There are consequences to having unprotected …
When it comes to divorce, every communication is a crucial conversation.
Dell Deaton | Contributor
Having grown up on "Star Trek" in the 1960s, it seemed to me that Spock was hooking up like this as casually as a morning chat between spouses over cups of joe.
But now that I’ve started catching up with old episodes of "Enterprise" through my iPod (classic), there’s no denying the indiscretion of his Vulcan predecessor there, T’Pol, nor the consequences that inherently followed.
Who would have thought that such seemingly straightforward communications could lead to pain and suffering?
And yet, I see it all the time, post-divorce, with the clients I serve here on earth.
By way of perspective, facilitation of an open dialogue between spouses is so vitally important to divorce negotiation that it ranks among the top of domestic relations mediator skills. See Crucial Conversations (McGraw-Hill, 2002) for the best practical tools and tactics I’ve found.
Properly leveraged in marriage, “full disclosure” talk can lead to deep intimacy.
As I pointed out from an employer-employee standpoint in my personal blog earlier this week, what you know and think and otherwise hold in that grey matter between your ears is powerful “intellectual capital.” And it can be of enormous value to others. Including those who’d exploit or use it against you.
Matthew 22:15 tells of the Pharisees’ ostensible desire to engage Jesus in discussion for pure elucidation. But their real purpose, we know, was “to trap Him in His words.”
Ulterior motives also abound in most pre-, in-process-, and post-divorce exchanges. Rationale includes extended talk “for the sake of good co-parenting.” To “show we can be civil.” Or because fulfilling the terms of a recently entered Judgment of Divorce “is just too complicated for e-mail” or “would be so much easier to resolve if we got together for an hour at Big Boy.”
Almost uniformly all false. As I wrote last November here on AnnArbor.com, the studied counsel of the book "Games Divorced People Play"(Prentice-Hall , 1981) notes that no overlapping post-divorce investment — not even children — necessitates frequent or extended contact.
So says the research. So says my personal experience with clients.
When the latest contacts between former spouses become too familiar, too commonplace, the true agenda is emotional. Worst still, that doesn’t have to be the intent to be the result.
You will know it when it’s happened to you: At the end of the call or the e-mail or whatever the communication, you (a) can’t recall an objective need for initial entreat, and (b) you feel bad.
I wonder if the only difference between the two Vulcans aforementioned is simply that we were told about what happened to T’Pol through her unprotected communications.
Because there are always consequences.
Today, the only remaining business you have with your former spouse is, well, strictly business.
Comments
Dell Deaton
Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
@Bill First off, my heart and prayers go out to any child or family suffering through the experiences youve described. Beyond that, it would appear that youve strayed beyond quoting what I actually wrote to imposing an inference that I never made. We need to avoid that. Now if, in your examples, there were to come post-divorce situations of a serious magnitude at school or daycare, I would think representatives from those places themselves would be involved in some sort of organized discussion with all relevant parties responsibly stepping up to the proverbial table, so to speak. Wouldnt you? Taking things seriously means just that. Gather information. Coordinate fact-finding and influences. Organize planning and disciplined problem-solving, follow-through. Professional; businesslike. Most importantly, we must pray for clarity within ourselves. James 4:3 cautions that when we ask and do not receive, it is because we do so with wrong motives. I want to encourage folks to be vigilant, to avoid vulnerability to such traps. Further to your example, when I read a characterization beginning with Two minutes on the phone is not enough to, it suggests to me that were already talking about a tense situation (e.g., one parent wants more than two minutes, the other not so much). If so, having such a call go longer or attempting to have such a thing mandated isnt likely to help. Its likely to increase game-playing, if not conflict. Moreover, the crux of my column above is that we, as divorced parents, and professional advisors involved with such families, need to be clear on the differences between events that rise to the level of necessitating interaction, and those that opportunistically serve ulterior agendas. Again, to what I actually wrote, which you, yourself, quoted: The operative words are frequent and extended here. I sincerely hope this helps.
Bill
Sat, Aug 21, 2010 : 9:36 p.m.
Well, then, read your article again. "no overlapping post-divorce investment not even children necessitates frequent or extended contact. So says the research. So says my personal experience with clients." Two minutes on the phone is not enough to discuss problems at school like the sudden starting of fights at school when your daughter never did that before, or being bullied, or a sudden drop in grades, or for younger ones, hitting younger kids at daycare when he was the most agreeable child before the split.
Dell Deaton
Thu, Aug 19, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.
Not seeing how you got that from what I've written here (or previously).