Category: Uncategorized

Every relationship goes through certain stages and cycles, each one different to the next. To be aware of these stages in our relationships can be very rewarding and it also demystifies the idea that our relationship has to be a 100% at all times.

We all go through these times and with the right knowledge, we can master the up’s and down’s a lot better…so in this column let us have a look at the many different faces of our relationships.

Visionary Phase – We are one!
At first, we picture a satisfying future for the relationship.  We feel “in love,” bonded by our similarities – which we emphasise.  Our differences (in values, age, interests) we ignore or find fascinating.  We see what we want to see in each other, and we like what the other person seems to want for the relationship.  We place few demands on each other during this honeymoon phase.

We change our lives to include our partner, delighted that we make a difference to them and share something special.  Expectations and optimism are high.  As we establish our couple bond, we often deny aspects of our relationship that interfere with the vision we have.

Differences Phase – I’m not the same as you!
Differences emerge, and we struggle with disappointment, guilt, or disillusionment about ourselves or each other.  Similarities do not provide enough new energy, and our differences annoy or infuriate us.  The shock of conflict can frighten us and make us question.

Many relationships end with the first fight.  Others remain in this phase for long periods, in bitterness and pain.  We might lose empathy for each other, and try hard to change the other person, to “improve” them so they fit our vision of them, or to make them more like us. 

To learn from this phase, we need to acknowledge, accept, and express our differences, and establish a successful “fight style.”

Dormant Phase – I want to be “me” not “us”!
Here, we live more peacefully with each other, even if this covers discontent.  We might perceive it as a sacrifice when we give to our partner, so we feel defensive and stubborn.  Our relationship offers us a fairly lifeless connection, although our lives may be very busy, building a career, setting up home together, or raising children. 

If we began the relationship with the purpose of having great fun and sex, we may think our partner has changed or let us down, when it’s our purpose that has changed.

To move on from this phase, we need to consider what the purpose of our relationship is now.  This phase can be a necessary preparation for renewed energy, challenge or growth.

Vital Phase – You, Me, and We!
This phase often grows out of some form of challenge to the relationship as it has been.  We are faced with a question about the relationship’s value to us and its resilience.  A time of high stress may be caused by job loss, a health scare, a spiritual crisis, or falling in love outside the relationship.  This may wake us out of the dormant phase to make active choices.

At this point, we commit our time and energy again, with eyes wide open.  We have well-defined separate identities, we grow as individuals, but we’re willing to be influenced by the other.  We dance between periods of intimacy and independence.  We both take responsibility to make the relationship work and to be mutually supportive. 

We see that our differences make us complementary, we give up trying to force change, and we learn how to express our needs honestly, and still appreciate each other.  We acknowledge our interdependence and realize we are better together than each of us is alone.  We experience a paradox – committed togetherness actually nourishes our separate identities.

Recently, I have found myself thinking a lot about the best, and the worst, custody arrangements for very young children. When I say very young children, I am thinking about infants (aged newborn to roughly 18 months) as well as toddlers (aged 18 months to about 3 years).

Below, I will offer some of my own thoughts about this very important, and it seems, increasingly controversial topic. But at the outset, I want to invite readers to share their experiences about what is working for you, and what isn’t; about what custody arrangements you have chosen for your own very young children, and about what schedules were imposed on you by a court, an ex, whoever.

I am looking for your input, because I have been hearing more and more from parents who are very unhappy about parenting plans for their very young children. Mostly, I have been getting emails or telephone calls from parents, usually mothers, who are scared to death that their very young child has been divided – and is being damaged both now and in the long term. I also have heard from other parents, mainly fathers, who are afraid they are being shut out of their very young children’s lives – now and for the long run.

There are a lot of complicated psychological, practical, and legal issues involved in custody arrangements for very young children. I will not delve very deeply into the details in this post, or I will end up going on for too long. Look for future posts with more specifics.

Psychologically, the quality of attachment relationships is the main concern about the well-being of very young children. Children form a close bond with those who care for them, usually their parents, in the first year of life (and beyond). The development of attachments is a biologically driven process, one that is observed in other primates, other mammals, and precocial birds. (Think of ducklings swimming in line behind their mother on a pond in springtime.)

