Case Analysis

Working with Families when Spousal and Parenting Roles are Confused

John M Haynes

Divorce usually results from disputes that couples have with one another as spouses rather than as parents. However, during the process of divorce, couples often expand the disputes they have with one another to include issues involving their children. Or, they substitute disputes over children for what in fact are spousal differences. When this happens, it is similar to the problem confronting mediators in all kinds of contexts: the use of an emotional issue to avoid dealing with the substantive matters. Most parents who get caught up in this kind of behavior are, with the help of a mediator, able to distinguish between the two roles, and learn to cooperate on their parenting while disagreeing on the spousal issues.

There are two ways for a mediator to identify whether or not spousal disputes have been transferred to the parenting roles. First, the mediator can transpose the parent's name to the child's when the parent is complaining about the other's parenting.The husband might say, "She never takes care of him (the child)." In reality this means, "She never takes care of me (the husband)." If these comments match the comments each makes about the other as spouse, then role confusion is indicated. Second, the mediator can measure the priority of the presented issues when adult activities seem to be more important than parent­ing. This article will describe a case in which the adult concerns frequently seemed more important than the parenting concerns.

Once the mediator determines whether the first or second has the higher priority for one or both parents, s/he can determine appropriate strategies. When it is clear that the presenting child issues are really disguised adult issues, then the mediator can help the couple separate their spousal and parenting roles. If it is not possible to separate the confused roles, the mediator can help the couple solve the adult issues, thus freeing the children from the dispute; or the mediator can focus on meeting the couple's differing self-interests while also addressing

John M. Haynes is President of Haynes Mediation Associates, 161 East Main Street, Huntington, N.Y. 11743 and the founding president of the Academy of Family Mediators. His publications include Divorce Mediation: A Practical Guide for Therapists and Counselors, (New York: Springer, 1981 ).

0748-4526/88/0400-0171 S06.()(J/O © 1988 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation journal April 1988 171

the best interests of the child as they define those interests. As the mediator collects the data, s/he develops an hypothesis about what is

happening that also guides strategies in helping the couple. The hypothesis might be about the nature of the dispute, or a specific dynamic interaction, or a strategy either party is using. However, before it can become a useful tool, the hypothesis must be tested and confirmed. The confirmation is determined either by watch­jog behavior or by testing an idea with the clients. lf the hypothesis is rejected, the mediator must be prepared to drop it and develop another.

The mediator uses partializing as a major strategy in helping the parties reach an agreement. Partializing is a process of breaking a problem into its component parts. By focusing on each discrete part and solving it one step at a time, a total agreement can be constructed out of a series of small, easier to obtain agreements.

Finally, agreement for competitive couples is often blocked because neither partner knows how to concede graciously. The mediator can facilitate the negoti­ating process by helping one or both parents "save face" when making a concession.

The Lisa and Len Case Iisa and Leo, a divorced couple, came to see me because they were in dispute about living arrangements for their only daughter, Alice. During the telephone intake it appeared that their problem centered on parenting. However, in the first session, it became clear to me that Iisa and Leo, though highly competitive concerning their respective careers, were cooperative regarding their parenting. The real dispute lay in the keen competition between them as exspouses. In this article, my goal is to explain how I gathered the relevant facts; developed a b)pothesis as to the issue; partialized the presenting problem; and helped provide the husband with a face-saving strategy that allowed him to make a major concession while maintaining a stake in the outcome.

When Leo and Iisa called to make an appointment, they were speaking on extensions of the same telephone line; thus, I thought we could move quickly to set the date. I looked at my calendar and suggested one time, then another, and then a third time-but none was agreeable to both parties. Since it did not seem that we were going to be able to reach an agreeable date, I suggested that perhaps they should see a colleague. They said "no" to that suggestion, noting they had been referred by a friend and apparently shared a belief that I was the right person to help them.

We continued to search for a meeting date and finally agreed upon one. I realized, as a result of this pas de trois, that the difficulty was not so much in finding a time on my calendar but in their agreeing on a date. It was an indicator of the power struggle that would emerge later.

