articles too good to forget

Appendix II Table C of 14

TABLE D: ARTICLES TOO GOOD TO FORGET

ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

Saposnek, Donald T.

“Beyond Technique: The Soul of Family Mediation”

11 Mediation Quarterly 1 (#1 Fall 1993)

Don Saposnek is the Guest Editor of this superb Special Issue of Mediation Quarterly. In 2008 it’s fifteen years old and may still be the best collection of articles discussing the notion and practice of mediation from a point-‐of-‐view that at a higher level of abstraction than the typical journal article.

Saposnik, Donald T.

“Applying Family Therapy Perspectives to Mediation”

14/15 Mediation Quarterly 1 (Winter & Spring 1986 * 1987) ♣♣

Don Saposnik is the Guest Editor of this Special Issue of the Mediation Quarterly. It contains his article: “Aikido: A systems model for maneuvering in mediation,” which I think is still, by far, the best available explanation of what mediation is and how it works. The contributors to the two issues of Mediation Quarterly for which Saposnik was the Guest Editor and the Special Issue of Mediation Quarterly for which Joan B. Kelly is the Guest Editor, may forever be the best collection of articles about mediation. This is because it was still early in the history of family law mediation and the field was still loaded with original thinkers who are/were brilliant. As the field and the organizations became more and more institutionalized many or most of this first-‐string of thinkers and writers moved on to the next thing they found to be new and exciting. I believe that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever again be a collection of mediators and researchers of that caliber.

Kelly, Joan B.

“Empirical Research in Divorce & Family Mediation”

24 Mediation Quarterly 1 (Summer 1989)

Joan B. Kelly continues to be, in my opinion, the leading researcher in the field. This Special Issue of Mediation Quarterly isn’t as easy or as fun to read as the two that edited by Don Saposnik. But they stand as a landmark because the publication of this Special Issue was a call to make the new field fact-‐based on empirical studies conducted, interpreted and employed in the same way other scientific studies are


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

CONTINUED Kelly, Joan B.

CONTINUED “Empirical Research in Divorce & Family Mediation” listed

CONTINUED

24 Mediation Quarterly 1 [Summer 1989]

CONTINUED conducted and used. This issue was eventually followed-‐up by two important articles herein. One comes from the ingenious Janet Johnson and the other is written by Robert F. Kelly {ID # } [no relation of Joan’s] and Sarah H. Ramsey {ID # }.

Johnston, Janet R.

“Introducing Perspectives in Family Law and Social Science Research”

45 Family Court Review 15-‐21 [January 2007]

As noted elsewhere, (See note for Impasses of Divorce.) is perhaps the most ingenious researcher in our field. Her work on spousal abuse, suggesting that in some circumstances there is collusion between the abused and the abuser, demonstrates that she’s also courageous. This article serves as an introduction to three other articles in this issue of the Family Court Review that deal with the application of scientific and pseudo-‐scientific principles and techniques in family law court proceedings. It comes eighteen years after Joan Kelly’s Special Issue of Mediation Quarterly {ID # ___}, and that was far too long. In criminal and regular civil cases, the requirements and methodology for use of scientific information as “evidence” to be considered in making a legal determination are clear; they also happen to be correct. The rules used by American courts are now consistent with similar conclusions developed academically in the study of the Philosophy of Science, and the legal rules anticipated the academic rules by about forty years. Yet judges who are careful to insure that scientific evidence is properly qualified and presented in regular civil and criminal cases have been oblivious to the legally applicable rules of evidence when handling family law cases. Mental health professionals are often allowed to give “opinion testimony” when their opinions lack the requisite scientific basis making the witness “incompetent” to express opinions that can be considered as evidence. end note 1

Kelly, Robert F. Ramsey, Sarah H.

“Assessing and Communicating Social Science


This is a text that requires close reading, and it’s essential reading for any mental health professional who is going to testify in a family law case.


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

Information …in Family Court Settings: Standards for Judges and Allied Professionals”

This important article has been a long time in coming. Compare “When Lawyers Think: About Child Custody,” [ burkefamilylaw.com ] an article I wrote in 1991 at the request of the then editor of the Family & Conciliation Courts Review. My article points out the same problems described by Kelly and Ramsey. Their article differs from mine only in the fact that theirs presents both problems and solutions.

Pruett, Kyle D.

“Social Science Research and Social Policy: Bridging the Gap”


This is a transcript of a speech given at a Plenary Session at the 42nd Annual Conference of AFCC in Seattle on May 18, 2005. Kyle D. Pruett, M.D. offers particularly well qualified to write this article. He is a Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Yale Child Study Center. His opening sentence summarizes the rest of what he has to say: “I have been asked to share my own experience and reflections concerning the political misuses of scientific data in the family law domain.” [emphasis supplied]

Gelles, Richard J.

