whole list of thingsthat are very relevant to people
(02:52):
personally but aren'tnecessarily, or most likely not,
relevant in a legal context.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So really really important stuff that has no
bearing.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Very important things that are absolutely unimportant
legally but are very importantto people.
And are handled somewhat Well,in fact avoided often by
attorneys who completely because, it is not relevant you know,
not just yeah, not just avoid it, but shut down like somebody
brings up their feelings.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Nope, we're not going to talk about that and and
essential to address, becausepeople need to have their I
won't say day in court, but theyneed to have their ability to
state their feelings, sometimesbefore we can move on well, and
we're big believers inconsensual dispute resolution or
, as some people call it,alternative dispute resolution,
(03:49):
like mediation, collaborativepractice.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
We're big believers in that.
A big reason why we believe inthat is because you can address
some of those emotional issuesthat are important to get to a
settlement that would never bediscussed in front of a judge.
People think they're going togo to court and they're going to
get their day in court andthey're going to be able to tell
their story and the judge isjust going to melt into their
hands and give them what theywant just because of how
(04:13):
compelling their story is.
And then they get to court andthey realize there's so much of
their story they can't tell.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
And even if they do tell it, it doesn't even have
any impact, but to candidly,probably upset the judge exactly
, it pisses the judge off, youknow.
Objection relevance sustainedyep, yep, so we can't, we're not
going to talk about your, thegirlfriend or the boyfriend.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
we're not going to talk about that or that case.
You and I had mark, where theguy, the wife, ran away with the
horse trainer.
Remember that one?
Oh, yes, yep.
And we got to a point in thenegotiations where we're trying
to figure out what to do withthe horse and the husband, who'd
been very stoic up to thispoint, he says, well, we'll
shoot the horse.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Right, that did not go down.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
well, did not go down well with the wife, yep, you
know.
But but that was something youknow he had some strong feelings
that needed to be addressed,that could not have been
addressed in court, and we wereable to deal with it and and in
fact in that case that had majorfinancial implications because
they had been paying for, if Iremember in the right case.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
They've been paying these horse expenses for decades
on the assumption that whenwife got her inheritance it
would kind of take care of theirretirement.
And now they're getting adivorce and the whole.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Well, that's another case, but we see this kind of
pattern a lot, right?
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Okay, yeah, yeah, that was another one, but that
wasn't Okay, but I mean, theyall blend together, right they?
Do, Unfortunately.
Yeah, I mean we see a lot ofthe same facts.
Obviously, in my case that onewe see a lot of the facts
resurface.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Maybe it's good that they blend together so people
won't guess who we're talkingabout.
Yeah, but yeah, I mean thatkind of thing comes up.
Yeah, my wife's going to get anenormous inheritance.
I know she is because hermother is on death's door she's
102, and they have a lot ofmoney and she's going to get
that inheritance.
Court doesn't care, because theinheritance hasn't been
(06:09):
received yet.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
You know, as we're talking about it, guys, I'm
thinking about this from aprocess standpoint and I think
that one of the things that drewme to collaborative divorce
when I first heard about it in1997, 1996, was the idea that
that is, in a collaborativeprocess, sacred space is made
(06:35):
for people to be able to processtheir emotions.
It's a chance for the aggrieved, if you will, to do the grief
work on an emotional levelthat's going to be essential to
moving forward in acollaborative way, even though
there may be material aspects ofwhat it is that they're wanting
to address in terms ofsettlement that wouldn't be
(06:57):
considered in a court processthe emotional dynamics.
There is absolutely room andspace made for that in a
collaborative process or in thekind of mediation work that we
do, because we recognize thatthat's essential to people being
able to move forward, to grieveeffectively and to work
(07:18):
collaboratively andcooperatively with each other to
address the settlement issues.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
I think that's very true.
I mean, one of the premises ofour whole podcast is the idea
that there's the emotional, thelegal and the financial and they
all three have to be addressedin order for people to be
willing to settle their case.
And these emotional things needto be addressed in order for
people to be willing to settletheir case.
And these emotional things needto be addressed.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
And what's really interesting is that I remember a
case with you, pete, years andyears ago, where a couple
started going at it.
I can't remember, I had no ideawhat it was about, but they
started really laying into eachother and under normal
circumstances that raises myanxiety, and so my immediate
(08:02):
reaction was I need to jump inand stop this.
But I had you there and yourcolleague Lima, and basically
you let him go and it was okayfor me not to interrupt because
you were there, because youwould have stopped it if it was
going to.
He was going to come across thetable at her or something like
that which I was concerned about.
(08:23):
And later in our debrief Iasked you guys why, and you said
that conversation had to happenand this was the best
environment for it to happen in,and I've never forgotten that.
So you gave me the permissionnot to let my anxiety stop.
What had to happen in, and I'venever forgotten that.
So you gave me the permissionnot to let my anxiety stop.
What had to happen?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
You know, and I'm thinking about this too in terms
of my understanding of, likethe restorative justice movement
, or actually thinking of.
Also, what's coming to mind forme is research that I heard
about that had to do with howhospitals respond to malpractice
complaints and how important itwas for people to be able to
(09:06):
express their thoughts andfeelings, even if they didn't
get what they wanted.
Being heard was an importantpart of the healing process.
So I think, mark, what you'repointing to is the importance of
people being able to expressthemselves.
Now, I'll often steer theconversation, if you will, by
asking people is this theconversation that you need to
(09:28):
have and is this the way youwant to have it?
For people to takeresponsibility for that?
But I think that in that case,it was absolutely the
conversation that they needed tohave and the way they needed to
have it in order to movethrough that issue and move
forward.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
So maybe we can make a list of those very relevant,
irrelevant issues that we see alot that really gets uniquely
addressed in collaborative or inmediation.
The first one that comes to mymind is when there's betrayal,
betrayal, trauma, there'saffairs, or maybe it's financial
betrayal, but the feeling ofbetrayal is not something that
(10:09):
the court really cares about.
The court cares if there's likea breach of a financial duty,
like if you breach a fiduciaryduty, cares if there's like a
breach of a financial duty, likeif you breach a fiduciary duty.
But just the concept ofso-and-so did me wrong, doesn't
really, because it's a no-faultstate.
In California at least, itdoesn't really get dealt with in
(10:30):
court at all.
But if people are going to haveat least a somewhat positive
feeling about their divorce whenthey look at it in the rearview
mirror, it needs to bediscussed, right.