Very young children can and do form multiple attachments, including to mothers, fathers, grandparents, nannies, and so on. Still, children have a primary attachment figure, the person they prefer to offer them comfort in times of anxiety or pain. (A daycare worker can comfort a distraught toddler when no parent is available, but given a choice, an 18 month old will run to Mommy – or Daddy.)

Now we are getting to the nub of one controversy. A great deal of psychological research shows that the quality of the primary attachment – particularly whether it is secure or insecure – in very young children predicts the development of various psychological and social problems in the future. (Importantly, attachment is a central concern not only for custody but for other issues like day care, families where both parents are employed for long hours, hospitalized premature infants, incarcerated parents, and a variety of other issues involving parents’ relationships with their very young children.)

So in disputed custody cases, parents, lawyers, and various experts can and do end up debating whether a very young child’s primary attachment (usually to the mother) is all-important and pretty fragile – or whether their secondary attachment (usually to the father) is just as important and perhaps is being undermined, maybe deliberately, by a doting or vindictive primary attachment figure. Specific questions and debates range from whether babies, or toddlers, should have overnights with their secondary attachment figures to whether parents should share joint physical custody of infants, alternating back and forth every day if necessary.

I won’t go into the details now, but I clearly come down on the side of the importance of the primary attachment figure to children’s emotional well-being. Why? I am convinced by the weight of the scientific evidence.

Yet, both for practical and scientific reasons, I believe that it is very important for children to form attachment relationships with their “other” parent too.

If parents can work together, there are ways to achieve both goals. The secondary attachment figure can have frequent but relatively brief contacts with their baby during the first year of life, but the contacts can increasingly become longer and less frequent as babies become toddlers, preschoolers, and so on. (I’ve written about these developmental ideas at length in The Truth about Children and Divorce, and will expand upon them here in another post.)

But a lot of separated parents of very young children do not get along very well. And many separated parents are not encouraged (repeatedly and forcefully) by professionals about the overriding importance of working together for their children’s sake, no matter how hurt or angry the parents might justifiably be. And the legal system encourages parents of very young children to fight, because they will give away their “rights” if they compromise now. (More on this later too.)

As a result of all of this, legal, scientific, and, most importantly, family controversies erupt. This is a huge, and I think, growing problem. And I haven’t even touched on other issues, for example, the practical problems involved in shifting babies between households, or “expert opinion” that may be anything but.

What I am looking for are readers’ opinions and especially your experiences. (I know the motivation is greater to write about bad experiences; please share good ones too.) Family change and an interventionist legal system have put us into uncharted waters. I am looking for some help in mapping them.

**********************

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and well regarded international practice-based researcher. His research about the often overlooked, intense emotional cost of separation and divorce for children and parents is extensively cited around the world.

In July, we are honoured to be hosting Dr Emery on a tour of Queensland, to give a series of lectures, including the 15/16 July 2014 in Brisbane, entitled “The Truth About Children and Divorce.” Not afraid of controversy, Dr Emery will invite you to discuss his research on topics including infant overnights, randomised trials of mediated and litigated child custody disputes, and coparenting conflict and attachment.

Dr Emery’s explanation of high emotion, especially anger, has helped many family mediators deal with emotion in the room and also to understand how the length of separation affects and predicts behavior. The connection between how adults handle their emotions at separations and the effects on their children is the key Dr Emery can use to unlock many puzzles for mediators, family lawyers and other workers in the separation field.

Blog post originally published on August 23, 2011 by Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

Would your relationship benefit from $200 worth of relationship counselling or education? Could you do with some assistance around communication, intimacy or managing differences?   

On July 1, the Federal Government will begin trialling the Stronger Relationships program. The program aims to provide 100,000 couples with access to a $200 subsidy for counselling or education services.

The subsidy can be used by couples to seek help with preparation for committed relationships, intimacy, marriage and relationship milestones such as becoming parents, economic changes and step-parenting.

The subsidy will be available to couples who are married, intending to marry or who are in committed relationships, and includes de-facto and same-sex couples. 

Evidence tells us that people in healthy relationships and their children are likely to live longer, report fewer health problems and use health and wellbeing services substantially less than people in distressed relationships. So it makes social and economic sense to invest in strengthening relationships.  

For more than 60 years, Relationships Australia Queensland has been providing couples with counselling and education. We are experienced relationship educators and welcome the Government’s commitment to early intervention for couples.

Relationships Australia Queensland will be offering a relationship education program that is covered by the subsidy and is flexible to our client’s needs. The education program is evidence based and was developed by a team of psychologists led by Professor Kim Halford, an internationally renowned couples expert and clinical psychologist.    