Data Gathering At the opening of the first session, I gathered the relevant data: They had been married for 15 years. It was her first marriage and his second. The husband's first marriage had ended disastrously, and his children had suffered considerably. Leo and Iisa had experienced many problems working with his children. Lisa said she had spent much time and energy helping her stepchildren cope with the divorce. As a result, one of the things both Leo and Lisa were clear about when their own marriage came to an end one year ago was that they wanted to protect their only

172 John M Haynes Spousal and Parenting Roles

daughter, Alice, from similar problems. The original divorce agreement, negoti­ated through attorneys, provided for joint custody with "open access." Len and lisa each had a good relationship with Alice, who was eight years old.

During the marriage, the family lived in New Jersey. After the divorce, lisa moved to Manhattan where she developed real estate-purchasing old buildings, renovating them and then selling or renting out the new apartments. Len moved about 90 miles north of Manhattan, where he had purchased farm land, improved it, and was selling it off in subdivisions. I noted they were working in similar businesses.

Alice suffered from dyslexia and, when the family was living in New Jersey, attended an elite private school where the dyslexia and resulting learning disabil­ities were diagnosed. The school provided special tutoring for her.

When lisa moved to Manhattan, the parents agreed that Alice would live with her during the week and spend the weekends with Len. Alice was enrolled in a special school for children with learning disabilities. However, soon after Alice began attending the school, the parents discovered that most of the other students not only had learning disabilities but also significant emotional prob­lems. This made life difficult for Alice, and the parents were extremely disen­chanted with the school. One classmate had a morbid fascination with violence and, when Alice stayed over with her, they watched horror movies unsuitable for children their age. Another peer was preoccupied with sex, and told Alice things the parents would have preferred she learn when she was older.

Observation and Hypothesis Formation When describing their concern about Alice, Len and lisa displayed a high level of cooperation which was absent when describing their bQsiness affairs. This was, another indicator that the battle between them was as spouses, not as parents. It also indicated that they were, on a spousallevel, a competitive couple who had probably replicated their highly competitive marriage in their divorce by choos­ing the same arena (real estate development) in which to work. This became a working hypothesis which needed to be tested.

As a result of their disillusionment with the school, Len and lisa shared a low commitment to Alice's education. In the current arrangement, Len picked Alice up at noon each Friday and took her to his place north of the City. They spent Saturday and Sunday together, and he returned Alice to Manhattan at noon on Monday. Thus Alice missed one ftfth of her schooling each week. The rationale both parents gave me for this schedule was that, since the school was not very good anyway, losing a day each week was not very important compared to the good time she had with her father each weekend. They each told me that a separation from Alice of more than fout or ftve days caused suffering for all concerned. For this reason, they had worked out an arrangement that enabled Alice to spend approximately equal time with each of them, but at the expense of her education.

Since this arrangement had been working for the past year, I needed to understand why they sought to change it now. It emerged that the school year was coming to a close (we met in April), and they realized that they could not continue to keep her in the same school. A decision had to be made about her residence to enable the parents to select a more appropriate school for her.

This need to make a decision that would change the status quo is an

Negotiation]ournal Apri/1988 173

important consideration. Parents who have been living under an unsatisfactory agreement usually have to experience a crisis before they will seek to resolve the problem. In this case, the crisis was the deadline imposed by the need to agree upon a new school within the next month so that they could enroll Alice for the next school year.

Strategies Given this constraint, I established a calendar and told Len and Lisa that I could only meet with them twice-one session to gather the facts, and the next to resolve the problem. I emphasized that we would have to reach an agreement within the next ten days in order to meet my calendar needs and Alice's enroll­ment deadline. Since I realized this couple was capable of highly competitive behavior, I established a tight deadline to ensure that they understood that mediation was the arena in which to settle the conflict, not continue it. Some couples choose mediation to prolong the conflict and it is useful when working with competitive couples to establish tight time frames so as to add to the crisis and need to resolve the conflict.