“The Politics of Research: The Use, Abuse, and Misuse of Social Science Data – The Case of Intimate Partner Violence

45 Family Court Review 42-‐ 51 [January 2007]

Matukaitis, Ann F.

“Metaphors for Mediators”

27 Family & Conciliation Courts Review 23-‐29 [1989]

Offers metaphors that can be used in a mediation practice. It is also generative of the mediators original metaphors.

Lakoff, George Johnson, Mark

Metaphors We Live By

University of Chicago Press

[1980] ISBN 0-‐226-‐46801-‐1

Lakoff without politics explaining why it is nearly impossible to overestimate the function of metaphor in all language.

Kelly, Joan B.

“The Bookshelf: “Divorce…by Alison

45 Family Court Review 341-‐344

Joan Kelly writes an extended and positive review of Divorce :Causes and Consequences [Yale 2006] a book that summarizes research on the effects of divorce


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

CONTINUED

Kelly, Joan B.

CONTINUED

Clarke-‐Stewart and Cornelia Brentano”

CONTINUED

Family Courts Review

on children providing “more than 800 references culled from thousands of research reports…” Not light reading but both the review and the book would be the starting points for anyone who presumes to cite research as the basis for a professional opinion as to what custody arrangement is “best” in any given situation.

Johnston, Janet

“High Conflict Divorce”

4 The Future of Children CHILDREN and Divorce 165-‐181 [Spring 1994]

What Johnston is thinking about six years after Impasses of Divorce {# }.

Wade, John

“Don’t Waste My Time on Negotiation & Mediation: This dispute needs a judge”

18 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 259 – 280 [2001]

Wade is a Professor of Law at Bond University in Queensland, Australia and the source of a steady stream of interesting ideas. This article discusses a method for attempting to design process that is specific to the needs of a particular case. The early analysis of family law cases has been of continuing interest to Wade. This article is cited in Santa Barbara Divorce: A six-‐year longitudinal study on page 10, note 26. It is part of the most significant note in the Report.

Bohmer, Carol Ray, Marilyn Maida, Paeter

“Regression to the mean: what happens when lawyers are divorce mediators”

11 Mediation Quarterly 109 -‐122 [1993]

Support for the proposition that the roles of divorce lawyer and divorce mediator are far more different than they are similar. The overlap is less than one would think, and if a lawyer decides to serve as a mediator s/he must make a conscious decision about when – if ever – the divorce lawyer will act as a divorce mediator.

Gordon, Elizabeth Ellen

“Attorneys’ negotiation strategies in mediation: business as usual”

17 Mediation Quarterly 377-‐390 [2000]

In my family law mediation practice I almost never observe or participate in “negotiation” in the sense of, “I’ll give you this for that.” A client described the process as: “Iterative. As time goes by we continue to make incremental changes until we get to a point that’s comfortable for both of us.” She was an engineer and many clients won’t relate to her vocabulary, but I think she describes what happens with virtually all of my clients. I’ve attended a class taught by Richard Benjamin in which he explored the difficult implications of “negotiating” highly personal issues (and values). In another class Jay Folberg demonstrated the difficulty surrounding the definition(s) of “negotiation” and


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

CONTINUED Gordon, Elizabeth Ellen

CONTINUED

CONTINUED

CONTINUED various unconscious attitudes toward however one defines it.

Gewurz, Ilan G.

“(Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power imbalance”

19 Conflict Mediation Quarterly 135-‐162 [2001]

Power imbalance was once a concern that was used to argue against the viability of mediation in general and will be the subject of legitimate and endless research and consideration. The Cholmondeley’s present position on power imbalance takes ___ factors into consideration, see Endnote X

Kelly, Joan B. “Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation: assessment and intervention”


Rudd, Jill E. “Communication effects on divorce mediation: How… argumentativeness, verbal aggression, and compliance-‐gaining strategy …[affect] outcome satisfaction.”

14 Mediation Quarterly 65 – 78 [1996]

Bohmer, Carol Ray, Marilyn L.

“Notions of equity and fairness in the context of divorce: The role of


Cholmondeley insists that “fairness” is the “F-‐word” in mediation and that there is no such thing as “external” or “objective fairness.” Nor is there an external source where “fairness” can be located, including and especially the courthouse. Fairness in mediation should have a “stipulated definition.”


