The Top Ten Ways Practitioners Screw Up Collaborative Divorce Cases

The Top Ten Ways Practitioners Screw Up Collaborative Divorce Cases

by | Apr 16, 2026 | Professional Practice & Training

I have a lot of respect for collaborative professionals. Most people who choose this model are trying to do right by their clients. I still see the same problems show up again and again. There are others, but these are the ones I see most often. These are the top ten collaborative divorce mistakes I see professionals make.

1. Working harder than the client

This shows up all the time. The professionals are pushing the case forward while the clients stay passive. If the clients are not doing the work, the case will not move. Clients need to have ownership of their own case. When the professionals care more about the case than the clients do, things are out of balance. Good teams show clients how to take ownership of their own lives and their own conflict. The team will be gone when the case is over. Clients need to be able to resolve differences without professional intervention. If they do not build that capacity, the agreement will be less durable and they will be back to clean up a mess without the skills to fix it. Otherwise, the attorneys spin their wheels and the clients gain very little.

2. Overcomplicating the collaborative divorce process

Some teams build processes that look impressive. They create forms, binders, checklists, and layers of structure. Much of it does not move the case forward. Clients get buried in paperwork that does not help them make decisions, and the process slows down. It also gets expensive fast. Clients end up sitting in meetings going through forms and written materials while everyone in the room is billing. That turns people off. I have seen many cases ruined by this. We love our processes, but we cannot get arrogant and self-righteous about them. The clients do not care about our forms. They want to see that the time they are paying for actually moves their case forward. If the process or form does not move the ball quickly, it is best not to use it.

3. Failing to treat client fees with respect in collaborative practice

Clients are paying for this process. It is disrespectful to insist on expensive meetings and layers of process without stopping to ask whether they are necessary. One meeting with a full team can be expensive, and that matters to people.

I had a case where the clients were increasingly frustrated with the cost. They felt like they were paying for meetings where nothing meaningful was happening. Instead of acknowledging that concern and tightening the process, the team doubled down and framed the issue as the clients being uncooperative.

The clients were raising a real issue. They were watching their savings go toward meetings that felt repetitive and unproductive. That deserved a direct response and a course correction.

There is a level of arrogance in assuming the problem sits with the clients while ignoring an overbuilt process and poor cost management.

Instead of addressing the clients’ legitimate concerns, the team gave them a lecture. The case unraveled soon after.

When professionals ignore cost, clients lose trust. If you want that trust, use judgment about how you spend their money.

4. Group think and holding back real feedback in collaborative teams

Teams want to get along. That can turn into everyone agreeing because it feels easier. Weak ideas go unchallenged and the case starts to drift.

Early in my career, I had a case fall apart. In the debrief, I shared what I thought caused it. I had disagreed with a direction one of the coaches was taking, but I did not say anything at the time. He asked me why I waited until the debrief to speak up. The answer was simple. I was new and I wanted to impress him.

You see this between professionals. Something feels off in how part of the case is being handled, and nothing gets said. People stay quiet because they do not want to step on each other, or they tell themselves it is not their place. Then it comes out later, after the case has already taken a hit.

If something is off, say it when it matters. Respectful disagreement keeps the team oriented and the case moving.

5. Not being available in collaborative cases

Collaborative cases need momentum. Setting meetings can feel like programming a NASA shuttle launch because you are coordinating multiple professionals. It only works if everyone treats availability as part of the job.

If you are hard to schedule or slow to respond, you are not just affecting your piece of the case. You are affecting the entire team. Other professionals are holding space, clients are waiting, and the process loses traction.

I had a case where one professional was consistently unavailable for team calls. Then an emergency developed and we needed to meet. We offered after hours. We offered weekends. Nothing worked. Before we could get the team together, the situation escalated and one party left the collaborative process and filed in court.

The case unraveled because the team could not get in the same room to address a problem that could have been handled. Availability is part of professional responsibility in this model. If you cannot show up when it matters, the process cannot hold.

6. Becoming part of a client’s emotional dynamic in collaborative practice

A client is anxious, angry, or reactive, and a professional gets pulled into it. You start matching tone, taking sides, or trying to fix the client instead of managing the process. That shift is subtle and costly. The team loses its center and the case starts to run on the client’s emotional rhythm. You see longer emails, sharper exchanges, and decisions driven by reaction instead of judgment. It also puts pressure on the other professionals, who now have to manage both the clients and a teammate who is inside the dynamic. Your role is to hold structure and pace. When you stay there, clients have a chance to settle and think. When you leave it, the process follows you into the chaos.