So, pete, I mean, when you havesomebody that's really
struggling with betrayal, howwould you work with them?
What do they need to hear?
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Well, I think that, if I'm thinking about it in the
context of a mediation case, sothe spouse who committed the
betrayal part of the work that Ido with that person is to help
them understand the absoluteimportance of them being open to
hearing from the other personabout their pain, what it was
(11:10):
like for them, and then to workwith that person who committed
the betrayal in terms of what itis, that they are willing and
feel a sense of integrity abouttaking responsibility for.
What are they going toacknowledge, what are they going
to own.
And then, for the person whofeels betrayed, part of the
(11:33):
challenge, if you will, of myrole working with that person is
to help them understand thatit's important that they be able
to express themselves, it'simportant that they be able to
tell their story, but for themto also recognize that they are
not entitled to anything.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
In regards to the feeling that they're having,
they're not entitled to anythingas it relates to settlement.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Yeah, in regards to the, in regards, they're also
not.
They're not entitled toanything as it relates to
settlement, but they're also notentitled to being heard, and
part of why it's important to tohelp them understand.
That is ideally.
Ideally, the, the parties aregoing to come together and the
person who who feels betrayed isable to express themselves in
(12:18):
an appropriate way, and theperson who betrayed them is able
to acknowledge the hurt thatthey caused and to take
responsibility.
But even if that doesn't happen, for the person who was
betrayed to be able to expressthemselves and hopefully have a
sense of not just integrity butalso closure, even if they don't
(12:38):
get the response that theywanted, because they were able
to assert themselves in anappropriate way.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I had this lady one time.
She's like.
I just wish he would apologize.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
And I said to her I said but does he feel sorry?
No, that's the problem.
Do you think he's going tosuddenly feel sorry because you
asked him to Right?
No, I don't think he will.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
So what do we do now?
But he might acknowledge thatshe's experiencing pain, which
is probably as far as becauseyou have this all the time with
affairs.
Well, if so-and-so hadn'thappened, I wouldn't have had an
affair.
If you had been more or less, Iwouldn't have had an affair.
So there's a concept that theywere pushed into the situation.
(13:26):
Whether it's real or valid, itdoesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Well, and there's a technique that mediators use all
the time, and I'm suretherapists use it too, peter the
reframe.
I'm going to take thisstatement that you made you jerk
, you had an affair and I hateyou and you're going to turn it
into something.
You're going to reframe it in away so that it's at least goes
in a more positive direction orat least more neutral direction,
(13:52):
so the other person can hear itso you're angry because he had
an affair during the marriage.
That upsets you and makes youangry.
You know that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And I think Sean, this also speaks to, I think,
one of the advantages of acollaborative process or
mediation, the way that we do it, where I think we're willing to
slow things down, do that kindof emotional processing and help
the parties understand why it'sso important.
Because those kinds ofconversations I think are
(14:31):
essential to being able to workthrough the pain and take steps
towards a more collaborativeresolution and working together,
particularly as it relates toco-parenting and things like
that.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And what I found is you never know when these issues
will arise, because people arereluctant to share their hurts,
sometimes quite understandably.
But imagine if you're not goingthrough an alternative dispute
resolution process and thisblows up right before your court
(15:04):
hearing and how disruptive thatcould be to making any progress
on your case because it can'tbe discussed or it won't be
discussed and it could blow upin open court and we've seen
that happen.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Guys, here's one that I wonder about is that we see,
I think commonly, where theemotional charge around separate
property issues, and so let'stalk about that.
What are some common examplesthat we see of an emotional
(15:40):
charge around a separateproperty issue?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
The biggest one is generally an inheritance that
occurs during the marriage, orgifting from parents where
there's a big imbalance on oneside or the other of the parents
in terms of net wealth orgenerosity, the concept that the
gift was made to both of themand then they bought this big
(16:06):
fancy house with that money.
And then, when we go back andlook at the gift tax returns, we
realize that, even though momand dad might have said, hey,
it's a gift for you and yourkids and your family, they
actually filled out the gift taxreturns to gift only to one and
therefore it's traceable.
And you know that's often abetrayal.
(16:30):
Sean, it's a hard one, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah we see it a lot.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Or related to that.
Mark, you and I had the casewhere there was a person who was
quite wealthy, with premaritalwealth We've seen this several
times, yeah and then the otherspouse marries and then there's
a power imbalance in themarriage as a result of one
person has a bunch of wealth andthe other one doesn't.
Maybe there's a reallywell-written prenup.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Yep.
And so then one of the spousesfeels like a second class
citizen in the marriage, andthen, as the divorce occurs and
the property is divided, itstill feels like a second class
(17:19):
no-transcript.
Well, yeah, we've had the casewhere it's like the woman that
has the money, oh yeah, yeah.
And then the husband has kindof been didn't need to work
during the marriage because whythey had tons of money, and then
the marriage dissolves andsuddenly he's expected to earn
(17:40):
his own keep.
Maybe the wife feels like he'sbeen a deadbeat the whole
marriage, maybe he has, maybe hehasn't, but there's these
feelings swirling around, thispower imbalance with the money
that legally, no one can doanything with.
That.
You know how you feel aboutyour money is not really
(18:01):
important to the court, no, butit's very important if you're
trying to settle your casewithout going to court, and so
we have to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So to be able to have that conversation is essential.
As difficult as it is and, asyou know, as avoidant as lawyers
and accountants can be of thesesuch topics, it just tells you
why you get into such quagmireswith divorce and nothing moves
(18:32):
forward because you don'taddress these issues.
And so you know it's likewaiting for Godot.
Let's go.
We can't why we're waiting forGodot.
We're waiting to have thisconversation so we can get past
it and then talk about realsettlement options.
Need spouse, the one thatactually has the resources to be
a little generous, perhaps toget it done once you've had that
(19:04):
conversation, which would notnecessarily happen if you go to
trial.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
You know there's that the law can only do so much
right and the law doesn't really.
It's just a set of rules thatsomebody came up with because
they're trying to order theirsociety.
But I think of that CharlesDickens book.
You know all of the twists.
When Mr Bumble, the unhappyspouse of a domineering wife, is
told in court that the lawsupposes that your wife acts
(19:28):
under your direction, and thenhe replies if the law supposes
that, said Mr Bumble squeezinghis hand and fatiguing both
hands, the law is an ass.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Absolutely Nice quote .
