THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL by Linda Solomon, LPC, LMFT, and Norma Levine Trusch, JD

Transcription

1 THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL by Linda Solomon, LPC, LMFT, and Norma Levine Trusch, JD This article was written for a workshop at the 2007 Forum of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals in Toronto, Canada. In recent years, there has been considerable dialogue about a new team model which can be utilized to help families transition through the divorce process. This model, sometimes referred to as the Neutral One-Coach Model or the Texas Team Model, emerged in the State of Texas several years ago and is now being utilized in other areas of North America as well. As with anything new and different, many have based opinions on assumptions; while others have first hand knowledge of the benefits and challenges of this model. We will attempt, in this brief article, to share an overview of this model to give you an opportunity to formulate your own questions, concerns, and possible need for additional information. It should be noted that a financial professional works as a neutral team member also, but this article focuses on the role of the Neutral Coach. EVOLUTION OF THE MODEL The model was created by a combination of timing, resistance, and willingness to look for a resolution that was more than a decree. Several years ago, after attending a two-day interdisciplinary training in the two-coach model, a few lawyers in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area decided to revisit the concept of coaches participating in the collaborative process. (Prior to that, there had been less that a handful of cases in which a mental health professional was involved from the beginning.) They were intrigued by information presented in the training describing many of the benefits of mental health participation in the process. At the same time, prior to that, most of them had experienced some resistance (within themselves, from colleagues or potential collaborative clients) to the idea of two or more coaches participating in the process. Most of this appeared to be resistance to the financial commitment involved. As a result of some discussions with the mental health professionals (MHP s) who also attended the training, a decision was made to work on a few cases with one MHP serving as a neutral coach. As with anything new and different, there was a learning curve and a potential to add value to the client s process. Almost immediately, clients began reporting to their lawyer(s) the comfort and benefits experienced with a neutral MHP participating in their process. Since that time, the model has evolved from a small handful of lawyers working with MHP s on cases which were identified as problems to numerous lawyers throughout the State of Texas working with a team on the majority of their cases. It should be noted this model is now being utilized in other areas also. The model continues to evolve with professionals always attempting to find a way to offer a better process to each client. OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL In this model, the professionals on the team include two lawyers, a neutral financial professional, a 1

2 neutral mental health professional and a child specialist; when needed. The neutral mental health professional in involved with the case from the inception of the process; while the child specialist typically joins the process, as needed. (Note: Obviously, the role of the neutral child specialist is crucial in many cases. It will not be the focus of this article.) At times, the MHP is the professional bringing the couple into the collaborative process. This may occur if the MHP has worked with the couple as a therapist, or, if the couple was referred to the MHP for education and information regarding the collaborative process. If the former is the case a new MHP will be asked to work as a team member. This is based on the Protocols for Practice developed in Texas in which it is suggested that no prior relationship should exist between the neutral MHP and either of the clients. If the latter occurs, the MHP typically works as a neutral team member. As this model was developing, MHP s often were asked to step in and participate once other team members recognized the process was stalling or there were psychological or communication issues that were impeding progress. This often carried an unspoken message to clients that there was something wrong with them and/or the process, or, other team members couldn t handle it. It was soon realized this was not an effective approach. It soon evolved to creating teams from the inception of a case and educating clients, from inception, that teams are available to help them with this transaction. Many lawyers, who are often the gatekeepers, reported they had to make their own paradigm shift to be comfortable discussing this approach with potential clients. They described their own comfort level increasing as they worked with MHP s as team members from the inception of the collaborative process, to clearly understand the role and value of such participation. DEFINITION OF THE ROLE The role of neutral coach is a multi-faceted one, to say the least, as it involves participation, on a consistent basis; with all members in the process. Licensed MHP s are trained to screen, assess, counsel, case manage, intervene in crisis, make appropriate referrals, facilitate group process, problem solve, and role model healthy communication skills. All of these skills, learned in training and experience as MHPs, are utilized as neutral coaches in this process. This role is often described in training as complex and fascinating; both at the same time. It serves well for those MHP s who are interested in various tasks and utilizing many of their skills. The role of the Neutral MHP is specified as follows: A licensed Mental Health Professional who has specific training in collaborative law and the interdisciplinary approach. He/she will facilitate communication amongst all participants in the process, manage the emotional content of such, assist in development of a parenting plan (when appropriate) and educate/model healthy co-parenting skills and communication. COMPONENTS OF THE ROLE If the lawyers are the gatekeepers and ask the MHP to participate as a team member, all necessary 2