CEO of Relationships Australia Queensland, Shane Klintworth, said,

“Couples and families benefit when they have the skills to manage difficult times in their relationships. The Federal Government’s vouchers will provide couples with access to education that will build those skills and ultimately enhance relationships.” 

If you would like to register your interest in the $200 counselling and education subsidy program please fill out this form. We will forward more information once full details are announced by the Federal Government.  

For more information visit Department of Social Services website.

Divorce hurts. Divorce can hurt in many ways – children, families, society. But in writing those two words, divorce hurts, I am not thinking about broad concerns. I am thinking about the pain of rejection, of longing, and of loneliness. I am thinking about the deep emotional hurt of divorce, emotional pain that often feels like physical pain. You feel like you have been stabbed in the chest, or maybe in the back. You feel horrible emptiness in your stomach or intense pressure on your chest or just like you’re going to explode.

Here’s an interesting and important observation about emotional pain and why it feels physical. As psychologists Geoff MacDonald and Mark Leary detailed in a Psychological Bulletin article a couple of years ago, the same brain regions involved in experiencing physical pain apparently are involved in experiencing emotional pain. So, expressions like “hurt feelings” are more than an analogy. Emotional pain hurts. Literally

Rejection hurts.

The pain of lost love is deep, and it aches all the more because of the many complications involved in divorce, especially divorce with children. And the searing pain causes other problems. A big one is anger.

We are “hard-wired” by evolution to respond to pain with anger. You can readily observe this in animal behaviour – and in your behaviour. Be careful around an injured dog. It might bite. Why? The dog is in pain and is prepared to hurt back, to defend itself, even if you are trying to help. When an animal is attacked and injured, it is adaptive to fight back, even blindly. Fighting back is adaptive for immediate survival – and for survival of the species.

Or think about your own behaviour. How do you react when you stub your toe? You probably get mad. And if you’re furious enough, you might even kick the offending piece of furniture again, this time on purpose. Now there’s a reaction psychologists cannot explain as learned behaviour. We’re talking hard-wired emotion and emotional responses.

Rejection hurts. Pain makes us angry. In our primal rage, we want to hurt back.

And there is one more complication. Anger makes us hurt less.

Think about it. This makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. Pain impedes self-defense. Anger shuts out pain, physiologically and behaviourally. Think about wounded soldiers who fight on and on, only realizing that they have been shot after the battle is over. In laboratory experiments, animals will tolerate more pain (electric shock) if they are given the opportunity to attack another animal. Anger shuts out pain, including emotional pain. So part of the reason people stay angry at an ex is to sooth their own pain. Being angry is easier than being hurt.

Rejection hurts. Pain makes us angry. In our primal rage, we want to hurt back. Our rage makes us hurt less.

And this is a recipe for disaster if you are divorced with children. Children can be, and often are, wounded in their parents’ emotional crossfire, by the anger and primitive desire to hurt back, feelings and actions that stem from parents’ own, deep emotional pain. If you cannot understand children’s predicament intuitively, if you cannot put yourself in their shoes, I ask you to trust me on this one for the time being. In another blog, I will give you lots of examples and refer to long traditions of research on the problems of children caught in the middle.

If the pain-anger-hurt back circuit is “hard-wired,” we cannot help ourselves, right? Wrong. At least some degree of emotional control is possible. We can use the big part of our brain, our cortex, to help us regulate our “little brain,” those subcortical, emotional structures and circuits that we share with other animals. We cannot control our feelings. We cannot make the pain of divorce disappear, as much as we might like to. But we can use our whole brain, not just the primitive part of it, to understand our feelings and control our actions. Pain may set off a primitive impulse to hurt back, but we do not need to act on it.

If you do not have children, you can indulge your anger in divorce, or in any emotional break-up for that matter. You can scream, “I never want to see you again,” and believe you mean it. If you do not have children, you don’t need to think more deeply than that.

But if you have children, you need to put them ahead of your emotions. How? Embrace your pain. Look inside, past your anger, and let yourself feel the pain. Look for something to heal the hurt that’s more adaptive than anger. Talk about your pain, write about it, consult a therapist. Doing this is emotionally unnatural. I get that. But even though it hurts more, feeling the pain behind the anger also is emotionally more honest.