As I listened to Len and Lisa, I realized they probably had three options available to them: 1. Len could move to Manhattan and live in close proximity to Lisa; 2. Lisa could move upstate and live in close proximity to Len; or 3. they could both move to some point equidistant from each other's business venture. However, it seemed to me that raising those choices so early in the session would be premature. Since it appeared that they really had not thought about the problem except as it affected them as adult businesspeople, they would reject my analysis if offered too early. In addition, options should come from the couple through the process, and not be imposed by the mediator even though s/he may see possible solutions very early in the session.

Another reason for not suggesting options too early in the process is that, when a disputant considers an option before engaging in tough negotiations with the other side, s/he is likely to dismiss a reasonable option. However, the same option suggested after the parties have engaged in tough bargaining and after each is aware of the other's position, can be seen as a sensible compromise.

At this point I developed a further hypothesis about the couple. This hypothesis was that their competitive behavior as exspouses would probably prevent either of them from moving to the other's location as long as that was the problem to be solved. In order to test this hypothesis, I decided to maintain the focus, as much as possible, on Alice and their shared concern for her. If I could attain agreement on Alice, the adult issues should become resolvable.

Additional Data Gathering In order to do this, I needed more information. I moved into this phase of data gathering so that I could obtain enough information to test the hypothesis and whether to use it, enlarge it, or discard it as a guide to my behavior as the mediator. As the data is developed and understood by the couple, it clarifies the definition of the problem. More information also enlarges the range of options.

During the data-gathering phase, the mediator tends to ignore emotional issues and prefers to stay task focused. By gathering the data without getting into feelings or a premature problem statement, the mediator limits the chance of imposing a definition of the problem on the couple. The problem definition

174 John M Haynes 5pousal and Parenting Roles

should flow from the data and be neutral to the parties. The data gathering stage is very important and cannot be understated. If the mediator passes over this phase too quickly, then important information will be missed and inappropriate strate­gies developed. Even though I had a clear hypothesis, I continued to gather all of the facts to assure that I was proceeding from a solid data base.

I then moved to set the agenda for the rest of the session. I explained that they were going to have to suffer with me because I was going to ask a lot of questions and appear to bounce around as I gathered more information. ''I'll ask you a question and we'll pursue it a little. Then I will ask you another question, sometimes unrelated to the previous one and you will wonder what I am doing," I told them. "I am really gathering data from you to be sure that I fully understand your situation so that I can be most helpful."

Distinguishing Facts From Nonfuctual Data When I am about to "scan" a couple's situation, I warn them I might jump around since they do not know exactly what behavior to expect in mediation. I do not pursue nonfactual issues and they may feel neglected if I do not pursue a "feeling" lead they offer me while pursuing a "fact" lead.

I began by confirming my earlier analysis of their spousal competitiveness by focusing on their respective business ventures. In the process, I discovered their business or spousal issues. I began with Lisa, an investor who gutted old buildings and redeveloped them. She explained that she had to be on site all the time because "If you're not, then the building crews just disappear and don't do anything or the subcontractor cuts corners and the result is a second rate job." She claimed she could not live anywhere but close to the building sites or she "would just get taken to the cleaners by the contractors." Leo's concern was that, although in his occupation as a subdivider of land, he had more flexibility, deals often came up on short notice. If he was in New York City rather that at the development he would "miss out on some hot deals." Being on site was important to both of them.

They argued strongly why each should stay put. When the arguments began to repeat themselves, I changed the focus of the discussion to Alice and gathered more background information on her, asking what kind of child she was, her interests and hobbies, her relationship with each parent, and the precise nature of her learning disabilities. While I collected the data, each parent was respectful of the other; they both indicated they cared a great deal about Alice, and expressed understanding and concern for the other's needs in relation to Alice.

Conitrming the Hypothesis My hypothesis that they were stuck in the marital struggle was confirmed. The marital debate was essentially the wife arguing "I have to live where I do because that's where my work and career are," and the husband responding, "I have to live where I do because that's where my work and career are." They each defined the conflict as to whose work and career was going to take precedence. As long as they defined the conflict in that way, no solution was possible since that was essentially the argument of the marriage: who was to be more successful and powerful.