7. Drifting out of your role on a collaborative team

Some overlap is useful. Too much creates confusion.

Attorneys can lose their way by trying to control the financial reporting or by stepping into coaching. That pulls the case toward control instead of structure and pace.

Financial professionals can lose their way by turning the work into analysis for its own sake. More models, more scenarios, more data. The numbers get more complex while decisions get harder. Clients disengage.

Coaches can lose their way by taking sides or moving into advocacy. The focus shifts from managing dynamics to advancing a position.

Each role has a job. Attorneys manage structure and legal framing. Financial professionals bring clear, usable numbers that support decisions. Coaches manage communication and dynamics so clients can think and engage.

When anyone drifts out of that lane, the team loses clarity and the process gets messy fast.

8. Failing to make the paradigm shift in collaborative divorce

This sits underneath everything on this list.

Each professional brings habits from their primary discipline. Those habits make sense in other settings. They do not translate cleanly into a collaborative case.

Lawyers need to get off their white horses. This is not court. You are not there to save the day or win the case. You are there to provide structure, legal framing, and help clients make informed decisions.

Mental health professionals need to leave the paradigm of healing people. Coaching is not therapy. The role is to help clients communicate, stay present, and engage in a difficult negotiation. Longstanding emotional patterns belong in therapy, not inside the collaborative process.

Financial professionals are not responsible for the clients’ financial choices. Their role is to provide clear, neutral analysis that supports decision making. Not to steer outcomes or manage the clients’ financial lives.

If that shift does not happen, the process never stabilizes. Roles blur, effort gets duplicated, and clients start looking to professionals to solve problems they need to own.

9. Forcing the Square Peg into a Round Hole in collaborative cases

Not every case belongs in a collaborative process. Sometimes people try to force a square peg into a round hole. It breaks the peg and damages the hole.

This usually comes from good intentions. The team wants the case to work. The clients say they want to stay in the process. So everyone keeps pushing forward even when the signs are there that the fit is off.

You start to see it in small ways. Commitments do not hold. Participation is uneven. One or both clients are not engaging in good faith. The team spends more time managing the breakdown than moving decisions forward.

At some point, the structure cannot carry what is happening. When that line gets crossed, the case starts to come apart. Be realistic. Not every case is a good fit for Collaborative Practice.

10. Lack of clear agendas and next steps in collaborative divorce

Cases lose traction when meetings end without clear decisions, assignments, and timing. Each session should produce a short list of what was decided, what each person is responsible for, and when it will be done.

Without that, people leave with different understandings of what just happened. Tasks get missed. Work gets duplicated. The next meeting starts by rehashing the last one instead of moving forward.

It affects the clients. They start to feel like they are attending meetings instead of making progress. That frustration builds quickly when they are paying for every hour in the room.

Clear agendas going in and clear next steps coming out keep the case moving. If you cannot say what was decided and who is doing what next, the meeting did not do its job.

Good Collaborative Cases Require Good Collaborative Professionals

Collaborative practice works, but it depends on discipline, clarity, and judgment. These collaborative divorce mistakes are predictable, and they are avoidable when professionals stay grounded in the model. When those slip, sometimes the case does explode. More often, it gets slower and harder until everyone feels it.

Training is crucial. If you want to improve your Interdisciplinary Collaborative Team chops, we are teaching it in our Collaborative Divorce training this June in San Diego. You will work with an interdisciplinary faculty that has spent years doing this work in real cases, and we focus on how the process functions when things get difficult. If you want to get better at this, we would be glad to have you in the room.

The Case for Teamwork in Family Law Practice

The Case for Teamwork in Family Law Practice

by | Apr 8, 2026 | Professional Practice & Training

Why Family Law Burnout Happens

Burnout in family law generally shows up as overload, with too many roles, too many expectations, and not enough structure around who is responsible for what. Reducing burnout in family law starts with how the work is structured, not just how hard you push through it.

In many cases, one professional is carrying legal analysis, emotional dynamics, plus the financial side of the case at the same time. That is a heavy lift. It wears people down.

There is a better way to structure the work.

What Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Family Law Looks Like

Interdisciplinary collaboration in family law is one of the hallmarks of Collaborative Practice, an international movement that has reshaped how professionals approach family conflict. The model brings lawyers, financial professionals, and mental health professionals into a coordinated process with defined roles and shared responsibility. However, the principles travel well beyond Collaborative Divorce. Practioners can apply these principles in mediation and other family law settings where the goal is thoughtful, durable resolution.