Speaker 2 (19:43):
But I think you know I have that reaction from a lot
of people.
Well, that's just ridiculous.
You know that's terrible,that's not fair and we've said
time and time again on thispodcast that fair is the F word,
but it's not what happens atcourt.
It's where you buy a pig, butit's not what happens with the
law.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Or it's like beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
It's in the eye.
Yeah, because what you think isfair may be different from what
I think is fair.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Yeah, Because everybody just wants what's fair
.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Right, and so that's another one.
There's nothing in the familycode that says fair.
There's stuff in the CaliforniaFamily Code about equity.
It's a court of equity and sowe have to be equitable.
But you know, there are alsolaws that specifically say how
things are divided, whether it'sequitable or not, and the court
(20:30):
has no choice but to apply thelaw.
When you go to an out-of-courtoption like mediation or
collaborative practice, youdon't have to necessarily apply
the law.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Although you should know what the law says, because
I always say we do this workunder the umbrella of the law.
So we need to know if we'reunder the umbrella or if we're
stepping outside of it, becauseyou can agree to step outside
from under the umbrella if youboth agree.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Yeah, if you both agree.
That's the key here.
Yes, yeah, well, he should giveme this, well, does he agree?
No, well, then I don't thinkhe's going to give it to you.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Yeah, so Sean, full confession.
You used a term earlier todaythat I had never heard before.
Uh-oh, Consensual disputeresolution.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I know it sounds like consensual sex, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (21:23):
No, no, but I wanted to have you say more about it
because it you know, I alwaysuse the term alternative dispute
resolution, so I'm curiousabout the genesis of that term,
and does that mean somethingdifferent to you?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So a lot of practitioners like us in the
community have been gravitatingtowards the term consensual
dispute resolution as opposed toalternative dispute resolution
because number one they didn'twant to view mediation or
collaborative practices likealternative weird, like
alternative medicine you knowit's not the acupuncture of law
yeah, not that there's anythingwrong with acupuncture.
(21:59):
I look forward to your letters.
But, um, but also the, the, theidea that it's actually a
mainstream concept, but thenalso the concept of consensual.
You reach an agreement becauseyou consent to it.
You're not going to a strangerin black robes who creates your
orders for you and imposes aruling upon you.
You and your partner consent toan agreement.
(22:23):
You and your partner consent toan agreement, and so I, I, I
like the, the concept ofconsensual because it really
does emphasize the importance ofinformed consent.
So you do need to know what thelaw is, but then you, you
willfully submit to theagreement that you submit to and
then you own it.
It's about empowerment.
(22:43):
It really is more empowermentyeah, yeah and responsibility
yeah, even if you agree tosomething you don't like.
Yep, like I always tell myclients uh, if I'm doing my job,
you'll probably both walk outof here a little disappointed
because you've compromised onsomething.
You know compromise actually agood thing, as opposed to what
they tell us in washington.
Yeah, you know you got more ofwhat you would have made you.
(23:08):
You've gotten more of somethingby giving something up.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, um, I have a bone to pick with the two of you
.
Uh-oh, um, two minutes ago,when I brought this up and you
said it sounds like consensualsex, did you guys notice that I
didn't take the opportunity?
The low-hanging fruit jokeabout how some people feel they
(23:33):
get screwed in a divorce process.
And I didn't get any creditfrom the two of you for my
maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And I would point out , the podcast is not yet over.
You still have time.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I was disappointed because I lob a softball like
consensual sex at you and youjust sit there and I saw a
little smile on your face butyou didn't take the bait.
It was decorum.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing
and that is so unlike you.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
And quite irrelevant frankly.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
But no, no, that would I mean.
Yeah, people do feel screwed,don't they?
I mean, let's accept real.
I mean I mean we're joking, butit's actually serious.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
People feel screwed yeah, that is, I think you know.
I mean the theme of what we'retalking about, these, the
whatever it is that's irrelevantin the eyes of the court.
What we're really talking aboutare the emotional aspects of of
whatever that content is, butthe emotional part of that for
people.
And so how do do we facilitatea process to, to help them go
(24:55):
through process, resolve thatinternal sense that they are
either being take advantage ofor not getting what's fair?
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And it has to be addressed because otherwise
it'll play out in the only tworemaining arenas, which are the
money and the children, and oncethe money's done, it's done.
Unless there's been some kindof fraud perpetrated, it's done,
and so what's left is the kids.
It's done, and so what's leftis the kids, and we've all seen
it where the children become thefinal pawn in the game, and to
(25:28):
their detriment.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
I found very useful in the mediation context, when
we're discussing these things,to be more focused on the future
.
Court is focused on the past.
Something was done and I get myredress right.
That's what court's about.
A rule, you know, it's allabout past, but what we do in
(25:51):
mediation and collaborativepractice is very future and
interest based.
What are your interests, whatdo you need tomorrow, what do
you need next year?
And so a future focusedapproach, I think, works a lot
better than a past focusedapproach, even though we do have
to.
Sometimes you have to talkabout the story and you have to
process the emotions thatsurround that story, but then my
(26:14):
question always usually landsat okay, well, we've talked
about this and I see that it wasvery painful for you.
Now what are we going to do?
And I see that it was verypainful for you.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Now, what are we going to do?
And that is something peopleare so not focused on except in
terms of fear, and often theydon't want to look at it because
I don't want to know what I canafford, because I'm afraid
it'll be terrible.
But that allows us to.
I always ask people in myinitial meetings where do you
see yourself three to five yearsdown the road?
(26:44):
And most times I get totalsilence.
They haven't even considered itand I'll even say well, how do
you see your relationship withyour spouse post-divorce?
And that, again, is oftengreeted with silence.
(27:05):
Yeah, again is often greetedwith silence.
Yeah, so you're right, sean, toget people focused on the
future.
Um is is really critical,because then they can start to
plan.
But if you're not thinkingabout the future, you're not
going to plan for the futurehere's a common conversation.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
We're talking about values for the future, for your
family going forward.
Number one it's hard for peopleto fathom that the family even
continues, but it it does.
You're still a family,especially if you have kids.
And then so what?
How are you going to interact,going forward in your roles?
Well, I don't know how I caninteract with this person
because of what they did to me,you know.
(27:37):
And then you said well, whatabout your kids?
Do they need you to interact?
You know, To what extent doyour children need you to find a
way to talk to each other?
And then people start thinkingabout the future.
What are your kids going to do?
