TOOLS: Minimizing Conflict in Family Law Court

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

TOOLS: How can I minimize conflict in family court?

Who is high conflict? One thing to remember about divorce and BPD and Cluster B personality disorders is that not every high conflict person has a personality disorder and not every person with a personality disorder has a high conflict personality disorder. This is important for two reasons. One, you want to minimize excessive and expensive litigation. And two, you don't want to be the one who starts the high conflict.

Typically, only those individuals that have both a personality disorder and are a “persuasive blamer” have a high conflict personality. Let's break this down.

Persuasive blamer: Bill Eddy describes a “persuasive blamer” as being able to “persuade others that their internal problems are external, caused by something else or someone else. Once others are persuaded to get the problem backwards, the dispute escalates into a long-term, high conflict situation - one that few people other than persuasive blamers can tolerate.”

High conflict personality: If the individual has a Cluster B personality disorders, a target of blame, and has recruited negative advocates, then they also have a high conflict personality.

»»»» Not everyone with a Cluster B personality disorders sustains an attack against a target of blame.

• Target of blame: Not every individual with a Cluster B personality disorders has a high conflict personality. People with a Cluster B personality disorder do not generally focus on a “target of blame” and are often not able to sustain an attack against another person in the way individuals with high conflict personalities do. And, because people with Cluster B personality disorders do not generally focus on a target of blame, they generally do not recruit negative advocates.

»»»» Not everyone with a Cluster B personality disorders recruits negative advocates.

• Negative advocates: High conflict personalities will start to pursue others to help blame the target and persuade others to be “negative advocates” against the target of blame. Negative advocates may initially be convinced by the intense emotions of the high conflict person, but may subsequently abandon the high conflict person once they find out the truth.

This workshop is to talk about:

• What is the best approach for being assertive and not inciting conflict?



• What is the best way to protect ourselves when divorcing a high conflict personality and not esalating conflict?



• What are the traps we want to be sure to avoid?



• What types of things can we do to contain the costs in our divorces and custody battles?



• What types of things (that we do) will increase the conflict?

*Note: This thread is not for discussions of fairness of the legal system. There are other threads for these topics.

**Information from this thread is from the article High-conflict Family Law Matters and Personality Disorders.

[livednlearned]

TOOLS: How can I minimize conflict in family court?

Who is high conflict? One thing to remember about divorce and BPD and Cluster B personality disorders is that not every high conflict person has a personality disorder and not every person with a personality disorder has a high conflict personality disorder. This is important for two reasons. One, you want to minimize excessive and expensive litigation. And two, you don't want to be the one who starts the high conflict.

Typically, only those individuals that have both a personality disorder and are a “persuasive blamer” have a high conflict personality. Let's break this down.

Persuasive blamer: Bill Eddy describes a “persuasive blamer” as being able to “persuade others that their internal problems are external, caused by something else or someone else. Once others are persuaded to get the problem backwards, the dispute escalates into a long-term, high conflict situation - one that few people other than persuasive blamers can tolerate.”

High conflict personality: If the individual has a Cluster B personality disorders, a target of blame, and has recruited negative advocates, then they also have a high conflict personality.

»»»» Not everyone with a Cluster B personality disorders sustains an attack against a target of blame.

• Target of blame: Not every individual with a Cluster B personality disorders has a high conflict personality. People with a Cluster B personality disorder do not generally focus on a “target of blame” and are often not able to sustain an attack against another person in the way individuals with high conflict personalities do. And, because people with Cluster B personality disorders do not generally focus on a target of blame, they generally do not recruit negative advocates.

»»»» Not everyone with a Cluster B personality disorders recruits negative advocates.

• Negative advocates: High conflict personalities will start to pursue others to help blame the target and persuade others to be “negative advocates” against the target of blame. Negative advocates may initially be convinced by the intense emotions of the high conflict person, but may subsequently abandon the high conflict person once they find out the truth.

This workshop is to talk about:

• What is the best approach for being assertive and not inciting conflict?



• What is the best way to protect ourselves when divorcing a high conflict personality and not esalating conflict?



• What are the traps we want to be sure to avoid?



• What types of things can we do to contain the costs in our divorces and custody battles?