Interdisciplinary collaboration in family law brings attorneys, financial professionals, and mental health professionals into the same process with clear roles. Each person takes responsibility for the part of the case they are trained to handle. As a result, the work becomes clearer, and the pressure eases. Outcomes tend to hold up.

How a Team-Based Family Law Approach Improves Outcomes

Clients benefit because a team-based family law practice puts the right problems with the right professionals. Financial questions get answered early instead of lingering in the background. The team manages emotional escalation before it derails the process. The legal work stays on track. Agreements come together more cleanly and tend to hold up over time.

Additionally, professionals benefit in a team-based family law practice. Working on teams helps you stay within your training. You are not stepping into financial analysis without the background or trying to manage emotional escalation without the right tools. You are doing your work, and doing it well.

The Three R’s Framework for Family Law Collaboration

I think about this as the Three R’s.

  • The right people

  • To do the right work

  • For right price.

“The right people” means building a team that understands both their role and how to work together.

“To do the right work” means each professional takes ownership of their piece of the process.

“For the right price” means clients are paying for the appropriate level of expertise instead of using one professional to cover everything.

When those three line up, cases move with less friction. You spend less time cleaning up confusion and more time helping people make decisions that stick.

Building an Interdisciplinary Family Law Practice

Working in interdisciplinary family law teams changes how you see cases. You start to catch patterns earlier and hear language that lands better with clients. You become more precise in your own role.

A Practical Shift in How You Run Cases

This is a structural choice about how to run a case.

If your practice feels heavy, look at how you carry the work. Collaboration in family law is often the missing structure. You may be holding parts of the case that belong with someone else.

Find the right people. Let them do the right work. Set it up at the right price.

That is how you build a practice that holds up over time.

Styles of Mediation Explained: Transformative, Facilitative, Informative, and Evaluative

Styles of Mediation Explained: Transformative, Facilitative, Informative, and Evaluative

by | Feb 18, 2026 | Family & Divorce Mediation, Professional Practice & Training

People talk about mediation as if it is one uniform process.

It is not.

In practice, there are different styles of mediation, each with a different level of structure and mediator involvement. If you are stepping into mediation work, or trying to decide what kind of process fits your situation, those differences matter.

The four primary mediation styles are:

  • Transformative mediation

  • Facilitative mediation

  • Informative mediation

  • Evaluative mediation

You can think of them as a spectrum. On one end, the mediator stays mostly in the background. On the other, the mediator steps in more actively.

Here is how they break down.

 

Transformative Mediation

Transformative mediation focuses on communication and empowerment.

The mediator’s role is minimal. The goal is to help the parties better understand each other and make their own decisions.

This style is often used when:

  • Emotional intensity is high

  • The relationship matters

  • The parties want growth, not just resolution

Strengths

  • Parties retain full control.

  • Communication can improve long term.

  • The relationship may strengthen.

Limitations

  • The process can take time.

  • It may struggle in cases involving power imbalance.

  • It does not prioritize legal structure.

 

Facilitative Mediation

Facilitative mediation is the most common style used in divorce mediation.

Here, the mediator manages the process and refrains from offering opinions about the outcome.

The focus is on:

  • Identifying shared interests

  • Structuring negotiation

  • Guiding productive conversation

Strengths

  • Parties remain decision-makers.

  • The process is structured.

  • Creative solutions often emerge.

Limitations

  • Complex legal issues may require additional expertise.

  • Significant power imbalance can complicate the process.

 

Informative Mediation

In informative mediation, the mediator provides information about legal rights and responsibilities.

This is often used in cases involving complex financial or legal questions.

The mediator refrains from dictating outcomes and instead offers context so parties can make informed decisions.

Strengths

  • Legal complexity can be clarified.

  • Parties gain confidence in their choices.

  • It can prevent avoidable mistakes.

Limitations

  • The mediator’s knowledge carries influence.

  • Emotional dynamics may receive less attention.

 

Evaluative Mediation

Evaluative mediation involves the highest level of mediator intervention.

The mediator may offer opinions about likely court outcomes or the strengths and weaknesses of positions.

Retired judges often favor this style in settlement conferences.

Strengths

  • Efficient in certain cases.

  • Useful when parties are stuck.

  • Provides legal reality testing.