We say it a lot on this podcastand we say it to our clients
(27:57):
Mark, you have the power towrite the divorce story that
your children are going to tellabout you later.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
You have the power to write the divorce story that
your children are going to tellabout you later.
We've talked before in variousepisodes about the value of
having clients at the start of aprocess.
Define their mission statement,yes or how they want the
divorce process to go, but also,what do they want that future
co-parenting relationship tolook like?
What do they want that futureco-parenting relationship to
(28:24):
look like?
I think that's such a powerfulexercise because it really
encourages people to, fromwhat's best in them, define
their higher self objectives andaspirations, and it also then
helps us talk with them aboutokay, what are going to be the
obstacles to getting there?
What are the emotional issuesthat we need to address and talk
about in order for you to beable to move forward together to
(28:48):
realize this healthy visionthat you've described.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Defined it's well said so it is so critical to
have them define it, because Imean, if you define it, it's
like they have no ownership ofit, so why should they bother?
If they define it, we can takethem back to that.
Well, this is how this is achallenging conversation.
Let's go back and see what wesaid about this back when we
(29:13):
first met with you, how youwanted to resolve such things.
Has anything changed about that?
No, okay, so perhaps we could.
It brings everything backtogether, so it's a critical
part of the process and it'soften totally ignored.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Often is, it often is and it shouldn't be.
I think when it's done well,that becomes a rock for people,
a foundation for people to buildon for their future
relationship and for theirfamily.
It does so much.
Yeah, well, you know.
(29:51):
What we haven't talked about isreligion and politics.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Oh yeah, Are those relevant Sure?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Not particularly, but they're important.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yeah, they are yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
And so sometimes that comes up where you know maybe
there's a religiousconsideration, Like my pastor
said this, my priest said that,my rabbi said that you know, my
religious text says tells methis, yes, and it may be very
relevant to you, but we're in astate which is, you know,
(30:22):
separation of church and state.
There is no consideration bythe courts about your religious
needs or the religious needs ofthe children or the religious
needs of the children, which isanother huge one.
You promised me we're going toraise the kids Jewish, and now
you're taking them to church.
What's going on here?
Well, I changed my mind.
Well, what do we do about that?
So sometimes there has to be aconversation about this.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Um, I'm thinking about I'm thinking about a
couple that I worked with wherethey had very, very divergent
political views, yeah, and thethe tension between them was
that they each thought that thatshould affect the time share,
that they amazing, yeah, thatthat should affect the timeshare
, that they should have moretime with the children because
(31:08):
of the bad influence that theother parent could be.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
You know, since COVID and the current politics, I've
seen more and more politicalstruggles with parents.
Go ahead, Mark.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Well, same point.
Same point.
Basically.
I had a case where the wifewanted to control what tv
channels were watched inhusband's house because that,
basically, was the politicaldecision based around which and
you know you may, I may havedisagreed or agreed with her.
(31:40):
It didn't matter, you know shehad to come to terms with the
fact that that channel that shehated because she thinks it's
all lies, didn't want she,didn't want the kids exposed to
it.
But guess what?
They were going to get verydifferent political views in
different households, and I'mnot sure that's a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
How about this?
Under no circumstances.
This was the father speaking.
This is a value he wanted putinto the mission statement.
Under no circumstances will thechildren ever become Dodgers
fans.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Oh well that I understand.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I think Mark don't you have that in your treatment
agreement.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
We should point out that there is game three of the
division series between thedodgers and padres about to
occur on the day we're recordingthis, so these are heightened
feelings, yeah yeah, so I meansome people, I mean, they take
their sports very seriously.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
It's like religion for them, right?
Yes, yep, you know.
Or their family was always.
You know, my family were alwaysreds fans, and if anybody was a
cubs fan, oh, oh.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah, and it's not a choice.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
No, it's not a choice .
Speaker 3 (32:47):
You're raised in it.
It's not a choice.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Well gentlemen, we've done it again.
We have, indeed we have burnedthrough some time with these
good people that listen to usand we know you're out there and
thank you for listening.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Yes, and, by the way, did you know?
Speaker 2 (33:04):
you're out there, um, and thank you for listening.
Yes, and, by the way, did youknow?
Speaker 3 (33:05):
we're on youtube now and I would add something that
we've often said in the pastbring us your questions yeah,
would you like?
Us to talk about what would berelevant to you.
What haven't we discussed umgive us ideas?
Speaker 2 (33:21):
and that is something with the youtube YouTube
channels.
Please push the like button,subscribe and let us know what
you want us to talk about, orlet us know what you think of
what we said.
If you think we're full of crap, tell us.
If you like what we said, welike that even better.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
But we enjoy critical feedback.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Absolutely Well, speak for yourself.
No, I like it.
I do like it.
We want it.
We'd be good.
So, Mark, if people need to geta hold of you to talk about a
financial issue, what shouldthey do?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Go to my website.
My company is Pacific DivorceManagement and my website is
packdivorcecom.
There is a contact form you canfill out and we will be
diligent in getting back to you.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And Pete.
If people need time emotionallyprocessing the relevance of
their irrelevant issues, whatshould they do?
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Also can reach me through my website
PeterRussoscom, that'sP-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-S dot com
and the contact me page on mywebsite.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
And anybody that has a legal question about divorce.
Feel free to reach out to me.
I'm also available to mediateany dispute that you have.
It's Weber dispute resolutiondot com.
Weber, like the grill dispute,like we had a fight and
resolution, like we solved it.
Weber dispute resolution dotcom.
Until next time, good luck.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
Adios, see you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Thanks for listening to another episode of the three
wise men 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.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(35:20):
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.
I have a bone to pick with the two of you.
Uh-oh, did you guys notice thatI didn't take the opportunity,
the low-hanging fruit joke abouthow some people feel they get
screwed in a divorce process?
And I didn't get any creditfrom the two of you for my
maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
And, I would point out, the podcast is not yet over
.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I still have time.
I was disappointed because Ilob a softball like consensual
sex at you and you just sitthere.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing,
and that is so, unlike you andquite irrelevant.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Frankly.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Marriage and family therapistPete Russo's and attorney Sean
(01:03):
Weber for a Frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co-parenting and thedifficult decisions real people
like you face during thesetough 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
(01:25):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
All right.
Well, you want to start us off,mark?
It sounds like you've got anidea of how to start it.
I can try.
I can just do it.
