|
|
Spring, 2002 |
Editor: Arlene Silikovitz |
NEW JERSEY TO RECEIVE AFCC CHAPTER CHARTER
Executive Director Ann Milne announces that the New Jersey Chapter Charter will be presented to president, Dr. Ron Silikovitz, at the AFCC Northeast Regional Conference luncheon on March 18,
2002 at the New Yorker Hotel. Dr. Silikovitz invites all current and prospective members of NJ-AFCC to attend the conference and share in the chapter celebration.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Ron Silikovitz, Ph.D.
We are proud to accept our AFCC chapter charter. The idea to develop a chapter in New Jersey first came in 1998. We have been a provisional chapter of AFCC since 1999. The officers and
Board of Trustees express our hearty gratitude to our members, prospective new members, and the AFCC international leadership, including Executive Director Ann Milne; current president Denise
McColley and past presidents Christie Coates, Arline Rotman, and Phil Bushard; Chapter Liaisons Jan Shaw and Fred Mitchell; our friend and Family Court Review editor, Andrew Schepard;
AFCC Newsletter Editor Peter Salem; and Dawn Holmes in Central Office.
With enthusiasm, gratitude, and hopes that we will make a real difference in helping families in New Jersey resolve differences amicably, we invite all new and prospective members of NJ-AFCC to
attend the March 18 AFCC Symposium on High Conflict Families and the Courts. Please peruse the insert. Please particularly plan to attend:
- "Considerations for Implementing a Collaborative Family Law Practice," by Curt Romanowski, Esq., at 10:45 a.m.
- AFCC Awards Luncheon at 12:15 p.m., featuring the presentation of the NJ-AFCC chapter charter
- The NJ-AFCC Chapter Reception at 4:30 p.m. -- a unique networking opportunity!
- Dinner with NJ-AFCC and AFCC leadership at 6:00 p.m. at a location near Penn Station to bedetermined
NJ-AFCC CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP SURPASSES 50
We wish to acknowledge the following members of NJ-AFCC:
|
Chris Barbrack, JD, Ph.D.
Francesco Blanco, JD
Cecilia Blau, JD
David Brodzinsky, Ph.D.
Cary Cheifetz, JD
Albert Cohn, JD
Robert Corcoran
Barry Croland, LL.B, JD#
Jeannette DeVaris, Ph.D.#
Jo Ann Douglas, JD
Edward Franzoni, Ph.D.
Jonathan Gordon, Ph.D., JD
Lillian Gordon, MSW
Judith Greif, DSW#
Alan Grosman, MA, JD
Douglas Grote, D.Min.
Mathias Hagovsky, Ph.D.#
Ellan Heit, JD
Laura James, LCSW, MSW
Cynthia Johnson, MA
Alan Kagel, Ph.D.
Hon. Ellen Koblitz*
Paul Kreisinger, JD
Hon. Lois Lipton
Michael Magaril, JD
Kenneth McNiel, Ph.D.
Madelyn Milchman, Ph.D. |
Lee Monday, Ph.D.
Sharon Ryan Montgomery, Psy.D.*#
Sally Nason, Ph.D.
Bernard Neuner, JD
Hon. Robert Page
Marcy Pasternak, Ph.D.#
Robert Raymond, Ph.D.
Curt Romanowski, JD#
Robert Rosenbaum, Ed.D.
Edwin Rosenberg, Ph.D.
Lori Roth, B.S.
Robin Schneider, JD
Ronald G. Silikovitz, Ph.D.*
Patricia Garity Smits, JD
Philip Sobel, JD*
Mary Ann Stokes, JD
Anthony Tocci, B.A.
Eleanor Tuomey, M.A.#
William Walsh, Ph.D.
Carol Weiss, MSW, LCSW
Frank Weiss, Ph.D.*
Norman Weistuch, Ph.D.
Arthur Wiener, Ph.D.#
Leslie Williams, Ph.D.
Hon. Deanne Wilson#
Barbara Worth, JD# |
|
* Officer # Member of Board of Directors |
|
MEMBERSHIP
AFCC dues $150
NJ-AFCC dues $ 30
Join via the AFCC website ( http://www.afccnet.org ), or call Sharon Ryan Montgomery, Psy.D., (973) 285-0579. |
|
|
|
A Three-Tiered Decision Tree Triage Strategy
for Alternative Child Custody Disputes
by Jeannette DeVaris, Ph.D.