Limitations

  • It can feel less collaborative.

  • The mediator’s authority may influence decisions more heavily.

  • Some parties defer too quickly to perceived expertise.

 

Which Mediation Style Is Best?

It depends on the case.

In divorce mediation, most experienced mediators blend styles. A session might start facilitative, shift toward informative when financial questions come up, and include a brief evaluative reality check if the parties are stuck.

What matters is being intentional about it.

When professionals understand the different mediation styles, they can choose their approach instead of drifting into it.

When clients understand the styles, they can decide what kind of process feels right for them.

 

Why This Matters for Professionals

Reading about mediation styles is easy.

Using them in a live session when two people are talking over each other and one of them is threatening to walk out is something else.

In actual sessions, you do not announce that you are shifting from facilitative to informative. You feel the temperature change. You notice when the structure is slipping. You decide whether the moment calls for more space or more direction.

Some days that means stepping back and letting the parties work. Other days it means tightening the frame and slowing the pace so the conversation does not derail.

That kind of judgment is built over time. It comes from reps, reflection, and a willingness to adjust when something is not landing.

This is the work we focus on in the 40-Hour Divorce Mediation Training. Real-time decisions about how to guide the conversation well.

There is another layer to this that professionals often overlook.

Every mediator has a personal style.

Some mediators are naturally calm and spacious. Some are direct and structured. Some lean into emotional process. Others move quickly toward problem-solving.

None of those are wrong. What matters is knowing your own tendencies and being honest about them.

If you do not understand your own style, it will shape the conversation without you realizing it. You may over-direct when the parties need space. You may give too much space when the room needs firmer structure.

Strong mediators know their default settings. They own them. And they know when to stretch beyond them.

That level of self-awareness is just as important as understanding the formal styles of mediation.

It is a piece of the work that often receives less attention in traditional mediation trainings, even though it shapes every mediation session you walk into.

 

Need Help Resolving a Divorce Dispute?

Learn more about our Divorce Mediation Services or schedule a consultation.

Need Help Resolving a Dispute?

Learn more about our Divorce Mediation Services or schedule a consultation.

Schedule your conference
Emotional Drivers in Divorce: Fear, Uncertainty & Trust

Emotional Drivers in Divorce: Fear, Uncertainty & Trust

by | Feb 11, 2026 | Family & Divorce Mediation

People come into mediation thinking the fight is about money, custody, or who said what last Tuesday, yet that assumption is usually incomplete.

The arguments sound practical enough: who keeps the house, how parenting time is divided, the level of child support, or what happens with the stock options. Under those issues, something else is driving the conflict.

Experience shows a consistent pattern in crisis situations: certain emotional drivers in divorce tend to take over, particularly fear, uncertainty, and the loss of trust.

Divorce activates all three at once, and when those forces are visible, the conflict begins to make more sense.

Fear as One of the Core Emotional Drivers in Divorce

Most of what people fear in divorce is reasonable. Many worry about losing time with their children, facing financial collapse, experiencing public humiliation, or watching an identity built over decades unravel.

Fear rarely presents itself plainly. Instead, it often arrives disguised as anger or rigidity, and sometimes it shows up as silence. The person who seems aggressive about parenting time may be terrified of becoming a weekend parent, and the person who appears cold and fully lawyered up may be overwhelmed by financial panic and unwilling to show it.

When fear takes over, the nervous system shifts into defense. People become reactive. They may cling to positions they do not even want and assume the other person is scheming, even when that person may be just as afraid.

This pattern explains why thoughtful, intelligent adults sometimes become unrecognizable during divorce as they protect something that matters deeply to them.

In mediation, part of the task calls for identifying what the fear actually is, not just the surface argument, but the underlying concern, and once someone feels that their fear has been understood, they often settle enough to think clearly again.

Attorneys and therapists observe the same pattern in their own settings, where the presenting issue frequently serves as a stand-in for a deeper driver.

Uncertainty as an Emotional Driver in Divorce

Divorce upsets daily life at its foundation. Daily routines change. People have to change how they relate to their money. Living arrangements shift in unexpected ways.

Parenting suddenly becomes a regimented schedule. Often, friendships rearrange themselves because of the breakup, leaving people without a clear sense of what their future will look like.

Some respond by freezing. Others attempt to control every available detail, which frequently complicates matters further. Both reactions make sense, but they can make negotiations tough.

Uncertainty also distorts judgment, because when the future feels undefined, even fair proposals can seem dangerous, and a person may reject a reasonable settlement simply because the unknowns feel overwhelming.