I don't care.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
If I can remember what I said, you you usually are
an mc here.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
all right, well, I can just start it.
I can just start it, yeah, allright, okay, hello, gentlemen,
hello, hello.
We are, uh, here to talk aboutaspects of divorce, like we do
every week, and we have talkedabout all of those relevant
issues.
The legally relevant things.
We've already talked about thatyou know, like child support
(02:10):
and spousal support, and we'vetalked about property division
and things like that.
But one thing that we may wantto spend a little time on are
the relevancy of the irrelevantissues, and what I mean by that
is sometimes there are issuesthat come up in a divorce that
the courts, legally, are notequipped to deal with.
(02:31):
Most jurisdictions, in theUnited States at least, are
no-fault states, so whose faultit is doesn't come up.
Issues of affairs don't come upin court, or other things like
what happened during themarriage or religious issues.
There's a whole list of thingsthat are very relevant to people
(02:52):
personally but aren'tnecessarily, or most likely not,
relevant in a legal context.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So really really important stuff that has no
bearing.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Very important things that are absolutely unimportant
legally but are very importantto people.
And are handled somewhat Well,in fact avoided often by
attorneys who completely because, it is not relevant you know,
not just yeah, not just avoid it, but shut down like somebody
brings up their feelings.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Nope, we're not going to talk about that and and
essential to address, becausepeople need to have their I
won't say day in court, but theyneed to have their ability to
state their feelings, sometimesbefore we can move on well, and
we're big believers inconsensual dispute resolution or
, as some people call it,alternative dispute resolution,
(03:49):
like mediation, collaborativepractice.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
We're big believers in that.
A big reason why we believe inthat is because you can address
some of those emotional issuesthat are important to get to a
settlement that would never bediscussed in front of a judge.
People think they're going togo to court and they're going to
get their day in court andthey're going to be able to tell
their story and the judge isjust going to melt into their
hands and give them what theywant just because of how
(04:13):
compelling their story is.
And then they get to court andthey realize there's so much of
their story they can't tell.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
And even if they do tell it, it doesn't even have
any impact, but to candidly,probably upset the judge exactly
, it pisses the judge off, youknow.
Objection relevance sustainedyep, yep, so we can't, we're not
going to talk about your, thegirlfriend or the boyfriend.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
we're not going to talk about that or that case.
You and I had mark, where theguy, the wife, ran away with the
horse trainer.
Remember that one?
Oh, yes, yep.
And we got to a point in thenegotiations where we're trying
to figure out what to do withthe horse and the husband, who'd
been very stoic up to thispoint, he says, well, we'll
shoot the horse.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Right, that did not go down.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
well, did not go down well with the wife, yep, you
know.
But but that was something youknow he had some strong feelings
that needed to be addressed,that could not have been
addressed in court, and we wereable to deal with it and and in
fact in that case that had majorfinancial implications because
they had been paying for, if Iremember in the right case.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
They've been paying these horse expenses for decades
on the assumption that whenwife got her inheritance it
would kind of take care of theirretirement.
And now they're getting adivorce and the whole.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Well, that's another case, but we see this kind of
pattern a lot, right?
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Okay, yeah, yeah, that was another one, but that
wasn't Okay, but I mean, theyall blend together, right they?
Do, Unfortunately.
Yeah, I mean we see a lot ofthe same facts.
Obviously, in my case that onewe see a lot of the facts
resurface.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Maybe it's good that they blend together so people
won't guess who we're talkingabout.
Yeah, but yeah, I mean thatkind of thing comes up.
Yeah, my wife's going to get anenormous inheritance.
I know she is because hermother is on death's door she's
102, and they have a lot ofmoney and she's going to get
that inheritance.
Court doesn't care, because theinheritance hasn't been
(06:09):
received yet.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
You know, as we're talking about it, guys, I'm
thinking about this from aprocess standpoint and I think
that one of the things that drewme to collaborative divorce
when I first heard about it in1997, 1996, was the idea that
that is, in a collaborativeprocess, sacred space is made
(06:35):
for people to be able to processtheir emotions.
It's a chance for the aggrieved, if you will, to do the grief
work on an emotional levelthat's going to be essential to
moving forward in acollaborative way, even though
there may be material aspects ofwhat it is that they're wanting
to address in terms ofsettlement that wouldn't be
(06:57):
considered in a court processthe emotional dynamics.
There is absolutely room andspace made for that in a
collaborative process or in thekind of mediation work that we
do, because we recognize thatthat's essential to people being
able to move forward, to grieveeffectively and to work
(07:18):
collaboratively andcooperatively with each other to
address the settlement issues.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
I think that's very true.
I mean, one of the premises ofour whole podcast is the idea
that there's the emotional, thelegal and the financial and they
all three have to be addressedin order for people to be
willing to settle their case.
And these emotional things needto be addressed in order for
people to be willing to settletheir case.
And these emotional things needto be addressed.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
And what's really interesting is that I remember a
case with you, pete, years andyears ago, where a couple
started going at it.
I can't remember, I had no ideawhat it was about, but they
started really laying into eachother and under normal
circumstances that raises myanxiety, and so my immediate
(08:02):
reaction was I need to jump inand stop this.
But I had you there and yourcolleague Lima, and basically
you let him go and it was okayfor me not to interrupt because
you were there, because youwould have stopped it if it was
going to.
He was going to come across thetable at her or something like
that which I was concerned about.
(08:23):
And later in our debrief Iasked you guys why, and you said
that conversation had to happenand this was the best
environment for it to happen in,and I've never forgotten that.
So you gave me the permissionnot to let my anxiety stop.
What had to happen in, and I'venever forgotten that.
So you gave me the permissionnot to let my anxiety stop.
What had to happen?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
You know, and I'm thinking about this too in terms
of my understanding of, likethe restorative justice movement
, or actually thinking of.
Also, what's coming to mind forme is research that I heard
about that had to do with howhospitals respond to malpractice
complaints and how important itwas for people to be able to
(09:06):
express their thoughts andfeelings, even if they didn't
get what they wanted.
Being heard was an importantpart of the healing process.
So I think, mark, what you'repointing to is the importance of
people being able to expressthemselves.
Now, I'll often steer theconversation, if you will, by
asking people is this theconversation that you need to
(09:28):
have and is this the way youwant to have it?
For people to takeresponsibility for that?