• What types of things (that we do) will increase the conflict?

*Note: This thread is not for discussions of fairness of the legal system. There are other threads for these topics.

**Information from this thread is from the article High-conflict Family Law Matters and Personality Disorders.

[Notwendy]

This is great.

We are not contemplating a divorce. I do believe though, that if there ever was one, that it would be an awful mess. My H is a blamer, but he is also vengeful. His motive, if this were to happen, would not be to get out, but to "get back" and he would do anything in his power to do that. Although the worst times were when my kids were younger, one reason I did not consider the idea was that the "get back" would inevitably include them.


What I have learned when "being blamed" is not to JADE. I used to do this, beg, plead for his understanding and forgiveness but this just adds fuel to the fire. When my H is feeling hurt, and believes that I am the cause of his hurt, he feels quite justified to pay me back for it. Fortunately he draws the line at physical abuse, and so uses raging, insulting, circular arguments. He can be extremely cold and mean. Hoewever, I have learned that what he says or accuses me of, is not about me, but about him.

My H targets me with blame, but does not use negative advocates. My mother uses both. If she is angry about me, she will call up friends and relatives and say anything to them to get them to "side" with her. In fact, she often speaks about people as "being on her side" although I never thought about our family like that. It used to hurt my feelings that she'd make up so much about me to relatives, that they didn't even know me at all. They believed her. I realized that for me to have any kind of relationship with them, they'd have to choose me, or her version of me. However, many of them are her age and have been listening to her for so long, and they are closer to her, so I don't even bother, and keep a congenial distance from them. I have my own family and friends, and don't play that game.

My way of not escalating conflict is to not react to them, not play their game with them, and not step into the victim triangle with them.

Again, I am not contemplating divorce, but in that case, I do fear that it could be something that could escalate. I would need much legal counsel and support. I do not fear for my life, thankfully, but I do fear that it would be exceptionally destructive emotionally and to our assetts.

[maxen]

my stbxw isn't a high-conflict type. she's very passive/aggressive. she and her family have an arrogance problem - they don't create drama, they act unilaterally and leave others to pick up the pieces. for a long time i was terrorized by what she could or might do in the divorce, but i did not suffer the horrors that some others here have suffered. no false accusations, no theft, and, in the end, no negotiations and no court either - she took the first offer i made. i feel sheepish mentioning that. so i did learn one very great lesson:



to make sure that everything is as fine as it can be, you should prepare to the best that your finances will allow, so get a good lawyer. my answer to the question

What is the best approach for being assertive and not inciting conflict?

is to have that lawyer (that pair of lawyers, assuming your SO will also have one) between yourself and the other party. and after you serve (or are served), end communication as far as you can entirely. i cannot tell you how much it changed my own approach. emotions were so hot for a while, i was so FOGgy, that if we had gone to mediation i could not have asserted, i would have either caved, leaving me hating myself, or flailed, falling into the "angry man" stereotype. but i found a meticulous L, and since i was dealing with her, and not my w, i was able to lay out what i wanted. she's a cool as a cucumber, never taking bait, never getting insulted, and when the other side got demandy, she just laughed a little. (she isn't perfect, she doesn't communicate as quickly as i'd like.) so i was able to feel comfortable fashioning an offer that was outrageously in my favor, since i didn't need to fear my w's reaction.

the lawyers have a different set of priorities from the parties divorcing.

- they're a community and they want to keep on terms. my wife's L has a name as a toughie and i was surprised when my L said "i'm sure we'll be able to work together."

- they have reputations to maintain. they're supposed to advocate for their clients, but when it comes to the crux, they're not going to suggest harebrained ideas (at least, they shouldn't). my w and her L blew smoke after we exchanged net worth documents but when, two months later, i made the offer her L must have told her just to take it.

- this is civil court, not moral court. this was a hard one for me to swallow. i wanted to file in adultery (still on the books here in NY) but my L kindly but firmly put me off it.

- this isn't their divorce, so they're not going to get bent out of shape about what you're going through, although they should be kind (mine was, patient too).

all of these things will reduce the atmosphere of conflict. an "at-torn-ey" is someone you "turn (your case over) to." they're supposed to put distance, and that reduces conflict.