I therefore decided to maintain the focus on Alice. I noted that they were both unhappy with the school Alice attended and asked them, "In terms of her

Negotiationjoumal Aprll1988 175

education, what would you most like; what would the ideal situation be?" This question is focused both on the future and on the ideal. My experience is that having people talk about what they want is more productive than complaining about what they don't like. People often feel powerless or do not accept responsi­bility for what they do not like. Asking what can be done focuses on the positive. The parents must then face their responsibilities to the child and her education, and what they can do about the situation.

Partializing and Brainstonning The question also begins to partialize the problem. In partializing, the mediator breaks a problem into its component parts and tries to get the parties to solve each component part separately without regard to the larger, more complex problem. If one spouse argues that solving one piece might create an unfair disadvantage for him or her, I assure them each piece is examined for a solution without creating a precedent or prejudice to the total agreement.

As the couple explored the ideal solution to Alice's schooling, I encouraged all ideas and asked each to suggest what they wanted for her. They responded positively and were able to cooperate in agreeing that Alice should be in a school system that would put her in the mainstream of students while giving her strong tutoring to help deal with the dyslexia. They became animated as they talked about finding a school that was academically sound, where she could enjoy positive peer relationships, and where she could be "mainstreamed" rather than dealt with only as a learning disabled student. Len and Lisa agreed that they were financially able to provide private tutoring to support the ideal school system.

As each idea was suggested I stood up and wrote the goals on my flipchart:

Alice in mainstream

Strong tutoring support Positive peer relationships

Public or private We provide tutoring if necessary

It is useful to write such agreements on a flipchart so that the couple can experience a sense of accomplishment by seeing their ideas noted; in addition, the flipchart provides a visual focus to reinforce the mediator's attention to major issues-in this case, Alice's education.

In this example of partializing, the mediator focused on one aspect of the presenting problem, i.e. Alice's education without regard to the parenting or residency issues. Asked to do this, the parents discussed what was best for Alice without compromising what each felt was best for him or her. Since what was best for each parent was continually defined by the spousal power struggle, no agreement was possible until the problem was partialized. By isolating the issue of Alice's education, without regard to the custody I access issue, the parents were able to achieve an agreement on what was best for Alice in terms of education. Now we could explore how this might be accomplished.

Fonnulating the Agreement We clarified the goal and then agreed that, for the next academic year, the parents would move Alice from her current school to a regular school that would

176 John M Haynes Spousal and ParenUng Roles

"mainstream" her and provide an array of supporting services to help her deal with the dyslexia.

After reaching this agreement on the first part of the problem, I told Len and lisa: "It seems to me that if we work this out for Alice and she goes to a school you both feel is good for her, then, at that point, her timetable becomes inflexible. You won't want to take her out of school twenty percent of the time if you are happy with the school and she is getting the education you want for her."

They both agreed to that comment so I continued: "In a sense, what we are looking at is Alice' s need for stability oflocation because she has to be in one place at least five days each week" They both nodded assent, even if a little less enthusiastically than before. I then said, "If we accept that, then the focus should be on Alice's need for a single location while in school." They also agreed with that statement.

"However," I continued, "that will cause one or the other of you a serious problem, because it might mean, for example, that Alice would have to live with one parent for at least five days a week If you continue to live ninety miles apart, that arrangement would mean the other parent would only see her for two days on the weekend."

"The residence parent would have primary responsibility for discipline, for seeing she gets her homework done, gets to the tutor and gets to bed on time and all those sort of mundane tasks. The weekend parent gets the fun days-but only two of them," I said. They continued to agree with my observations, so I added: "Now, if that is the case, let's talk about how you might live in closer proximity because, if you could live nearer each other, you could share the time with Alice more equally"

As they explored this option, they drifted back into the earlier debates. "I can't move out of New York, the builders would drain me dry;" said lisa. Len responded, "I can't leave the farm country because I would lose too many business deals." I realized we were back into the marriage power struggle as to who was more important. As the arguments began repeating the same cycle, I intervened and said, "You can both live in the City you can both live upstate, or you can both live in a town equidistant from each of you." They grew silent. "Let's look at a map and see which areas would be in the middle," I said. As we looked and measured approximate distances, I noticed Scarsdale, a middle class town in Westchester County Fortunately I knew about the area and was able to tell them about the school system, the kind of people who lived in the community and the peers Alice would meet.