***********************

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and well regarded international practice-based researcher. His research about the often overlooked, intense emotional cost of separation and divorce for children and parents is extensively cited around the world.

In July, we are honoured to be hosting Dr Emery on a tour of Queensland, to give a series of lectures, including the 15/16 July 2014 in Brisbane, entitled “The Truth About Children and Divorce.” Not afraid of controversy, Dr Emery will invite you to discuss his research on topics including infant overnights, randomised trials of mediated and litigated child custody disputes, and coparenting conflict and attachment.

Dr Emery’s explanation of high emotion, especially anger, has helped many family mediators deal with emotion in the room and also to understand how the length of separation affects and predicts behavior. The connection between how adults handle their emotions at separations and the effects on their children is the key Dr Emery can use to unlock many puzzles for mediators, family lawyers and other workers in the separation field.

Blog post originally published on February 23, 2009 by Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

I am a big advocate for joint physical custody. If at all possible, I want children to spend a lot of time – and have good relationships – with both of their parents after a separation or divorce. But there are several problems and potential pitfalls with joint physical custody. I touch on the most important in this entry, including:

• For children, joint physical custody is the best and the worst arrangement.

• Joint physical custody is a lousy “compromise” between disputing parents.

• Joint physical custody is being used, wrongly, to lower child support payments.

• Joint physical custody is not necessarily 50/50.

• Joint physical custody requires a lot of logistical coordination.

• Joint physical custody is less stable over time than sole physical custody.

• Joint physical custody apparently works only for a minority of families.

Before addressing these points, let me be clear about terms. Different people, and different laws in different states and countries, use different words: “custody,” “parenting plan,” “parental rights and responsibilities” etc. I have no investment in a particular term. Parents living apart need to decide how to divide children’s time between two households (physical custody), and they also need to decide how they will make big and small childrearing decisions (legal custody). So, you can call these issues “time” and “decisions,” and drop the sometimes controversial term “custody” altogether. I sometimes do just that, but use “custody” here as convenient shorthand.

Another clarification: I think sharing big decisions – joint legal custody – is a no-brainer. Joint legal custody should be a presumption unless there are good reasons not to do it. But note the “big decisions” qualifier. Joint legal custody does not mean that parents get to second guess each other constantly. More on this in a coming blog.

Finally, a little preface about why I like joint physical custody philosophically. Children have two parents. Most children want to have a relationship with both of their parents after a separation, and most divorced parents want relationships with their children. Family relationships can and do continue despite the many upheavals of divorce. The old model of divorce as a family feud, where only one parent raises and “owns” the children is, well, the old model. Divorced parents can be parents even if they are no longer lovers.

I am a big advocate for joint physical custody. But…

BUT joint physical custody is the best and the worst arrangement for children. It’s the best when parents can cooperate enough to make joint physical custody work for children. It’s the worst when joint physical custody leaves children in the middle of a war zone. The best research supports this conclusion. In low or controlled conflict divorces, children fare better in joint than in sole physical custody. In high conflict divorces, children do worse in joint physical custody than in other arrangements. Admittedly, existing research is imperfect and very hard to do. But this “best and worst” conclusion also is commonly held by seasoned practitioners, and it makes good common sense.

BUT joint physical custody is a lousy compromise for disputing parents. Why? Because joint physical custody is the best and worst arrangement for children, and it’s all but certain to be the worst when parents end up in court (because the parents, by definition, aren’t working together). For judges, this means that joint physical custody may seem like a fair middle ground, but that’s an illusion that keeps kids trapped in the middle. For parents who want it, this means you have to try to work out joint physical custody with your children’s other parent, because wise judges already know it’s a lousy compromise for children in high conflict divorces.

BUT joint physical custody is being used wrongly to lower child support payments. In my home state, Virginia, for example, child support schedules define joint physical custody as having 90 overnights per year with your child (for the purpose of calculating reduced child support payments). It’s truly amazing how many parents insist that they need 90 overnights with their children. (The magic number differs from state to state, and so do many parents’ demands…) If you really want 90, or more, overnights with your children, let’s talk. If you really want to pay less child support, well, sorry, but raising children is expensive.