3 participation agreements will then be prepared. A team conference call will occur as soon as possible. This call serves two purposes: One to begin gathering information about the case and, secondly, to begin working together as a team. The latter tends to be a very important piece of this call; especially if the team members have not worked together on prior cases. 1. Gathering Information and Building Trust with the clients Once involved as a team member, the MHP will meet with the client(s) individually, for one-two hours, as soon as possible. Ideally, this occurs before the first joint (6-way) meeting. Realistically, time or other circumstances may not allow this to occur. If so, the individual meetings occur soon after the first joint meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to gather information from each person by listening to his and her story, while beginning to determine the client(s) ability to deal with the stressors of divorce, learn about one s ability to handle all the emotions that are occurring, and, overall, begin to build a foundation of trust with each client. One of Stephen Covey s concepts, The Emotional Bank Account, comes to mind to illustrate the information above. Each time the Neutral MHP interacts with either/both clients it is, hopefully, a deposit in the emotional bank account named trust. This bank account of trust will be tapped many times during the collaborative process; particularly in the negotiation stage. After meeting with each client, the MHP gives observations and an overall summary to other team members. The challenge in these meeting is not to focus on a therapeutic type of interview (family of origin information, etc.), but rather to gather information that will aid the collaborative process and allow healing to begin for each individual. The lawyers frequently express gratitude for the fresh insight regarding their client(s). 2. Facilitate communication amongst all participants in all joint (6-way) meetings The Neutral MHP attends all joint meetings. If one were to conduct a random sampling of clients, lawyers, and FP s and ask one of the strengths of this role, this aspect would be mentioned frequently. It is recommended that each team have Expectations of Conduct defined and ready to discuss with clients. The MHP typically explains these expectations, asking each participant to abide by them. Examples are: Focus on the future and avoid unnecessary discussion of the past, do not interrupt, speak for yourself, and follow a strict agenda (no surprises!). The MHP oversees these expectations and communication in general, in all joint meetings. It is not unusual to hear lawyers and FP s stop themselves and say Oops, I just interrupted. I apologize. On first glance, this aspect of the role may seem straightforward and something that does not require licensure, experience and wisdom. The reality is the communication in the settlement meeting, verbal and non-verbal, is crucial to the process and has the ability to derail everything that occurs. The other reality is, based on experience, one never knows how to predict what behaviors will will show up in the room. Clients, as do all of us, bring all kinds of emotions, skills or lack thereof to deal with stress, along history and pattern of coping mechanisms, and psychological concerns to 3