One purpose of mediation is to restore a measure of predictability, as clear agendas, written summaries, and defined steps provide a steady point of reference while difficult decisions are being made.

Structure matters more than many people realize, since a clear process lowers anxiety and lower anxiety improves judgment, an outcome that reflects basic human wiring rather than magic.

Loss of Trust as an Emotional Driver in Divorce

Trust sometimes collapses in a single dramatic moment. More often, it erodes gradually over years of unresolved conflict or small betrayals that accumulate. In other cases, the trust that disappears concerns the legal system, professionals, or whether anyone is truly looking out for a person’s interests.

Another form of lost trust receives less attention. People begin to doubt themselves. They replay decisions and question their own judgment. People might wonder how they missed warning signs.  All of these doubts come at the exact moment when confidence is most needed.

When trust declines, people start guarding information more tightly. Neutral statements begin to sound like threats. Motives are questioned, even when none are hidden. The tone of every conversation shifts as a result.

Forward movement requires enough safety for people to engage honestly, and transparency supports that safety while consistency reinforces it. When the process feels even-handed and predictable, defensiveness often eases.

Therapists observe this instinctively, attorneys see it surface in discovery disputes and last-minute reversals, and in mediation, the pattern unfolds in real time.

What This Means If You Are In It

If you are going through a divorce and your emotions feel larger than the specific issues on the table, there is nothing inherently wrong with you, because you are likely reacting to fear, uncertainty, and a shift in trust.

Naming those forces does not eliminate them, but it makes them more manageable, and once you recognize what is driving your reaction, you gain more choice about how to respond.

You may discover that the argument about the retirement account reveals a deeper need for certainty about lasting stability, or you may realize that hesitation around a decision emerges from feeling overwhelmed by unknowns rather than from stubbornness, and that clarity can create space for movement.

What This Means If You Are A Professional Helping Someone Through It

If you work with people in divorce, whether as an attorney, therapist, financial advisor or mediator, acknowledging these forces changes how you intervene.

When a client escalates, consider what fear may lie beneath the behavior. If a client stalls, examine whether uncertainty is causing paralysis. When negotiations repeatedly collapse, evaluate whether trust has eroded to an unworkable level.

Fear tends to respond to acknowledgment and concrete information. Uncertainty responds to structure and a clear process. Loss of trust responds to consistent behavior over time rather than to verbal assurances.

These skills matter whether or not you mediate. Every divorce activates these three forces. You either confront them directly or allow them to shape decisions behind the scenes.

When the professionals address the underlying need, legal issues become easier to resolve. The key takeaway is that addressing emotional drivers in divorce creates space for practical settlement.

Staying Steady

Divorce can dismantle a life in a matter of months, and that reality disrupts regardless of how thoughtfully people try to handle it.

Conflict becomes more manageable when people understand what is driving it. Fear can be named. Uncertainty can be reduced in increments. Trust can be rebuilt enough to support necessary decisions.

Mediation delivers a structured environment in which clients can make difficult decisions with clarity instead of panic.

The goal is to prevent fear, uncertainty, and mistrust from controlling every decision, even though divorce is inherently emotional.

When folks understand and manage those forces, conversations stabilize. Decisions become more thoughtful. The road forward becomes clearer, and progress becomes possible.

Why Process Matters

Mediation and Collaborative Divorce processes address these three forces directly.

In mediation, structure creates predictability, and the presence of a neutral third party helps restore enough trust to support productive conversation, while the process itself reduces uncertainty that might otherwise fuel reactivity.

In Collaborative Divorce, a team approach performs a similar function. A financial neutral addresses monetary fear with concrete information. A divorce coach aids emotional regulation. Attorneys commit to transparency, which helps rebuild trust.

These processes are consistent with the realities of divorce because they address fear, uncertainty, and loss of trust directly, creating conditions in which those forces do not dominate every decision.

If you are going through a divorce, it is worth understanding what is driving the conflict before choosing how to resolve it. If you are a professional working with people in crisis, these drivers will appear regardless of the process you use.

Recognizing them clearly allows you to respond with intention.

2025 Divorce Mediation Lessons: Reflections From a Year in the Room

2025 Divorce Mediation Lessons: Reflections From a Year in the Room

by | Dec 2, 2025 | Family & Divorce Mediation, Professional Practice & Training

A year of divorce mediation always teaches me something, but the lessons rarely show up the way I expect. After so many years in the chair, I still find myself surprised by people. There is plenty of fear and frustration in the work, and I see my share of rough edges. Even so, this year brought moments that stopped me in my tracks in the best possible way. A few families showed a kind of steadiness and generosity that reminded me why this work matters.