But I think that in that case,it was absolutely the
conversation that they needed tohave and the way they needed to
have it in order to movethrough that issue and move
forward.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
So maybe we can make a list of those very relevant,
irrelevant issues that we see alot that really gets uniquely
addressed in collaborative or inmediation.
The first one that comes to mymind is when there's betrayal,
betrayal, trauma, there'saffairs, or maybe it's financial
betrayal, but the feeling ofbetrayal is not something that
(10:09):
the court really cares about.
The court cares if there's likea breach of a financial duty,
like if you breach a fiduciaryduty, cares if there's like a
breach of a financial duty, likeif you breach a fiduciary duty.
But just the concept ofso-and-so did me wrong, doesn't
really, because it's a no-faultstate.
In California at least, itdoesn't really get dealt with in
(10:30):
court at all.
But if people are going to haveat least a somewhat positive
feeling about their divorce whenthey look at it in the rearview
mirror, it needs to bediscussed, right.
So, pete, I mean, when you havesomebody that's really
struggling with betrayal, howwould you work with them?
What do they need to hear?
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Well, I think that, if I'm thinking about it in the
context of a mediation case, sothe spouse who committed the
betrayal part of the work that Ido with that person is to help
them understand the absoluteimportance of them being open to
hearing from the other personabout their pain, what it was
(11:10):
like for them, and then to workwith that person who committed
the betrayal in terms of what itis, that they are willing and
feel a sense of integrity abouttaking responsibility for.
What are they going toacknowledge, what are they going
to own.
And then, for the person whofeels betrayed, part of the
(11:33):
challenge, if you will, of myrole working with that person is
to help them understand thatit's important that they be able
to express themselves, it'simportant that they be able to
tell their story, but for themto also recognize that they are
not entitled to anything.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
In regards to the feeling that they're having,
they're not entitled to anythingas it relates to settlement.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Yeah, in regards to the, in regards, they're also
not.
They're not entitled toanything as it relates to
settlement, but they're also notentitled to being heard, and
part of why it's important to tohelp them understand.
That is ideally.
Ideally, the, the parties aregoing to come together and the
person who who feels betrayed isable to express themselves in
(12:18):
an appropriate way, and theperson who betrayed them is able
to acknowledge the hurt thatthey caused and to take
responsibility.
But even if that doesn't happen, for the person who was
betrayed to be able to expressthemselves and hopefully have a
sense of not just integrity butalso closure, even if they don't
(12:38):
get the response that theywanted, because they were able
to assert themselves in anappropriate way.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I had this lady one time.
She's like.
I just wish he would apologize.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
And I said to her I said but does he feel sorry?
No, that's the problem.
Do you think he's going tosuddenly feel sorry because you
asked him to Right?
No, I don't think he will.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
So what do we do now?
But he might acknowledge thatshe's experiencing pain, which
is probably as far as becauseyou have this all the time with
affairs.
Well, if so-and-so hadn'thappened, I wouldn't have had an
affair.
If you had been more or less, Iwouldn't have had an affair.
So there's a concept that theywere pushed into the situation.
(13:26):
Whether it's real or valid, itdoesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Well, and there's a technique that mediators use all
the time, and I'm suretherapists use it too, peter the
reframe.
I'm going to take thisstatement that you made you jerk
, you had an affair and I hateyou and you're going to turn it
into something.
You're going to reframe it in away so that it's at least goes
in a more positive direction orat least more neutral direction,
(13:52):
so the other person can hear itso you're angry because he had
an affair during the marriage.
That upsets you and makes youangry.
You know that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And I think Sean, this also speaks to, I think,
one of the advantages of acollaborative process or
mediation, the way that we do it, where I think we're willing to
slow things down, do that kindof emotional processing and help
the parties understand why it'sso important.
Because those kinds ofconversations I think are
(14:31):
essential to being able to workthrough the pain and take steps
towards a more collaborativeresolution and working together,
particularly as it relates toco-parenting and things like
that.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And what I found is you never know when these issues
will arise, because people arereluctant to share their hurts,
sometimes quite understandably.
But imagine if you're not goingthrough an alternative dispute
resolution process and thisblows up right before your court
(15:04):
hearing and how disruptive thatcould be to making any progress
on your case because it can'tbe discussed or it won't be
discussed and it could blow upin open court and we've seen
that happen.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Guys, here's one that I wonder about is that we see,
I think commonly, where theemotional charge around separate
property issues, and so let'stalk about that.
What are some common examplesthat we see of an emotional
(15:40):
charge around a separateproperty issue?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
The biggest one is generally an inheritance that
occurs during the marriage, orgifting from parents where
there's a big imbalance on oneside or the other of the parents
in terms of net wealth orgenerosity, the concept that the
gift was made to both of themand then they bought this big
(16:06):
fancy house with that money.
And then, when we go back andlook at the gift tax returns, we
realize that, even though momand dad might have said, hey,
it's a gift for you and yourkids and your family, they
actually filled out the gift taxreturns to gift only to one and
therefore it's traceable.
And you know that's often abetrayal.
(16:30):
Sean, it's a hard one, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah we see it a lot.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Or related to that.
Mark, you and I had the casewhere there was a person who was
quite wealthy, with premaritalwealth We've seen this several
times, yeah and then the otherspouse marries and then there's
a power imbalance in themarriage as a result of one
person has a bunch of wealth andthe other one doesn't.
Maybe there's a reallywell-written prenup.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Yep.
And so then one of the spousesfeels like a second class
citizen in the marriage, andthen, as the divorce occurs and
the property is divided, itstill feels like a second class
(17:19):
no-transcript.
Well, yeah, we've had the casewhere it's like the woman that
has the money, oh yeah, yeah.
And then the husband has kindof been didn't need to work
during the marriage because whythey had tons of money, and then
the marriage dissolves andsuddenly he's expected to earn
(17:40):
his own keep.
Maybe the wife feels like he'sbeen a deadbeat the whole
marriage, maybe he has, maybe hehasn't, but there's these
feelings swirling around, thispower imbalance with the money
that legally, no one can doanything with.
That.
You know how you feel aboutyour money is not really
(18:01):
important to the court, no, butit's very important if you're
trying to settle your casewithout going to court, and so
we have to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So to be able to have that conversation is essential.
As difficult as it is and, asyou know, as avoidant as lawyers
and accountants can be of thesesuch topics, it just tells you
why you get into such quagmireswith divorce and nothing moves
(18:32):
forward because you don'taddress these issues.
And so you know it's likewaiting for Godot.
Let's go.