4 these meetings. MHP s are trained to observe non-verbal behaviors as much as the verbal content of each interaction. These skills are extremely important in facilitating productive discussion in settlement meetings. What if there is a power imbalance, one spouse is much more verbal that another, or another person is deeply grieving and struggling to fight back tears or other emotions? Being observant of all of the above is extremely important in this aspect of the role. In addition, it is crucial to observe the verbal and non-verbal interactions of all team members with each client. This can and does have a direct impact on the comfort level in the room and overall sense of safety to speak one s truth. 3. Manage the Emotional Content of the Process Aahh, the emotions! All of us, at times in this process, have no doubt wished that emotions would just go away...stop...be controlled...so we can get back to business. The reality is the emotions have a huge influence on everything that occurs in this process. Sometimes that influence is obvious and can be worked through quickly and efficiently; other times everyone is just aware that one spouse or another is not responding logically and is left wondering why. Emotions can often end up being the filter through which one client or another speaks, thinks, and makes decisions and that has the potential to lead to a dead stop in the process. The Neutral Coach manages the emotional content of the process in several ways: a. Assessing each client s emotional readiness for divorce and ability to work through a life transition. This is sometimes glaringly obvious to all involved and, other times, takes a period of time to understand and/or gain from contact with the client s therapist; when appropriate. b. Helping the client(s) in joint meetings to process emotions that may show up out of nowhere. Experience has shown, when and if a client becomes quite tearful, angry, or irrational, it is beneficial to take a break in the meeting. The Neutral Coach will typically spend limited time with that client and his/her lawyer; when appropriate. The goal of this intervention is to acknowledge the emotion being experienced, be present with the client for a short duration of time, and give the client some skills to center him/herself in preparation to return to the meeting. There are those rare circumstances where, in the MHP s best judgment, it is best to terminate a meeting. c. Make referrals for psychological intervention when appropriate. It is often discussed amongst team members that we are seeing clients in one of the worst times in their lives. The powerlessness of divorce can and will, for many of us, bring out some of our worst behaviors; those of which we are not proud; those which we care not to repeat as time passes and perspective increases. Therefore, the Neutral Coach focuses on each client s reactions and adaptations to the various steps of the process. When it appears that more support is needed, or negative emotions are increasing, not decreasing; therapy referrals are often made. 4

5 d. Encourage and support all team members to process emotions that may be standing in the way of the client s process or progress. The Neutral MHP is typically the team member asking questions, in a debrief session or team phone call, to allow for discussion of any humanness that shows up for the professionals. This often occurs by hearing one of the team members say, He really pushes my buttons. It allows everyone on the team to do some dumping of frustration or other emotions that we may be experiencing or, taking on, regarding the clients or the process itself. The ability to do this and clear it out does nothing but add to the team s ability to remain focused and clear in the process. e. Listening, when and if appropriate, to one of the client s dump some emotions regarding the spouse or the process. This is, of course, a judgment call the for the Neutral Coach due to his/her role of impartiality. A decision must be made each time it is requested, or appears necessary, if doing so with one client will have a positive or negative impact on the process and the other spouse. When a Neutral Coach does spend time with one spouse or the other for some emotional dumping, the MHP needs to notify all participants (including the other spouse). Typically, a short is sent by the MHP summarizing a few moments spent with the wife helping her to process emotions and feel ready to focus on tomorrow s meeting. It is recommended, when this occurs, that the Neutral Coach offers the same time and framework to the other spouse. Based on the information just shared, in this mode, this is not the norm ; rather the exception. 4. Facilitate and encourage the development of healthy co-parenting skills It is reasonable to assume that when most couples decide to divorce, their ability to communicate effectively may be low or, at times; non-existent. Balance that with the importance of parents having an open flow of communication to be able to share information, problem solve and make decisions regarding their children s lives. The Neutral MHP begins working, as early as possible, in the process on tools to help the couple shift from husband-wife emotions and patterns of communicating to effective co-parenting communication. Many factors come into play in this effort: A. Are both capable of healthy communication? B. Are both willing to learn to let go of/separate from spousal emotions and focus on the other as an important part of the children s lives (in their parental communications)? C. Does each one acknowledge that the children will benefit from involvement of two parents who are willing and able to communicate on an ongoing basis? D. Does each one know how to utilize problem solving skills? E. Does each one acknowledge that involvement of the other parent has the potential to make his/her job as a single parent easier? The clients are sometimes resistant and, other times, very willing to learn how to communicate more effectively. Sessions with both parents will focus on content issues such as a temporary concern (i.e. working out a schedule for the Thanksgiving holiday when it occurs in the midst of the divorce) to process issues such as problem-solving skills to use as parents. The Neutral MHP will consult with the Child Specialist, as needed, for specific concerns around the children. An educational 5