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

mediation.” That “stipulated definition” uses a simple Venn Diagram in which what He considers “fair” is contained in one circle. What she considers “fair: is contained in another circle. Whatever is in the overlap of the two circles is what is “fair” within the context of their mediation. See endnote X.

Honeyman, Christopher

“Frames of Reference”

15 Mediation Quarterly 269-‐275

This is a Special Issue of Mediation Quarterly titled “Building connections between research and practice.” Honeyman is the Guest Editor. There is nothing more satisfying than pulling off a successful reframe. All mediators wish they could do it more frequently. Cholmondeley has some thoughts, see Endnote X This is one of four articles on “reframing” listed in this bibliography {#s _________}. When the opportunity presents itself and the technique is effective, there is nothing more satisfying than “reframing” the way a couple (or party) understands themselves or an issue they are facing in a way that is new and that increases their capacity to deal with whatever it is they face. After reading a number of books and articles while on the lookout for a good definition of “reframe” I don’t have one that’s entirely satisfactory. Some that come close: “A fundamental change in the attitude/perspective with one perceives a problem/issue that increases the ability to solve/resolve it.” Or “A ‘move’ from a level of abstraction to one that is higher which allows for a change in the context in which the problem or issue is seen and confronted.”

Brown, Bradley Brown

“Contextual Mediation”


Bodtker, Andrea Jameson, Jessica

“Mediation as mutual influence:


If there are “reframes” there must be “frames.” Whenever you hear the term “reframe” ask what a “frame” is and you’ll probably get either an evasion or a


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

continued reexamining the use of framing and reframing”

Continued different answer from every re-‐framer you ask. Is it like changing a “picture frame?” Is it something mathematical? Does it originate in computer science. See Endnote X for The Truth and Reframes.

Love, Lela P. Stulberg, Joseph B.

“Practice guidelines for co-‐mediation: Making certain that ‘two heads are better than one’”


Retzinger, Suzanne Scheff, Thomas

“Emotion, alienation, and narratives: Resolving intractable conflict”


Anything written by Scheff or Retzinger is worthy of attention. Scheff is a sociologist of worldwide stature. Retzinger has been interested in family mediation since the late 1980s. Her Ph.D. is in Sociology from U.C., Santa Barbara. Her thesis was on intractable quarrels and was published as a book . For many years, she worked as a mediator and researcher for family law matters in the Superior Court for Ventura County, California. She is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist; she has spent the last several years working as a Hospice counselor. There is probably no one, anywhere, more qualified to opine one the similarity of grief in the context of death and grief in the context of divorce. She is one of Cholmondeley’s regular and most valued consultants.

Mathis, Richard D.

“Couples from hell: Undifferentiated spouses in divorce mediation”


See also William Eddy’s High Conflict Personalities {# ___}.

Brams, Steven J. Taylor, Alan D.

“A procedure for divorce settlements”


Amundson, Jon

“Divorce mediation in the light of

9 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 137 – 149 [1991]


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

cybernetic explanation.”

Favaloro, Geoffrey J.

“Mediation: A family therapy technique?”

16 Mediation Quarterly 101 – 108 [1998}

There was a period during which the prevailing objection to mediation came from lawyers who were concerned that if they “allowed” their clients to participate in mediation those clients might be subject to some form of “THEAPY” without a knowing consent. When asked what harm could come to these clients, the argument petered out. It’s an argument that didn’t survive our “discourse.”

deMayo, Robert A.

“Practical and ethical concerns in divorce mediation: Attending to emotional factors affecting mediator judgment”

13 Mediation Quarterly 217 -‐ 227

I think that the problem deMayo describes is far less common than he seems to believe. However, if and when it becomes a problem, I think it is far more serious than he does. The article concludes with six recommendations for mediators to employ in ‘controlling?’ their emotional responses to a mediation in progress. A seventh recommendation would be to find another line of work.

Haynes, John M.

“Mediation and therapy: an alternative view”

10 Mediation Quarterly 21 – 34.

Haynes was the founding president of the Academy of Family Mediators and is worthy of the title “father of family mediation.” [Both in the United States and at least ten other countries.]

Tidwell, Alan C.

“Not effect communication but effective persuasion”

12 Mediation Quarterly 3 -‐14 [1994]

PERSUASION wouldn’t it be nice. Lawyers are supposedly trained to persuade by winning arguments. When has that ever worked? Psychologist Judith Brown when working with a group of lawyers was asked, “Well, why can we hammer that into our clients’ heads.” After a dramatic pause Dr. Brown said, “I’ve found that I’ve never been able to hammer anything into anyone’s head.” I recall being quite impressed and thinking, “What an interesting idea.” Cholmondeley is fascinated with the prospects of PERSUASION but is satisfied when A can communicate to B, A’s intended message with 90% accuracy (or even 80%


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

accuracy!)