When I finished my description the wife said, "Look, if I live in Scarsdale, I will have an hour and fifteen minutes to get into the City I won't be able to get to the site by seven thirty in the morning to see that the contractors start the day right. I might as well lose my daughter because I'd have to leave at six fifteen in the morning. I wouldn't get to put her on the school bus in the morning, I wouldn't get home until seven at night," and she went on as to why the proposal would not work

The husband did the same thing although his response indicated he was less adamant and might consider trying to make it work They each recognized and validated the other's business problems in a way that seemed to me to protect their ongoing competitiveness. Again I had to move away from the residence/ location issue and the marriage battle until I could successfully separate the two.

Negotiation]ournal Apri/1988 177

I returned to the flipchart and said, "Let's forget about where you live. Let's assume we could get an agreement where you chose to live in relatively close proximity. How would you like to organize the time with Alice?" I drew a calendar box of four weeks and asked, "O.K. if you were both living in the same town where Alice could walk back and forth between mom's house and dad's house, how woulcJ it work?"

They quickly agreed that what they would really like to do is split the time almost on a 50-50 basis, and they developed a calendar with Alice spending Monday through Wednesday morning with one parent and Wednesday evening through Friday evening with the other parent. They chose an alternating arrange­ment for the weekend where two weekends a month she spent Saturday with one parent and Sunday with the other. On the other two weekends, she would spend one whole weekend with one parent and the other entire weekend with the other parent. I entered this information onto the chart using different colored pens to highlight the information. The calendar looked like this:

M on

A A A A

Tue

A A A A

Wed

A/B A/B A/B A/B

Thu

B B B B

Fri

B B B B

Sat

B B B A

Sun

A B A A

I used the symbols A and B rather than denoting either of their names so as not to feed into their competitiveness. Thus, they approached the calendar without indicating who would get which schedule. In that way I kept them in a cooperative mode.

I had now checked the two aspects of the problem by the process of partialization. When the focus was on where to live, each parent thought of it in competitive terms in relation to their work. When the focus was on sharing time with Alice, they behaved cooperatively, each sharing ideas on how to make it work and each being able to compromise to make sure it worked. As long as the spousal role (whose work was more important) was separated from the parenting role (how to do the best for Alice ), the discussions continued to be productive. The debate as to where they lived informed me of the spousal battle; the calendar discussion informed me of their ability to cooperate as parents. Having estab­lished a cooperative atmosphere through the calendar discussion, it was now time to turn back to the geography issue to see if we could resolve it while keeping Len and Lisa in their parent roles.

Orchestrating the Concessions At this point in the process, I was convinced that the only solution acceptable to this highly competitive couple was one in which they both moved. It seemed unlikely that one would make the necessary concession to move close to the other, and I could not see a reciprocal concession or trade that could be suggested to either of them to make a unilateral move possible. Therefore, my thinking at this point was how to get them to consider a joint move seriously.

The couple sat silently looking at the calendar and I thought, "Now is the time to bring them back to the issue of where they can both live because they both agreed that what they really wanted was co-parenting." I assumed Len and Lisa

178 John M Haynes Spousal and Parenting Roles

were mature, and that they also understood they could only achieve co­parenting if they lived near each other. So, I said, "Now let's talk about where Alice will live." At this point, the husband excused himself to go to the bathroom and returned in a few minutes announcing that he had ''A great idea while in the John." The choice of the timing-I was at a key point in the negotiations-and the metaphor was not lost on me, and I became annoyed. This was exacerbated as they both giggled at the announcement and I felt awkward. Len and Lisa had one behavior which made it difficult to mediate and that was their use ofhumor. They frequently broke into joshing each other and laughing. Part of this was their way of dealing with the tension, but they often used the humor to exclude me; it was strictly between them and often about events or references that were foreign to me. Sometimes this indicates cooperation is possible and should be ignored by the mediator. An intervention is necessary only when the exclusion interferes with the process.