6 component is also included in this part of the work with the couple, such as reading materials on effective communication or referrals to websites that have tools for communicating schedules, homework assignments, etc. for the children. 5. Encourage and facilitate effective communication amongst team members The Neutral Coach is typically looked upon, by the team, to encourage healthy communication amongst all team members. At times, this is very straightforward and involves nothing more being present as all team members discuss an issue. Other times, as with any personal or professional relationship, there may be a need to discuss an elephant in the room. The team debrief, which occurs immediately after each joint meeting, has proven to be an effective tool to allow time for dialogue about the team member s interactions. It also gives room to discuss ways any/all team members can improve in the process. The Neutral Coach will often ask the difficult questions, to encourage discussion; or bring up a topic that everyone is thinking; but no one is saying. (i.e. The Neutral Coach might say, I sense there is tension between wife s lawyer and the FP today. I heard it in your tone of voice when you were discussing stock options with the client. Can we discuss that now and clear it up so clients don t have to be exposed to any tension?) Another aspect of effective communication is encouraging all team members to have scheduled, consistent communication. As this model has evolved, any/all team members will request this to occur, but in the early stages of the model, the MHP was the person making the suggestion and often scheduling the discussions. Linda Solomon AN ATTORNEY S VIEW OF THE MODEL The rapid acceptance of the team model by lawyers who are exposed to it can best be attributed to the growing awareness of every collaborative lawyer that they are wading in unfamiliar waters when then jump into the collaborative pool. No longer are we having to deal with just our client s emotions. Now we find ourselves attempting to juggle the emotional dynamics between the two clients, between the clients and their own lawyers, and the clients and their spouse s lawyers not to mention the dynamics between the attorneys! Needless to say, nothing in our legal education has prepared us for this, and feelings of inadequacy are a powerful motivator towards at least trying the team model. Once tried, the attorney quickly discovers the power of the presence of the neutral MHP in the collaborative room. Carla Calabrese and Winifred Huff of Dallas most eloquently described that power in their excellent paper The Collaborative Team Model: Taking Texas to the Next Level, and have generously given me their permission to quote from portions of it below. 1. The Neutral Voice Restores Trust to the Process The [neutral] allied professional s involvement is fundamental to a successful collaboration because it brings to the table a neutral voice that the parties can trust. Once a [neutral] allied professional enters the room, the psychological dynamic of the process is fundamentally changed. No longer is it his side versus her side. When the only people sitting in the room are the two lawyers and 6

7 their clients the impulse is to regress into an us vs. them mentality. The neutral voice rearranges the dynamic within the room allowing an us vs. the problem mentality to prevail. This change in the dynamics is critical to transforming the process from one in which clients are highly fearful and suspicious to one where clients are more trusting and open to perspectives outside their own. 2. The Neutral Voice Negates the Discount Factor Clients are more likely to listen and respond to the neutral voice of the allied professional with an open mind. The lawyers are viewed as aligned with their clients and as presenting agendas that support their respective client s interests. Regardless of the skill level of the collaborative lawyer, the lawyer cannot shed this perception of bias. The lawyer s words, opinions and suggestions, no matter how neutrally presented, are discounted and rarely perceived as neutral. Discounting also routinely occurs between spouses even in the best of marriages. In the crucible that is a divorce, this discounting is magnified a thousand times. This discount factor is observed over and over in the collaborative process. For example, wife s skilled collaborative lawyer suggests an option that is probably more in the husband s interest, yet the reaction of the husband is to instantly discount it. Within a short period of time the allied professional makes the same suggestion and husband and wife are nodding their heads in agreement. The reason is that the clients understand that the allied professional has no hidden agenda or bias and can be trusted to assist both parties with achieving their best outcomes under the circumstances. As collaborative lawyers it is frustrating to be tuned out by the other spouse despite our best efforts to build rapport and remain neutral. Nevertheless, to expect the other spouse to trust what you say given the circumstances is unrealistic. It is as if the other spouse is hearing your words through headphones that are tuned to a station that perceives you as, at best, an advocate for their spouse and, at worst, the enemy. No matter how skilled the lawyer, the other spouse listens with those headphones on and the volume turned way up. It is no different when their spouse makes a good suggestion; it most likely will be discounted. The power of the neutral voice to negate the discount factor, turn down the volume on the headphones and change the tuner so that the spouses are listening to the same station cannot be overstated. 3. The Neutral Voice Negates the Advocacy Factor It is crucial to a successful resolution to obtain from spouses honest and candid answers to difficult questions. Even when a lawyer frames the tough question in a neutral manner, it is normal for spouses to be defensive and even to censor their answers. Because of the lawyer s role as an advocate, the clients perceive the tough questions asked by either lawyer as tactical, and they alter their answers accordingly. Because the [neutral] allied professional is not an advocate or aligned with either party, he is often the best person in the room to ask the tough questions without being met with censorship or client defensiveness. Thus [a neutral] allied professional is more likely to elicit honest and candid answers to difficult questions. 4. The Neutral Voice Resolves Lawyer s Inner Conflict 7