BUT joint physical custody is not necessarily 50/50. When I hear a parent insisting on exactly 50/50, I really worry. I worry that the parent is thinking about getting his or her half of the pie, not about the children. Sure, 50/50 can work. So can lots of different schedules. I consider about 25% of overnights as being joint physical custody in terms of having enough opportunity to have a rich relationship with your children. That might mean a schedule that is a week on and a week off, Wednesday through Saturday, every Thursday and Friday over night, or dividing the school year and the summers. And there are a million other options, many of which I discuss in my book, The Truth about Children and Divorce.

BUT joint physical custody requires a lot of logistical coordination. Kids forget stuff. Be prepared to drive soccer cleats or the tuba or the antibiotic to your ex’s house. Oh yeah, and kids take short cuts. Be prepared to communicate regularly with your children’s other parent. What about? Not about your own stuff. About your kids’ stuff. Homework. Weekend plans. Discipline. Stuff like that.

BUT joint physical custody is less stable over time than sole physical custody. Several studies show this. And this isn’t necessarily a problem. Kids’ needs and desires change. So do parents’ needs and desires. People move. New partners get involved. The changes can make a lot of sense, and changes can make things work better. So file this concern under “something for parents to consider” not under “why you don’t want joint physical custody.”

BUT joint physical custody apparently works only for a minority of families. At any one point in time, maybe 10% of children from divorced families are actually living in joint physical custody. (There really isn’t great research here, but even the highest estimates I’ve seen aren’t much bigger.) Why is the number small compared to the amount of talk about joint physical custody? I think it’s for all the reasons I’ve discussed. Joint physical custody is definitely an option to consider – it’s my preferred option for cooperative parents. But it’s only one of many options that can work for divorced parents and for children.

 

***********************

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and well regarded international practice-based researcher. His research about the often overlooked, intense emotional cost of separation and divorce for children and parents is extensively cited around the world.

In July, we are honoured to be hosting Dr Emery on a tour of Queensland, to give a series of lectures, including the 15/16 July 2014 in Brisbane, entitled “The Truth About Children and Divorce.” Not afraid of controversy, Dr Emery will invite you to discuss his research on topics including infant overnights, randomised trials of mediated and litigated child custody disputes, and coparenting conflict and attachment.

Dr Emery’s explanation of high emotion, especially anger, has helped many family mediators deal with emotion in the room and also to understand how the length of separation affects and predicts behavior. The connection between how adults handle their emotions at separations and the effects on their children is the key Dr Emery can use to unlock many puzzles for mediators, family lawyers and other workers in the separation field.

Blog post originally published on May 18, 2009 by Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

Being in the middle of two angry parents stinks…

Here’s a letter that arrived together with the usual mail:

“I am in the 8th grade. My English class is writing an essay on a topic that is important to us. I chose to do the effects divorce has on a teen. As I was on Google I saw your article on the same topic and it helped me a lot. I was wondering if you could take some time and send me some more information on that topic.

If more people understood the things divorce can do to a child or teen, maybe adults will think twice before they marry the wrong person and might find the right person to settle down with.

I was a victim of divorce. I know how it is. My parents fought and fought until they had enough. I was put in the middle of everything and had to make tough choices that I didn’t really want to. I don’t want anyone to experience what I did.

I really think this is an important issue. Thank you for taking the time and reading this letter.”

**********************

Thank you for taking the time to write this letter.

There is no doubt about it. Divorce stinks, especially for children. If I had a magic wand, I would make divorce with children disappear. (Most of the time; sometimes divorce is the better option, usually because the alternatives are even worse.)
If I had a magic wand, I would also make every couple right for each other. But as my young correspondent surely will discover in the years to come, it isn’t so easy to find the right person, or to know whether the person you think is right really is.
Still, I want to be clear. I spend a lot of time in my academic and professional career trying to make divorce less difficult, especially for children. But this does not mean that I am “pro-divorce.” Actually, the opposite is true. I’m old school. I am very much in favor of promoting enduring, happy marriages, especially when children are involved.
On the other hand, to me it seems backwards to promote marriage by making divorce even more painful, as some marriage advocates want to do. Why can’t we promote marriage by working to make marriage better (including by encouraging realistic expectations of marriage)?
But my ideas on how to promote marriage is a topic I’ll address in another blog one day.
Right now, I want to focus on a different issue that my letter writer raised. Since we haven’t eliminated divorce, can we do something about one of the worst parts for kids? Getting caught in the middle of all the fighting between your parents.

You don’t have to think very deeply to recognize that being in the middle of a divorce is an uncomfortable place.