One couple in particular stays with me. These folks made a choice to build their agreement around the needs of their children and each other, not what the law might dictate. The monied spouse said something I almost never hear in a mediation room. They said they did not care what the law said. They wanted this to be right. Period.

From there, everything shifted. They built a plan that kept their kids stable and gave both parents a firm footing. The agreement was generous and thoughtful, and their attorneys helped make sure the details worked. When we wrapped up, the room felt warm and steady, with no drama and no scorekeeping. These were simply two solid people trying to leave the marriage with their dignity intact and their children protected. Those kids will be all right.

The Weight People Carried This Year

Folks came into divorce mediation tired this year, more than usual. The world has been heavy. People are stretched financially, politically, and emotionally. They walk into my office already burned out and impatient, and that exhaustion spills right into the marriage and the divorce.

Fear was the emotion I saw most often. When people are afraid, they try to control everything in sight, including the schedule, the money, the rules, and each other. That kind of control only tightens the knot.

Parents were terrified their kids might be damaged by the divorce, yet oddly enough, the kids often seemed stronger than the parents. After the pandemic years, many young people bounced back with a kind of resilience that surprised everyone. The parents carried more anxiety than the kids did.

Financial stress showed up in every corner. Cash flow is tight. Housing in San Diego County feels impossible to find. People do not want to lose a low mortgage rate. Renting is often more expensive than staying put. Refinancing can blow up a budget. I saw more deferred sales this year than I have in a long time. Underneath all of it lives a quiet worry that retirement will not be affordable. Inflation spooked many people.

Slower Is Faster

When people arrived half-crazed and locked in fight-or-flight, the most reliable response was to slow the pace of the conversation, encourage a full breath, and allow the room to settle into a calmer rhythm.

People come in like cornered raccoons right now. You can feel the anxiety sitting in their bodies. Giving them a moment to breathe and think clearly changed everything. Slower truly was faster.

Empathy also needed more intentional coaching this year. In a polarized world, people forget how to imagine someone else’s experience. A simple question made a big difference. I would ask, “What would the other person need from a settlement?”

It pulled them out of their own fear and into a bigger frame.

The Patterns That Kept Showing Up

Throughout the year, I saw consistent patterns, each of which held a meaningful divorce mediation lesson.

Fear became control. People did not start out wanting to be controlling. They were scared. Naming that helped soften the room.

People misunderstood what the law requires. Parents came in insisting a 50/50 schedule was mandatory. It is not. The law cares about best interest, not perfect math. And support orders do not usually result in a 50/50 split of spendable income. Helping people let go of those myths took patience.

People thought they communicated poorly when they really just disagreed. That one came up constantly. They would say they had terrible communication. In reality, they communicated pretty well. They simply did not agree. When we talked about disagreement as a normal part of divorce, people stopped jumping to worst-case scenarios.

Generosity showed up more than expected. People erred on the side of kindness this year. When they shifted from protecting themselves to caring about the other person’s well-being, the whole energy changed.

I had to hold my own still center. Mediators live in the world too. This year tested that. My own anxiety about politics, economics, and humanity wanted to sneak into the room. I had to keep myself grounded.

Meditation helped. Talking with trusted colleagues helped. Even during a session, quiet mantras kept me steady: “They see the world differently than I do. That does not change who I am or how I show up.”

What People Did Better This Year

Even though the world felt mean and loud, people actually listened to each other more. Many couples had been in therapy before arriving in my office. They could not save their marriage, but the skills they learned in counseling helped them divorce with more care.

Couples relied on the skills they had practiced, including active listening, clearer communication, and a renewed sense of humility. Those efforts made a meaningful difference in how their mediations unfolded.

Heading Into the New Year

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the mastery of it.

People find peace by learning how to be steady when they disagree. Disagreement is normal. Fighting is optional. The moment people stop fighting, compromise becomes possible.

A Word to My Fellow Mediators

Mediators carry a lot, often more than people realize. It’s so important for us to allow ourselves room to breathe and remember that we are human in all of this. The work can knock any of us around. As we head into a new year, I hope we can find a little more steadiness, a little more kindness toward ourselves, and the space to keep mastering our craft.