The Healing Path of Mediation

George and Simone were getting a divorce. Like thousands of other Washington marriages which are in the process of dissolving, they had the normal issues of community property division, how they would share time with their 5 year old son, Dov, and how much child support would be paid - but the question that raised the most heat - and which threatened to turn their amicable divorce into a legal battle royal - was whether Dov would be receiving a religious private or secular public school education.

The parents had agreed that he would live primarily with his mother, and Simone, who had been raised in an Orthodox household, wanted her son to enjoy the richness of his culture on a deep level. George, on the other hand, had been raised in a fairly non-observant Jewish home and wanted his son to be exposed to the values of the dominant American culture, as he had been.

Rather than call in lawyers, they sought mediation and were able to come to an agreement which both found acceptable at a fraction of the cost of hiring attorneys to fight it out in court. Yet, just as important as reaching the agreement, was the path they used to get there - a path which encouraged mutual empathy and respect for the other person’s beliefs and needs. Mediation, at its best, can help people resolve differences between them in a manner that avoids the wounding of unchecked conflict such as we often see in the legal arena.

Mediation differs from the litigation of the courtroom primarily in that it is the parties who will fashion the terms of an agreement which governs their future relationship. In litigation, it is the court which imposes its decision on the disagreeing parties. No matter how intelligent and caring a judge may be, he or she can never know the parties as well as they know themselves or understand the creative possibilities for conflict resolution that might apply uniquely to that couple. The freedom provided by mediation is quite extraordinary.

The mediator fills many roles. One of these is “normalizer.” While conflict is a common part of our lives, we have often been raised to believe that it signals, instead, that something is wrong with us and our relationships. On top of that, conflict is unavoidable for people dissolving a marriage - who are making the transition from one household to a “binuclear family,” in the words of nationally recognized divorce researcher, Dr. Constance Ahrons. Many times, I have seen the relief wash across people’s faces when I assure them that conflict is both natural and manageable.

The mediator is also an “educator,” particularly in the area of divorce. In her wonderful book, Crazy Time, Abigail Trafford describes divorce as a “savage emotional journey,” with the first six months around the time of separation being the worst part. It is during this initial stage that people’s worst fears and impulses come to the surface and they experience “crazy time.” Not only is the emotional passage difficult, the legal steps are often perplexing for people and ignorance of what is before us always causes greater anxiety. I have found that educating people about the steps that lie before them eases the already high stress of divorce and permits them to think about what they need (and what they are willing to give up) in a much less defensive posture.

The mediator is a “facilitator.” It is extremely difficult to hear another person when your fear of loss is so intense that the defensive walls are almost impregnable. Mental health experts generally agree that when stress is high, a couple will fall back upon their familiar and long-time ways of interacting - which is usually marked by high reactivity to the other person, a tendency to escalation of conflict and, most critical, a feeling that the “other person isn’t hearing me” (coupled, of course, with a complete inability to hear the other person). This is where the skilled mediator, as facilitator, can help “translate” each person’s concerns to the other in a manner that has the best chance of being heard. The capability to empathize with each person allows the mediator to find ways of “reframing” each one’s concerns and wishes in a way that has a better chance of being taken in and accepted by the other person. This is why mediation, at its highest level, brings out the best in the participants and is more than just a simple and inexpensive way to hammer out a divorce agreement.

The mediation process, itself, can last anywhere from 2 to as many as 6 or 7 meetings. Each mediator has his or her own way of doing things. Some always separate the parties into different rooms and shuttle back and forth between them, delivering settlement offers and counter-offers until an agreement is reached. This is the most popular format when lawyers conduct mediation and while it may ultimately result in an agreement, I have never seen it move the individuals any closer to understanding and communicating with one another.

The most effective and healing approach, I believe, is to have the people in the same room together, so that they can learn to listen to one another and experience the empowerment that comes with the co-creation of a plan for their future. I have often been moved by the courage and good will shown by fine people who are in great pain and who agree to transcend this pain in order to fashion a future that is less destructive for themselves and more supportive and nurturing for their kids.

After all, once you have children with someone, you’re going to have to find a way to deal with them for many years in the future. Almost every study on children and divorce states that the one factor which will determine a child’s positive adjustment to divorce is protection of that child from exposure to parents’ conflict.

This is why, for the sake of Dov, if for no other reason, Simone and George sought out a mediator before turning their divorce over to lawyers who would be bent on vindicating the rights of their clients (at the expense of any other value). In their discussions, rather than hammer away at each other and what was “wrong” about their spouse’s position, they began to understand the deeper concerns of the other. We discussed the beauty of Jewish culture through Simone’s eyes and the strength she wanted to impart to her son.

George found that he could accept these values, but he did not want his son to become isolated from American culture. While he came to more fully appreciate Simone’s concerns about assimilation, he had his own anxieties about his son’s isolation from his society’s dominant culture. George was encouraged to interview the teachers and administrators at the school and he found that some of his concerns were appreciated, and addressed, there (to his surprise). We also discussed the ways in which both he and Simone could work to expose Dov to various American values, through such simple avenues as encouraging the boy to engage in little league and other activities.

That is the wonder of mediation. At its best, it is an educational, normalizing, facilitative and above all, a healing process.

Back to Articles