Picture yourself having dinner with divorcing friends. You like them both, and are trying to be supportive. But they get into an argument. Things get louder and angrier. You fail in your efforts to distract them. Even when you ask, they won’t calm down. And now they each start to look toward you, seeking an ally in their escalating dispute. Pretty soon they start talking to each other through you. “Tell him that…” “Well, you can tell her that…” Finally, one of them storms off, yelling at you. “You won’t see me again, not as long as you’re friends with… that thing.”
Places like this are where many children live before, during, and long after a divorce. It’s not a very happy, comfortable, or child-friendly place.
I’m sure my correspondent could tell lots of real life stories like my hypothetical, and worse. Much worse. I’ve heard, and seen, a million of them.
In fact, I have a collection of photographs of torn down, blown up, and cut-in-two houses. All products of divorce. It’s one thing to destroy your property. It’s something else to do this to your children. In an effort to get back at their ex, or just because their own anger is so out of control, sadly too many divorcing parents end up hurting their kids. Blind rage.
Now, let me be clear. I’m not trying to deny anyone their anger. Divorce stinks for adults too. People going through a divorce have a lot of good reasons to be angry. If you’re getting divorced, you should be angry at your ex.

By all means, be angry. Be furious. I won’t deny you your rage. If you don’t have children, indulge yourself.
But if you’re a divorcing or divorced parent, you can’t or shouldn’t indulge. Instead, if you’re a divorcing or divorced parent I want you to try to do some things that are emotionally unnatural. Look beyond your rage. Try to understand how you’re really feeling. Try especially to control and contain your anger around your children and its consequences for them.

Here are some questions for divorcing partners who are also parents.
Is your anger hiding other, perhaps more honest feelings? Hurt? Pain? Grief? Longing? Fear? Guilt?
Can you really get 100% divorced if you have children?
Even if you have a right to be angry, do your children need to be exposed to your anger?
Have you exhausted all of your Gandi tactics in dealing with your ex’s anger – or are you still rising to take the bait?
Is it possible that your children have a point of view about their father or mother that’s different from your feelings about your ex?
Can someone be a jerk as a husband or wife, but still be an OK parent, or at the very least, the only mother or father a child has?
Do you still want your children to be dealing with your anger in a few years? When they graduate from high school? College? At your son’s or daughter’s wedding? When your grandchildren are born?
Can you find a way to love your children more than you may hate your ex?

You know the right answers to these questions. But doing what you know you should do isn’t easy for anyone, especially parents, in the middle of the upheaval of divorce. I get that.
But this isn’t about you. Or about your ex, no matter what a miserable, Axis II, selfish whatever she or he may be.
It’s about your kids and their parents.
It’s about finding a way to be a parent, even as your marriage is unraveling.
It’s about doing your job as parents and as co-parents, so your kids can be kids, not forever children of divorce.
Stay tuned for more specific suggestions on how to do that, emotionally, practically, legally.

***********************

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and well regarded international practice-based researcher. His research about the often overlooked, intense emotional cost of separation and divorce for children and parents is extensively cited around the world.

In July, we are honoured to be hosting Dr Emery on a tour of Queensland, to give a series of lectures, including the 15/16 July 2014 in Brisbane, entitled “The Truth About Children and Divorce.” Not afraid of controversy, Dr Emery will invite you to discuss his research on topics including infant overnights, randomised trials of mediated and litigated child custody disputes, and coparenting conflict and attachment.

Dr Emery’s explanation of high emotion, especially anger, has helped many family mediators deal with emotion in the room and also to understand how the length of separation affects and predicts behavior. The connection between how adults handle their emotions at separations and the effects on their children is the key Dr Emery can use to unlock many puzzles for mediators, family lawyers and other workers in the separation field.

Blog post originally published on January 21, 2009 by Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

When a marriage ends in separation and children are involved, the parents, Family Court Judges and professionals, must decide on separated parenting arrangements (previously known as ‘custody’), with the child’s best interests in mind. This is an issue wrestled with all over the world, as legislators must decide on the ‘standard’ amount of custody the non-resident parent should have, and when arrangements should vary from the norm.