The Special Projects Committee of AFCC, spearheaded by Jeannette DeVaris, Ph.D., a New Jersey psychologist, is developing a protocol for integrating the services of lawyers, judges, and
the mental health community, to provide collaborative solutions and approaches to resolving custody disputes between divorcing parents. Fundamental to such a protocol is access to the
support (for the divorcing parents) of the collaborating legal and psychological communities in guiding the family to appropriate resources to facilitate the appropriate resolution of the
parents' conflict about the custody of their children. These critical points in the divorce process are: (1) when one parent has consulted a lawyer and is contemplating a divorce, (2)
when both partners have retained lawyers to initiate the divorce action, and (3) when the complaints have been filed and the case is before the judge in the case management conference.
It is quite confusing and unclear which services are appropriate for divorcing parents at different stages of the divorce process. This proposed protocol will address the special needs of
parents, as well as some innovative approaches to address their needs during those critical transition points. The three tiers are: Stage I, when both parents decide to obtain a divorce;
Stage II, when a complaint and answer have been filed with the court; and Stage III, when the judge is having a case management conference with the divorcing parents. This is the
three-tiered strategic point decision tree for alternative dispute resolution strategies.
The specific strategies in each of these stages, involving a decision tree of the services that the parents will be triaged to, are being developed, and will be discussed in a future
monograph. A family assessment will be performed at each of these stages, and it will include some of these variables:
- An analysis of the dynamics between the parents.
- An analysis of the dynamics between each of the parents and each of the children.
- An overview of the mental stability of each of the family members.
- An analysis of the level of hostility between the parents, and loyalty conflicts amongst the children.
- An analysis of the injury that has been inflicted by spouses upon each other.
- An analysis of any extenuating circumstances that may be creating undue stress for one or more family members.
- An analysis of the willingness of each spouse to separate emotionally, as well as legally.
A family assessment
should also include recommendations for specific support services that the family will need, in order to make the transition to divorce as painless as possible. The list of recommendations may include:
- Referral for a therapeutic intervention, such as individual, couples, or family therapy. The assessor will make the referral to one or the other modality of treatment, based on the
specific needs of the family members.
- Referral to co-parent counseling for the parents when appropriate.
- Referral for the parents and children to attend therapeutic mediation when appropriate.
- Referral to a communication coach when appropriate.
- Referral for a custody evaluation when appropriate.
- Referral for the children to have a guardian ad litem.
- Suggestion that the parents withdraw the divorce complaint for a period of time to allow for the benefits of a particular therapeutic intervention to be realized.
- Recommendation that the parents seek mediation to develop a co-parenting schedule.
This family assessment
is a triage plan to provide the best possible resources for the dysfunctional family to achieve stability as it transitions into two parental units. This assessment can provide the legal community with the information that is needed to increase the possibility of collaborative divorces and reduce the risk of escalating conflict in divorces.
This is a preliminary discourse in a concept to provide families going through a divorce with the best support services that they need, in order to maintain as much autonomy and as little
overt hostility between divorcing spouses as possible. This model has not been tested yet, but there will be ongoing efforts to develop a system in New Jersey where lawyers, judges, and
mental health professionals are collaborating in helping divorcing families.
For further information, please contact
Dr. Jeannette DeVaris at (973) 762-3149. |
|
|
|
USING THE COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE* MODEL
TO CREATE A THERAPEUTIC STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT CO-PARENTING
This monograph (article) is intended to be one of a series exploring new possibilities for generating conditions favorable to collaborative (conflict-free) problem solving between parting
or divorcing parents. This process empowers them to constructively resolve the vital issues involved setting up two separate households. One of the major threads in the ever-changing
tapestry of Family Law is the integration of less adversarial and more collaborative solutions and approaches to matrimonial issues.
Often, parting parents, even those who are able to see their way to a prompt financial settlement, find themselves unable to resolve the simplest co-parenting issues. Their hurt feelings
and anger, and inability to separate those feelings often make it difficult for them to be objective.
Certainly, in the easy cases, mediation is the desirable and recommended solution. We also know that litigating over petty enforcement issues, especially in post-divorce matters regarding
the children, is not cost effective, nor does litigation address the core issues that create the problem; the parents' inability to communicate objectively about the children's needs.
To address this need, the Collaborative Divorce* model, included as a statutorily or administratively permissible alternative in California and other states, contemplates, when needed, a
framework whereby each party's therapist acts as his/her communications coach in a team approach, more or less managed by the child's or children's therapist, who also acts as an advocate
for the children. This structure, which may also be viewed as a form of therapeutic mediation, provides a way to have each party feel emotionally supported, and receive direction intended
to facilitate communication, from his or her therapist who understands his or her vulnerabilities, and has been coached with regard to the vulnerabilities of the other spouse.