8 Collaborative lawyers are trained to think and act more neutrally, and this shift in lawyer thinking and behavior has been essential to the success of the process. On the other hand, mastering this neutrality can be problematic for the lawyer because of the inherent conflict between neutrality and the lawyer s job as an advocate. The neutral approach by a lawyer is often perceived by the client as you re not advocating enough for me and abandonment. By now, more collaborative lawyers have heard the war story where at the end of a joint session, one of the clients is heard to say, I wish I had had my lawyer at that meeting. Make no mistake, divorce clients hire collaborative lawyers to be their advocates. This alignment can fulfill a client s legitimate need to be validated and maybe even vindicated. Additionally, the lawyer s alignment can help rectify a power imbalance between the spouses, if any. In the [Neutral One-Coach Model], although the collaborative lawyer continues to skirt toward a more neutral approach, it is the allied professional s job to bring the neutral voice to the process. This clear demarcation of the roles among the team members frees the lawyer to constructively advocate, thus eliminating the inner conflict. 5. The Neutral Voice Reduces the Filter Factor A reality of human communications is that people filter information (consciously and subconsciously) depending upon who they are talking to. This is not about being untruthful, but about the natural way people communicate. As a result, clients often do not tell their lawyers all the pertinent information about their case, especially at the outset. In the [Neutral One-Coach Model], information that was left out of the discussions with the lawyer ( filtered ) may be revealed by the client when speaking to an allied professional. For example, a high-powered client may withhold from his lawyer that he is fearful about losing his job, but shares this fear with the MHP outside the joint sessions. This piece of information is invaluable. The delay of receipt of withholding of this information may have a negative impact on the parties ability to reach a resolution. The collaborative process is predicated on transparent communications and the free flow of information. The result of filtered communications is that the free flow of information is reduced and/or delayed. This may have a negative impact on the efficiency with which the parties can reach resolution and ultimately on their ability to be successful in the process. The allied professionals and the lawyers working as a team can reduce the impact of the filter factor. SOME FINAL COMMENTS Before I was introduced to what I have come to call the Texas Team Model, I had been working primarily in what is known as the lawyer referral model. Initial meetings were always four-way meetings with only the lawyers and clients present. Later, if the lawyers felt they were needed, financial professionals or mental health professionals were brought in, usually to work outside the 8

9 collaborative meeting room except when invited in for a specific purpose. My collaborative cases almost invariably reached successful conclusions in that an agreement was reached, but I rarely felt that the collaborations had reached the full potential of the process. My first full team case was a revelation! With all of the team members present in the room the atmosphere in the room was entirely different. The clients were more relaxed, less wary, and participated more fully, and the settlements reached were richer and more creative. The power of the neutrals was incredible. I determined then that, whenever I could convince the other attorney to do so, I wanted to be part of a collaborative team. Norma Trusch 9