What represents the child’s best interests? Is it best represented by:

A. Current and future happiness
B. Spiritual and religious development with a preference for stability over creativity
C. Future capacity to become a productive member of society
D. A preference for  emotional depth over discipline or self-sacrifice

Many people would argue it is all of the above, and more. Dr Robert Emery (et al.) pose the difficult questions which inform the ultimate problem. In their paper, A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations ( Emery, Otto & O’Donohue 2005) they propose that firstly, there should be increased efforts for separated parents to reach their own solutions with support. This generally infers mediation. They also feel there should be “Clearer and determinative” legislation and constricted parameters for Family Court Reports (FCR) or evaluations. Finally, they recommend that FCRs rely only on the law and scientifically based assessments, rather than on non-evidenced personal thoughts and preferences.

I suggest that most western societies are moving toward mediation or other methods of supported solutions, some faster, some slower. The province of Alberta in Canada for example is currently undergoing a process of creating a more integrated approach to family law driven by the judiciary and government. The state of Victoria, Australia, is rolling out a model that has great possibilities in Family Law but is directed more toward welfare services.

The jury is out on clearer and determinative rules in legislation and constricted parameters. The authors suggest that the approximation rule, where post separation child residence resembles pre separation care involvement, is a reasonable substitute. The authors identify some of the pitfalls such an approach would involve. I would argue that while turning a possible convention (this is how we do it here) into a code (or legislative requirement) promotes an environment of clarity it may also amplify injustice and promote conflict.

Relying on scientifically based assessments will always be contentious, as in effect, society is legislating on people’s emotions. Further, FCRs will always contain an element of subjectivity.  As mediators we may be diligent in working from as neutral a position as possible. However, holding the dominant convention is possibly not neutrality but reinforcing “this is how we do it here”.

It can be so much more powerful to do something because we believe in it, and that includes the ability to challenge and reflect on that belief, rather than to do something because it is the right thing to do under the legislation.

 

Ian Connop, Clinical Supervisor and POP Coordinator, Relationships Australia Queensland

************************************

Over the next eight weeks, we will invite two guest bloggers from our talented pool of Relationships Australia counsellors and mediators, to explore the topics of children and divorce, including child custody/co-parenting, mediation, and anger. In July, we are honoured to be hosting Robert Emery, Ph.D., a Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia. Dr Emery will be touring Queensland with Relationships Australia, to give a series of lectures, including the 15/16 July 2014 in Brisbane, entitled “The Truth About Children and Divorce.”

This is a guest blog post from Brian O’Neill, Clinical Director of Lives Lived Well. Brian is conducting two professional Gestalt Therapy Masterclasses for Relationships Australia Queensland next week in Brisbane.

****************************

Gestalt therapy works from the existential space where to Know something is Knowledge, to Understand it is Intelligence and toLive it is Wisdom.

My own sense is that a great strength of gestalt therapy is its thinking about polarities, and the need to acknowledge both poles and hold the contrasts within a single overarching view. People come to therapy at war with themselves, blaming and shaming a part of themselves they want to get rid of. Gestalt works to hear and then heal both parts in order for us to become whole again.

Initially people enter the therapy process struggling with life, feeling out of control and needing to gain control again. Many therapies have developed to support this aim. Yet the nature of gestalt therapy, instead of offering control per se over the experienced symptoms, is to heighten awareness, contact and dialogue with the faith that through being present to “what is”, change happens. This change is a developmental change, not a cure for an illness.

Gestalt therapy is as much a way of life, like Buddhism, as being a psychotherapy. A gestalt therapist has trained in awareness, relationship and the field perspective. The field perspective is similar to system theory and its basic premise, like Chaos theory, is that everything is connected however we are often unsure how. What we do know is nothing unconnected ever happens.

In Couples work there two “realities” at play – the reality of the two separate people and the subtle, invisible reality of the “relationship”.  It’s like two people in a rowing boat where the boat is the relationship- when one moves the other is moved. When the therapist comes to therapy they also are “in the boat” and affect and are affected by the couple and their relationship. Understanding this means we can work with the relationship and the impact it has on the two people and explore this with the couple.

While the Gestalt therapy literature is complex the principles and practice of Gestalt therapy is profoundly simple. The principles guide the practice and there are four simple principles – Awareness, Relationship, Experiment and Authenticity. These translate to the practice of being: ”Here and Now”, “I and Thou”, exploring “What and How”.  The final practice is Authenticity  which means being spontaneous in response to the other person – like a dance teacher or Aikido instructor learning to be attuned to the other.