We can't why we're waiting forGodot.
We're waiting to have thisconversation so we can get past
it and then talk about realsettlement options.
Need spouse, the one thatactually has the resources to be
a little generous, perhaps toget it done once you've had that
(19:04):
conversation, which would notnecessarily happen if you go to
trial.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
You know there's that the law can only do so much
right and the law doesn't really.
It's just a set of rules thatsomebody came up with because
they're trying to order theirsociety.
But I think of that CharlesDickens book.
You know all of the twists.
When Mr Bumble, the unhappyspouse of a domineering wife, is
told in court that the lawsupposes that your wife acts
(19:28):
under your direction, and thenhe replies if the law supposes
that, said Mr Bumble squeezinghis hand and fatiguing both
hands, the law is an ass.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Absolutely Nice quote .
Speaker 2 (19:43):
But I think you know I have that reaction from a lot
of people.
Well, that's just ridiculous.
You know that's terrible,that's not fair and we've said
time and time again on thispodcast that fair is the F word,
but it's not what happens atcourt.
It's where you buy a pig, butit's not what happens with the
law.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Or it's like beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
It's in the eye.
Yeah, because what you think isfair may be different from what
I think is fair.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Yeah, Because everybody just wants what's fair
.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Right, and so that's another one.
There's nothing in the familycode that says fair.
There's stuff in the CaliforniaFamily Code about equity.
It's a court of equity and sowe have to be equitable.
But you know, there are alsolaws that specifically say how
things are divided, whether it'sequitable or not, and the court
(20:30):
has no choice but to apply thelaw.
When you go to an out-of-courtoption like mediation or
collaborative practice, youdon't have to necessarily apply
the law.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Although you should know what the law says, because
I always say we do this workunder the umbrella of the law.
So we need to know if we'reunder the umbrella or if we're
stepping outside of it, becauseyou can agree to step outside
from under the umbrella if youboth agree.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Yeah, if you both agree.
That's the key here.
Yes, yeah, well, he should giveme this, well, does he agree?
No, well, then I don't thinkhe's going to give it to you.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Yeah, so Sean, full confession.
You used a term earlier todaythat I had never heard before.
Uh-oh, Consensual disputeresolution.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I know it sounds like consensual sex, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (21:23):
No, no, but I wanted to have you say more about it
because it you know, I alwaysuse the term alternative dispute
resolution, so I'm curiousabout the genesis of that term,
and does that mean somethingdifferent to you?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So a lot of practitioners like us in the
community have been gravitatingtowards the term consensual
dispute resolution as opposed toalternative dispute resolution
because number one they didn'twant to view mediation or
collaborative practices likealternative weird, like
alternative medicine you knowit's not the acupuncture of law
yeah, not that there's anythingwrong with acupuncture.
(21:59):
I look forward to your letters.
But, um, but also the, the, theidea that it's actually a
mainstream concept, but thenalso the concept of consensual.
You reach an agreement becauseyou consent to it.
You're not going to a strangerin black robes who creates your
orders for you and imposes aruling upon you.
You and your partner consent toan agreement.
(22:23):
You and your partner consent toan agreement, and so I, I, I
like the, the concept ofconsensual because it really
does emphasize the importance ofinformed consent.
So you do need to know what thelaw is, but then you, you
willfully submit to theagreement that you submit to and
then you own it.
It's about empowerment.
(22:43):
It really is more empowermentyeah, yeah and responsibility
yeah, even if you agree tosomething you don't like.
Yep, like I always tell myclients uh, if I'm doing my job,
you'll probably both walk outof here a little disappointed
because you've compromised onsomething.
You know compromise actually agood thing, as opposed to what
they tell us in washington.
Yeah, you know you got more ofwhat you would have made you.
(23:08):
You've gotten more of somethingby giving something up.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, um, I have a bone to pick with the two of you
.
Uh-oh, um, two minutes ago,when I brought this up and you
said it sounds like consensualsex, did you guys notice that I
didn't take the opportunity?
The low-hanging fruit jokeabout how some people feel they
(23:33):
get screwed in a divorce process.
And I didn't get any creditfrom the two of you for my
maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And I would point out , the podcast is not yet over.
You still have time.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I was disappointed because I lob a softball like
consensual sex at you and youjust sit there and I saw a
little smile on your face butyou didn't take the bait.
It was decorum.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing
and that is so unlike you.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
And quite irrelevant frankly.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
But no, no, that would I mean.
Yeah, people do feel screwed,don't they?
I mean, let's accept real.
I mean I mean we're joking, butit's actually serious.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
People feel screwed yeah, that is, I think you know.
I mean the theme of what we'retalking about, these, the
whatever it is that's irrelevantin the eyes of the court.
What we're really talking aboutare the emotional aspects of of
whatever that content is, butthe emotional part of that for
people.
And so how do do we facilitatea process to, to help them go
(24:55):
through process, resolve thatinternal sense that they are
either being take advantage ofor not getting what's fair?
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And it has to be addressed because otherwise
it'll play out in the only tworemaining arenas, which are the
money and the children, and oncethe money's done, it's done.
Unless there's been some kindof fraud perpetrated, it's done,
and so what's left is the kids.
It's done, and so what's leftis the kids, and we've all seen
it where the children become thefinal pawn in the game, and to
(25:28):
their detriment.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
I found very useful in the mediation context, when
we're discussing these things,to be more focused on the future
.
Court is focused on the past.
Something was done and I get myredress right.
That's what court's about.
A rule, you know, it's allabout past, but what we do in
(25:51):
mediation and collaborativepractice is very future and
interest based.
What are your interests, whatdo you need tomorrow, what do
you need next year?
And so a future focusedapproach, I think, works a lot
better than a past focusedapproach, even though we do have
to.
Sometimes you have to talkabout the story and you have to
process the emotions thatsurround that story, but then my
(26:14):
question always usually landsat okay, well, we've talked
about this and I see that it wasvery painful for you.
Now what are we going to do?
And I see that it was verypainful for you.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Now, what are we going to do?
And that is something peopleare so not focused on except in
terms of fear, and often theydon't want to look at it because
I don't want to know what I canafford, because I'm afraid
it'll be terrible.
But that allows us to.
I always ask people in myinitial meetings where do you
see yourself three to five yearsdown the road?
(26:44):
And most times I get totalsilence.
They haven't even considered itand I'll even say well, how do
you see your relationship withyour spouse post-divorce?