Donohue, William A. Drake, Laura Roberto, Anthony

“Mediator issue intervention strategies: A replication and some conclusions”


Ellis, Desmond Wright, Laurie

“Theorizing power in divorce negotiations: Implications for practice”


Kruk, Edward

Deconstructing family mediation practice via the simulated client technique: The case of the unresolved marital attachment


Eddy, William A.

High Conflict Personalities: Understanding and Resolving Their Costly Disputes

[2003] Self-‐published ISBN: 0-‐9729536-‐0-‐4 Order @ www.eddylaw.com

William Edy describes himself as “attorney, mediator, and clinical social worker.” I would describe him as the lawyer who has probably had more clients from hell than any other lawyer in the history of the world. He wrote and published his book because he thought he should make what he’s learned from his experiences public and because there was no other book that fit this niche. He’s right on both counts. He uses four clinical labels to describe these impossible personalities and then offers concrete, practical suggestions for how professionals engaged by these people can better deal with them. Cholmondeley recommends that lawyers stay away from these people and doesn’t want the experience necessary to test Eddy’s recommendations. However, just as important as the recommendations themselves are the reactions these people


ID #

AUTHOR(S)

TITLE

CITATION

COMMENT

provoke but never produce the desired effect.

ENDNOTES 1The most dramatic example I’ve had in my own practice involved a good judge who was well experienced in both civil and criminal trials. In family law proceedings, opposing counsel called a psychologist in a child custody case. The psychologist expressed his strong opinion in spite of the fact that he had never seen either the other parent or either of the children. If this failure wasn’t disqualifying the “scientific” basis for his opinion was an article published in Psychology Today. At the very least, a witness basing testimony on a scientific publication must limit his or her reliance to established, reputable, and refereed professional or academic journals. The fact that he would come to court armed with an article from a popular, mass circulation magazine, says all that’s necessary about how misinformed he is about how serious and cautious the court becomes when asked to consider scientific evidence. After the reliance on Psychology Today was demonstrated by my brilliant cross-‐examination, I stopped when I was ahead. My client whispered “Shouldn’t we get something to counter that article?” I replied, “Oh no, the mere mention of Psychology Today by a supposed expert witness will cause this or any other judge to disregard the testimony in its entirety.” While I lost the case and the judge ruled in a way that was consistent with the Psychology Today article, it didn’t occur to me that the judge decided the case because of the Psychology Today.

Several weeks later, I was in the same courtroom with the same judge when the same issue came up in someone else’s case. The judge interrupted the testimony to let the lawyers and their clients know that the issue before him had been scientifically resolved. In fact, he said, “It’s been in Psychology Today and everything.” [This is an exact (and unforgettable) quote.} @ Any article originating from the Yale about the interface between science, psychology, and family law should be the subject of particular interest. Joint custody, now so common, was not legally recognized until 1980 when California enacted a statute requiring judges to give their reasons when the refused to honor an agreement for joint custody made by a divorcing mother and father who wanted that arrangement to be a part of their Judgment. There were two hotly contested issues related to joint custody. The first was whether there was or should be such a thing. After its legal legitimacy was established


the raging issue was whether joint custody could be imposed on parents where either or both objected to it. The opposition arguments involved: (a) The effect of the mother’s much needed child support, (b) The effect on the mother’s bargaining position with respect to the overall settlement of the divorce; and most significantly (c) The “scientific evidence” for the view that joint custody was psychologically harmful. See Dividing the Child pages 9-‐13 {# Table A} for a decent history of the evolution of child custody law in California; the usual reference to Beyond the Best Interests is at page 3. Whenever the psychological welfare of the children was debated, the argument against joint custody would cite Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, which argued that after divorce there should be one primary parent who had control over the other parent’s access to their children. Beyond the Best Interests of the Child was closely associated with psychoanalytic theory and with the Yale Child Study Center. It had three authors. Anna Freud was a frequent visiting professor at the Yale Law School; Joseph Goldstein was a Professor of Law at Yale, and Albert J. Solnit was a Director of the Yale Child Study Center. A good example of the influence of Beyond the Best Interests appears In Surviving the Breakup {# ___ Table A} at page 311. Joan B. Kelly, a Yale-‐trained psychologist (and her co-‐author) take special care to confront the leading opposition to co-‐parenting directly: “In taking a position in favor of flexibility and encouragement of joint legal custody …we offer a view diametrically opposed to that of our esteemed colleagues Goldstein, Frreud, and Solnit in their book Beyond the Best Interests of the Child…[continuing with reasons].” N.b. The copyright for Surviving the Breakup is 1980, which was the year in which a California statute made joint custody a legal reality for the first time in the United States. Endnote (1) When discussing power imbalance within the context of mediation, it is essential that distinctions be made between: (a) Private, voluntary mediation; (b) Court mandated mediation with the power to make recommendations to the court; (c) Court mandated mediation without power to recommend. (2) The Cholmondeley experience is limited to ‘private, voluntary mediation’ and offers no opinion with respect to power imbalance in other contexts. (3) The term “perceived power imbalance” is often preferable to mere “power imbalance.” By adding the word “perceived” room is left for the person with the (perceived) power to avoid defensiveness in response to the implicit accusation where a power imbalance is claimed. (“Perceived power imbalance“ power imbalance should both be used. “Perceived power imbalance” can sound as though the mediator is labeling the powerless spouses experience as “perceived’ rather than “real.”