The fields Gestalt therapy writing covers today vary from current interventions in mental health; working in couples and family therapy; child inclusive practice; domestic and family violence; substance misuse; working with trauma and war veterans; as well as group work; working in court settings; communities; and management practice and service development. It incorporates areas such as spirituality; quantum physics; creativity; poetry; political science; supervision and ethics and our developmental journey from childhood through to older age. This is a rich tapestry of threads interwoven into a multifaceted view of the application of gestalt therapy in the 21st century.

When was the last time you had fun? I mean really great fun…fun, which lets you forget your worries, your stresses at work and all the other bits that seem to stop us from enjoying our life. The sort of fun which lets you be fully in the moment with no unnecessary thoughts about how things could be different. The Buddhists call this experience “unconditional acceptance of whatever arises in the moment”…a state of complete acceptance, with whatever life throws at us.

In the midst of our busy, occupied lives, we forget how important it is to have fun. We are not putting our wellbeing before other commitments. Instead we create “To-Do Lists“, which structure and organise the seemingly overwhelming chaos of our lives. We tick the box and move onto the next task at hand. It seems easier this way and it helps us to regain a sense of control and structure, at the same time establishing a sense of accomplishment.

Unfortunately though, “having fun” is mostly not on our list, we just don’t associate the feeling of well-being and relaxation with something which needs our ongoing commitment. And this is indeed a sad truth.

In all my years of working with people from various backgrounds and situations, the question “What are you doing for yourself?” stays mostly unanswered. People often say that caring for themselves feels like they are being selfish, when in fact it is the complete opposite. More often than not we fail to realise, that when we are healthy and happy, we are of most benefit to others.

Sometimes all that is truly needed is a change of perspective, a shift in the way we look at ourselves and our lives.

So next time you feel like life is nothing but a hard road, plastered with obstacles, ask yourself the question:  “Am I having enough fun in this short life of mine?”

 

 

–Denise Reichenbach is a counsellor and educator with Relationships Australia Queensland–

When it comes to trust in relationships, most of us will be faced with inner daemons, which show up unannounced at any stage of our life. The ugly face of jealousy, heartbreak and betrayal shows its head and we are left with a feeling of having no control over our emotions. Charged with the incredible power of fear, most people find it very hard to reestablish order within themselves. It is very hard to think clearly and with focus, when millions of thoughts keep racing around our head like their trying to win a competition.

Trust is THE BIG ISSUE in relationships; it is the one thing couples will name as their number one priority in counselling. And it is astonishingly hard to achieve. Why, one wonders?

Well first and foremost it requires something that we as human beings instinctively shy away from. It requires the act of letting go. LETTING GO…phew, big words, huh? Easier said than done especially in a world where we are applauded for keeping up appearances, like staying in control and keeping calm and collected.

It also requires a huge leap of faith, another thing we are not entirely comfortable with, as we fear a broken heart around every corner. This is absolutely natural, especially when we have been hurt before and just want to protect ourselves from being hurt again. Getting hurt by someone we love seems to be almost inevitable in life.

It is impossible to not feel disappointment, sadness or loss, whilst living our life as human beings. From a very young age, a child will feel angry, sad or happy for all sorts of reasons and that is entirely okay. Sometimes that is because it can’t get all the lollies and sometimes because other kids were mean in school.

This goes on into adolescence, where we lose or gain new friends, have our heart broken for the first time or have a never-ending crush on somebody, who is just not into us.

It is an integral part of life, but most of the time we do not want to admit this; we rather pretend life to be rosy, hiding our wounds. It seems to be the safest option, until we find ourselves in a relationship again. Couples in Relationship Counselling will grapple with each other over many sessions, as to who is more trustworthy and who isn’t. The great paradox of trust and control will play itself out in many ways, the most common is communication.

Partners will find all their fears confirmed, hearing through ears that don’t trust and simultaneously finding reassurance that they were right and no one can be trusted in the end.

And so the cycle of pushing away and pulling towards begins and the very thing we try to avoid, we create. The more we are hurt, the more mistrust and suspicion we carry, the more our partner will move away from us.

The only thing that can break this cycle is ourselves, it has to start with us. We are responsible for our heartbreak and emotions, for our wounds. We need to tend to them and heal them. It is not our partner’s mission in life to make us happy, or live their life according to our insecurities. 

 

–Denise Reichenbach is an Educator and Counsellor with Relationships Australia Queensland–