I recently heard a profound statement by a divorce professional: they said, “Litigation simply teaches clients how to litigate, and once they learn that many of them do it over and over again until their children are grown.”
Does anyone who divorces really want to go to court over and over again? Why do they do it? Often what we see in divorces is the same as what happens in international conflict and some even say this was one of the reasons for World War II. In international conflict, one side usually feels that their “people” have suffered indignities that have never been acknowledged by the “other side.”
Toward the end of World War I, Germany was so humiliated, and their national identity suffered such great indignities that their resentment built up for twenty years, developing into the nationalism that allowed Hitler to become their ruler and in large part caused World War II. One family lawyer in Dallas says that divorces can be similar; she says, even when couples reach a settlement or they have a trial and their case is decided by the court, if they still have some issues that they have not worked through to real resolution, they have the desire to and often do continue the “fight” either in court or passive-aggressively towards each other and through their children.
I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation at the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals by Donna Hicks, Ph.D., an associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affiars at Harvard University and the author of the book, Dignity: It’s Essential Role in Resolving Conflict.
She has decades of experience facilitating conflict resolution between nations, political disputes such as in Northern Ireland, and religious organizations. After years of studying the science of conflict and being a facilitator in conflict resolution, she contends that humans have an almost primal need to have dignity, which she defines as being recognized and feeling valued as a person. She says that if a person, a group, or a country feels that they have not been acknowledged as having value or have suffered actual indignities at the hands of others, their conflict with that person or persons is not going to ever have resolution unless and until that dignity is acknowledged in some way. Dr. Hicks and Bishop Desmond Tutu were invited to facilitate a meeting between a member of the Irish Republican Army and a British police officer who was shot by the young man from the IRA. What Bishop Tutu was able to set was a table where each person could listen and hear from the other person what caused them to be in the place they were at the time of the shooting and the personal consequences felt by the two men as a result of the shooting. The shooter had spent many years in prison and the police officer who had been shot had nearly died. The shooter did not for forgiveness, which can be a powerful tool for reconciliation; rather, Bishop Tutu set the table for him to explain what had put that young man in the frame of mind and position to be a part of the IRA and shooting the police office. After a difficult day at the table, the men said they understood where each was coming from and from that meeting, they and their families met again to learn more about each other and try to gain more understanding. Donna Hicks said, “Their reconciliation had nothing to do with forgiveness; it was never asked for or given. But what did happen was equally powerful: they honored each other’s dignity and, in so doing, strengthened their own…they listened without interrupting or challenging each other’s story; they listened to seek understanding.” Dr. Hicks quoted Henry David Thoreau, “Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other’s eyes for an instant?”
These same concepts hold true on a more “local,” level, if you will. In a divorce, for example, if one party has habitually dismissed the needs or requests of the other party, until the dismissing party acknowledges that what they have done (or not done) harmed the other person, resolution of the conflict will only be temporary, if at all. Without belaboring the past, it is critical that the parties LISTEN to UNDERSTAND the other’s person’s feelings of being harmed. Even if the person listening doesn’t agree with what the other party’s perception is, that they did something or said something that harmed the other person, their empathizing with the other person, showing that they understand how what they did might have made that person feel, can open the door to candid and healing conversations.
Unfortunately, there is no place in the litigation (court) process in a divorce that provides any method for the parties to listen to understand each other in a way to leads to healing; rather, in court and in the preparation for court or even mediation, parties are charged with pulling together “evidence” that will put the other side in as bad a light as possible so that the party presenting that evidence will “win” what they want in the case. That “win” may come at a permanent cost, permanent damage or destruction to the parties’ relationship, destruction of any hope of having a healthy co-parenting relationship, and irreparable harm to the parties’ hard-earned estate. If a couple must divorce, the Collaborative Divorce process provides a process for couples and families a way to have those difficult conversations in a way that is respectful, protects their dignity and gives them a long-lasting, deep resolution in their divorce.