The issues that confound parents, who are separating, are complex. Since not many therapists are trained in the Collaborative Approach, and since I do not believe many therapists are
trained at setting up structures primarily intended to facilitate communication and problem solving, it is essential for the collaboratively oriented attorney to understand how to enroll
clients and their therapists in such a process, and how to manage it.
Without the Collaborative Structure outlined above or other nonadversarial approaches such as therapeutic mediation, the parties are left with no effective method of communication, except
through counsel in an adversarial system that only exacerbates the hurt, anger, and conflict. Litigation is also incredibly expensive, both financially and emotionally; and fails to
address the core issues that interfere with the needed communication. With the Collaborative Structure, the parties have an effective way to communicate immediately, with the parties'
therapists acting on their behalf with the child's therapist. In this way they can address such immediate issues as prescribed by the child's therapist, such as providing a summer
activity for their son, , and how it will be paid for. This is preferable to paying attorneys to argue in court about such arrangement, where the legal costs will exceed the cost of the
activity.
The group [WHAT GROUP?] must also address the fundamental conflict between the custodial parent's desire and need for a dependable schedule for co-parenting, and the parent of alternative
residence's need for flexibility.
This arrangement, coupled with the commonly used concepts of "Co-parenting Counselor," or "Visitation Monitor," provide the parties with a way for their positions to be presented
objectively to a neutral, child oriented, therapist-advocate for the child, who may serve as tie breaker, and if you will, "Traffic Cop," on co-parenting issues, subject to either party's
right to seek redress in Court if they disagree.
Over time, and where appropriate, the therapist-communication coaches can provide the parties with skill and insights which will permit them to participate in facilitated conversations
with the child's therapist-advocate, perhaps first with the parties therapists present, and then alone.
This approach should be substantially less costly than motion practice for post divorce issues, which can easily cost each party anywhere from $2,500 to $5,000 per motion; present
collection problems to attorneys; and still not address the underlying problem. The suggested structure would seem to lend itself to being covered by health insurers as, either family
therapy (facilitating communication and teaching communication skills); or as an essential adjunct to the child's therapy, and therefore may be less expensive as well.
I will welcome your comments, reactions, and suggestions regarding this approach.
Philip N. Sobel, Esq.
*Collaborative Divorce, and Collaborative Law are terms that, I believe, have been protected by copyright by Curtis J. Romanowski, Esq., and possibly claimed by others including those
recently presenting at a Collaborative Divorce training program given in 1999 in Pennsylvania.
© May, 2001, by Philip N. Sobel, Esq., all rights reserved. |
|
|
|
TOP TEN PLUS REASONS TO JOIN NJ-AFCC
- Invitation to NJ-AFCC Reception at AFCC Regional Conference at New Yorker Hotel on March 18, 2002 at 4:30 p.m., and dinner at 6:00 p.m. at a location near Penn Station to be
determined
- Access to NJ-AFCC website (http://www.psychologyinfo.com/NJ-AFCC)
- Access to NJ-AFCC membership list and networking opportunities with mental health professionals, mediators, attorneys and judges in New Jersey dedicated to the nonadversarial
resolution of family conflict
- NJ-AFCC presentation at Inns of Court on May 14, 2002
- Attendance at NJ-AFCC program on Collaborative Divorce at Rutgers Law School, tentatively scheduled for September, 2002
- Attendance at program at ICLE (Psychologists and Attorneys Working Together) on November 16, 2002 (cosponsored by Family Law Section. New Jersey Psychological Association, and NJ-AFCC)
- Participation in continuing chapter interprofessional e-mail conversations dealing with nonadversarial conflict resolution issues and practices in New Jersey
- Access to chapter decision-tree project outlining, for professionals and litigants, specific therapeutic and other nonadversarial options available early on to families in conflict
- Access to Bill of Rights for Children in Divorce and Dissolution Actions (developed and disseminated by NJ-AFCC Special Projects Committee)
- Invitation to participate on one of the NJ-AFCC committees (networking, collaborating, developing new conflict-resolution skills)
- Invitation to chapter get together at lunch during AFCC international conference in Hawaii (June 5, 2002 to June 8, 2002)
- Access to NJ-AFCC membership list and networking opportunities with mental health professionals, mediators, attorneys and judges in New Jersey dedicated to the nonadversarial
resolution of family conflict
|
|
|