And that, again, is oftengreeted with silence.
(27:05):
Yeah, again is often greetedwith silence.
Yeah, so you're right, sean, toget people focused on the
future.
Um is is really critical,because then they can start to
plan.
But if you're not thinkingabout the future, you're not
going to plan for the futurehere's a common conversation.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
We're talking about values for the future, for your
family going forward.
Number one it's hard for peopleto fathom that the family even
continues, but it it does.
You're still a family,especially if you have kids.
And then so what?
How are you going to interact,going forward in your roles?
Well, I don't know how I caninteract with this person
because of what they did to me,you know.
(27:37):
And then you said well, whatabout your kids?
Do they need you to interact?
You know, To what extent doyour children need you to find a
way to talk to each other?
And then people start thinkingabout the future.
What are your kids going to do?
We say it a lot on this podcastand we say it to our clients
(27:57):
Mark, you have the power towrite the divorce story that
your children are going to tellabout you later.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
You have the power to write the divorce story that
your children are going to tellabout you later.
We've talked before in variousepisodes about the value of
having clients at the start of aprocess.
Define their mission statement,yes or how they want the
divorce process to go, but also,what do they want that future
co-parenting relationship tolook like?
What do they want that futureco-parenting relationship to
(28:24):
look like?
I think that's such a powerfulexercise because it really
encourages people to, fromwhat's best in them, define
their higher self objectives andaspirations, and it also then
helps us talk with them aboutokay, what are going to be the
obstacles to getting there?
What are the emotional issuesthat we need to address and talk
about in order for you to beable to move forward together to
(28:48):
realize this healthy visionthat you've described.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Defined it's well said so it is so critical to
have them define it, because Imean, if you define it, it's
like they have no ownership ofit, so why should they bother?
If they define it, we can takethem back to that.
Well, this is how this is achallenging conversation.
Let's go back and see what wesaid about this back when we
(29:13):
first met with you, how youwanted to resolve such things.
Has anything changed about that?
No, okay, so perhaps we could.
It brings everything backtogether, so it's a critical
part of the process and it'soften totally ignored.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Often is, it often is and it shouldn't be.
I think when it's done well,that becomes a rock for people,
a foundation for people to buildon for their future
relationship and for theirfamily.
It does so much.
Yeah, well, you know.
(29:51):
What we haven't talked about isreligion and politics.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Oh yeah, Are those relevant Sure?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Not particularly, but they're important.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yeah, they are yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
And so sometimes that comes up where you know maybe
there's a religiousconsideration, Like my pastor
said this, my priest said that,my rabbi said that you know, my
religious text says tells methis, yes, and it may be very
relevant to you, but we're in astate which is, you know,
(30:22):
separation of church and state.
There is no consideration bythe courts about your religious
needs or the religious needs ofthe children or the religious
needs of the children, which isanother huge one.
You promised me we're going toraise the kids Jewish, and now
you're taking them to church.
What's going on here?
Well, I changed my mind.
Well, what do we do about that?
So sometimes there has to be aconversation about this.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Um, I'm thinking about I'm thinking about a
couple that I worked with wherethey had very, very divergent
political views, yeah, and thethe tension between them was
that they each thought that thatshould affect the time share,
that they amazing, yeah, thatthat should affect the timeshare
, that they should have moretime with the children because
(31:08):
of the bad influence that theother parent could be.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
You know, since COVID and the current politics, I've
seen more and more politicalstruggles with parents.
Go ahead, Mark.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Well, same point.
Same point.
Basically.
I had a case where the wifewanted to control what tv
channels were watched inhusband's house because that,
basically, was the politicaldecision based around which and
you know you may, I may havedisagreed or agreed with her.
(31:40):
It didn't matter, you know shehad to come to terms with the
fact that that channel that shehated because she thinks it's
all lies, didn't want she,didn't want the kids exposed to
it.
But guess what?
They were going to get verydifferent political views in
different households, and I'mnot sure that's a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
How about this?
Under no circumstances.
This was the father speaking.
This is a value he wanted putinto the mission statement.
Under no circumstances will thechildren ever become Dodgers
fans.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Oh well that I understand.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I think Mark don't you have that in your treatment
agreement.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
We should point out that there is game three of the
division series between thedodgers and padres about to
occur on the day we're recordingthis, so these are heightened
feelings, yeah yeah, so I meansome people, I mean, they take
their sports very seriously.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
It's like religion for them, right?
Yes, yep, you know.
Or their family was always.
You know, my family were alwaysreds fans, and if anybody was a
cubs fan, oh, oh.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah, and it's not a choice.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
No, it's not a choice .
Speaker 3 (32:47):
You're raised in it.
It's not a choice.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Well gentlemen, we've done it again.
We have, indeed we have burnedthrough some time with these
good people that listen to usand we know you're out there and
thank you for listening.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Yes, and, by the way, did you know?
Speaker 2 (33:04):
you're out there, um, and thank you for listening.
Yes, and, by the way, did youknow?
Speaker 3 (33:05):
we're on youtube now and I would add something that
we've often said in the pastbring us your questions yeah,
would you like?
Us to talk about what would berelevant to you.
What haven't we discussed umgive us ideas?
Speaker 2 (33:21):
and that is something with the youtube YouTube
channels.
Please push the like button,subscribe and let us know what
you want us to talk about, orlet us know what you think of
what we said.
If you think we're full of crap, tell us.
If you like what we said, welike that even better.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
But we enjoy critical feedback.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Absolutely Well, speak for yourself.
No, I like it.
I do like it.
We want it.
We'd be good.
So, Mark, if people need to geta hold of you to talk about a
financial issue, what shouldthey do?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Go to my website.
My company is Pacific DivorceManagement and my website is
packdivorcecom.
There is a contact form you canfill out and we will be
diligent in getting back to you.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And Pete.
If people need time emotionallyprocessing the relevance of
their irrelevant issues, whatshould they do?
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Also can reach me through my website
PeterRussoscom, that'sP-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-S dot com
and the contact me page on mywebsite.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
And anybody that has a legal question about divorce.
Feel free to reach out to me.
I'm also available to mediateany dispute that you have.
It's Weber dispute resolutiondot com.
Weber, like the grill dispute,like we had a fight and
resolution, like we solved it.
Weber dispute resolution dotcom.
Until next time, good luck.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
Adios, see you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Thanks for listening to another episode of the three
wise men 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.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(35:20):
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.
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.