As they laughed together, I intervened and asked, ''Are you serious, or are you going to joke around? Because sometimes I can't tell when you are serious and when you are joking." This question helped me deal with my inner annoyance and keep the process on task. "No, I am very serious," Len replied. "O.K.," I said "because if I am to be most helpful to you I need to learn to tell the difference. But, just before you tell me your idea, I want you to think about one other thing for me." I sensed from his behavior that he was ready to move from one of his positions, and I wanted to encourage the movement and provide him with a way to save face in the process.

Developing Face-Saving Mechanisms Most people have a problem moving from a strongly held position. Couples locked into power struggles have even greater difficulty and need to be able to save face when compromising. As a mediator I am always looking for face-saving strategies to either facilitate movement or to expand the degree of movement from entrenched positions. I continued my dialogue with Len by saying, "If you were to move and save Lisa moving, what would you want from her to do that?" Turning to Lisa I repeated the question, "Lisa, if you were to relocate so that Len did not have to move, what would you want?" Lisa asked for clarification and I repeated the question.

After mulling it over, Len said, "Well, I'll tell you what. I'm prepared to move to the City if you will help me with the financing of an apartment I would want to buy if I move closer to you." Lisa asked, "What do you mean by that? Help you with the downpayment or help you with the financing?" Len said, ''Well, I think I'd like help with both." She replied, "I can't help with the downpayment because I don't have any available cash. But, I could go to my bank where I've got good connec­tions and I think I could get you a ten percent mortgage with no points. Yes, I could get you a mortgage with only ten percent down. I guarantee it. I'll make sure you get it."

Len replied, ''All right, if you get me the mortgage with a ten percent downpayment, I will move into the City and then we can arrange the time with Alice like we have on the board. I can live here when Alice is with me and spend the other time up at my development." He obviously had thought about this while out of the room because he continued, "I can put a call forwarding system on the upstate number and take the calls here in the City. If I have to run up there when

Negotiation journal April 1988 179

Alice is with me, I presume she can go with you just as she has been with me the couple of times you had business problems." lisa agreed.

At that point I asked lisa if she could really produce on the mortgage, and she confirmed she could one way or another. I assumed from the way she said this that she would provide part of the downpayment if necessary. I felt sure that, given their respective financial positions, Len would have no trouble getting a mort­gage, but he saved face when agreeing to be the one to move because Lisa was giving him something in return-a below-market rate of interest, probably the avoidance of the points, and possibly part of the downpayment. I knew this was important because, two or three times during the spousal debates, he had said to me, "Why am I the one who always has to give in?"

By formalizing the reciprocal concession at the point I thought he was about to make some movement, I provided him with a mechanism for not giving in unilaterally Whether or not the reciprocity is of monetary value is not important. It is often the symbolism of the reciprocal concession that matters in marital struggles. In this case, the concession Len obtained from Lisa gave him a stake in the outcome. Lisa got to stay were she was in New York City Len got a real financial advantage from the deal that would cost Lisa nothing unless she loaned him some money for the downpayment. Since they each had a significant interest in the agreement, I could rely on each of their own self-interests to assure compliance. Without some reciprocal concession from Lisa, Len probably would have returned to mediation the following week, either demanding an unrealistic concession from her or withdrawing his offer entirely

Reinforcing the Agreement While mediators like to direct the parties' attention to solutions that overlap their mutual and individual self-interests, this is not always possible. In high conflict situations involving children, one parent must usually make a larger concession than the other. When a symmetrical agreement of relatively equal movement on both sides is not possible, the mediator's responsibility is to help devise formulas that provide the major conceder with a stake in the outcome since the outcome is then most likely to be honored.

Len began to copy down the schedule from the flip-chart into his notebook and Lisa looked at him. Lisa, who up to that point had been the more gregarious, became very quiet and began to cry This is not unusual; most people cry at some point in family negotiations, most at least once, many a number of times. I gave her a tissue and, as she calmed down, I said, "What's going on for you right now; What's happening?" She said, ''I'm looking at the chart and I'm seeing a chart with letters on it and that's my life. You've reduced our lives to a set of symbols." I nodded and replied, "You're absolutely right, that's what goes on in this process and it can be very painful." This acknowledgment and normalization was all she needed to pull herself together and become comfortable again.

When that was done, I decided to ask the husband, because he was the one to make the major compromise by moving to New York City, which of the two schedules he preferred. "Since you made the major compromise, you ought to be able to chose which of those fits best with your business needs," I announced. He selected the B schedule which seemed to him to provide a better weekend arrangement. I drew a fresh calendar, and wrote their names into the boxes to make it more relevant and personal for each of them, responding, in large part, to

180 John M Haynes Spousal and Parenting Roles

Lisa's concern. We decided not to meet for three weeks. Indeed, we agreed tentatively to schedule the next meeting based on a firm date after Len had looked at some apartments in close proximity to Lisa, and she had information about the financing.

They called in about one month, and again they were both on the telephone. Len said he had found an apartment four blocks from Lisa's and Lisa said she had arranged with her banker for a 10 percent mortgage commitment. They did not see the need to come again at this time since they would like to live with the new calendar for a while. If any problems arose, they said they would get back to me.

Strategy Review In reviewing this session, I could identify some key strategies. I refocused the couple from competitiveness to the future and their shared goals for their daughter. I identified their spousal (marriage) fight and parenting problems and separated them. Prior to seeing me, Len and Lisa had been unable to separate the issues that had prevented them from reaching an agreement on their shared values and concern for Alice. By partializing the dispute, looking first at the most desirable school, then the calendar, and lastly the geography, I was able to gain agreements on each of the discrete pieces and then put them back together as a whole package.

When a couple defines the problem as a "zero sum game" (my career vs. your career), they both suffer because they are locked into a no-win struggle. In this case, when the couple talked about what was best for Alice and how both could maintain their strong individual relationships with her, they moved out of the past and into the future. Len and Lisa were able to let go of the question, "Is it my career or your career that will suffer?" and focus on what was both best for Alice and themselves as parents.

By partializing the problem into component parts, I provided them with a mechanism for making a decision without making a commitment. I focused them on making the decision on which kind of school would be best for Alice and which schedule they would prefer in an ideal situation, without either having to commit themselves on where they would live to accomplish it.

I believe that Len looked at the chart and realized that if he lived in close proximity to Lisa, Alice could spend half of the time with him, which was better than the current 30 percent of the time and also better than the 20 percent time he would have if neither parent moved and Alice lived primarily with Lisa. The flipchart provided Len with a coherent set of facts that showed him there was something meaningful for him in making his proposal.

I further enhanced Len's ability to compromise by normalizing the concept of reciprocity or trading in negotiations. He came up with a particular idea which he could have done without my help, but working in mediation enabled him to get something out of it also.

I did not ask Lisa what she would want from Len in order to compromise since, once Len made a proposal that appeared acceptable to both of them, asking Lisa would have enlarged the dispute, possibly allowing them to fight over who was moving the most. When I see that an idea is workable and acceptable to both parties, I do not continue searching for alternative ideas if I believe the search might provide an opportunity for continuing the fighting.

Lisa was able to stay in New York City, close to her work sites and maintain a

Negotiation]ournal Apri/1988 181

good balance between career and being a mother. On one level she won the marital fight, but she made concessions to do so. Upon reflection, I probably did not need to give Len the first choice of selecting the calendar because he achieved reciprocity on the mortgage issue. However, the alternative would have been some difficult negotiations on a minor issue. Iisa's acceptance of my suggestion indicated that it was not important to her.

Intelligent and articulate people enmesh themselves into conflicts because they view the world from a single perspective creating a false definition of the problem. In this case it was from the perspective of the marriage power struggle. Mediation reframed the issue and provided the parties with a vehicle to solve the problem in a series of small steps that focused on their shared concern for Alice. The result was an agreement that did nothing to resolve the power struggle, but did resolve the way this struggle interfered with their shared parenting goals to their mutual satisfaction.

182 John M Haynes spousal and Parenting Roles