(4) There will rarely be a perfect equality of power in mediation; (a) The advantage can shift from session-‐to -‐session. (b) There can be a difference in advantage during sessions and outside of sessions. (c) The problem is not with power imbalance per se. It is with a power imbalance that makes a fully informed and mutually acceptable resolution of the case impossible. (5) Observation and diagnosis (a) A florid power imbalance is not hard to diagnose even if there are no overt behavioral signs and symptoms in session. The clue is that the mediation isn’t going anywhere because one party is frozen. The alternative diagnosis that the lack of apparent progress is nothing more that the manifestation of a natural and necessary grieving process. The differential diagnosis is to be made by the party who feels powerless. (b) While the mediation is responsible to be on the lookout for a power imbalance, the parties must be enlisted to be on the alert and to make the matter an agenda item as soon as it is suspected. (If ex parte communications have been authorized, s/he can alert the mediator in that manner.) (6) Interventions: (a) The first line and best intervention is to encourage the “powerless” client to select and bring a support person to the mediation. It’s been my experience that the selection is always appropriate and the supporter’s presence dramatically improves the ability of the ‘powerless spouse’ to do business. On occasion more than one supporter is necessary. [In what was the most interesting mediation I’ve participated, I was one of the three professional supporters a wife brought to every mediation sessions. She also saw her therapist before and after each session. This procedural design was approved by the Husband who was willing to pay for it in advance. At one point Husband brought his own attorney to a mediation session, but dismissed him halfway through, explaining that he felt the dynamic shifted in a way that was “bad for business” whenever his attorney was at the table. He was right. With regular meetings over a two-‐month period, an agreement was reached and documented in mediation. Within days, the parties created an agreement of their own that was substantially different from the one reached in mediation. The second agreement has some unconventional terms; both parties instructed the lawyers to “make it work.” When the attorneys disagreed they, parties were intolerant and insisted on collaboration. When the second agreement was completed, neither party signed it for more than a year, but they both abided by its terms. At about twenty months post-‐ separation, the lawyers were instructed to dust-‐off and update the second agreement. The purpose of both the first, second,


and revised second agreement was to liquidate systematically the assets of a development company while allowing Husband to take advantage of at least some of the new business opportunities he would come across or create. Once the liquidation was completed, Wife was a Woman of Independent Means. From time-‐to-‐time she would, on the advice of the financial advisor who was part of her mediation support team, invest in one of her former Husband’s new projects. I never heard a complaint from her and I think I probably would have if there had been a problem. (b) The second intervention involves an attempt to change the behavior of the spouse who has the perceived power advantage. None of the interventions will work unless the PS understands that because of the protective design of mediation, too much power will not advantage the party who has it. Rather, it will make agreement impossible. Therefore, if the PS wants to reach or work toward an ultimate agreement, s/he may have to divest himself or herself of his real or perceived power over the other. The following interventions are examples of what has worked at one time or another. None has worked always! (1) Each party must have a physical location that’s psychologically “safe,” especially from the PS. If necessary, the PS may have to take the action necessary to create two separate “safe houses.” (2) The control of community funds by one party can create a completely unnecessary power differential. This can often be dealt with by a preliminary and partial distribution of community assets. In one dramatic case, $10M in cash or cash equivalents was distributed to each party with each having full control over what became separate property. Thereafter, the mediation went into an extended lull while wife experienced what it was like to be a single woman with $10 M in cash and cash equivalents. (This was when $1M was real money.) She enjoyed her new life and with the passage of time she lost interest in issues that were, initially, of grave concern to her (e.g. the division of airline miles). (3) When Husband’s size or normal voice or frantic energy while seated at the mediation table is a source of (often untended) overwhelming power, he can be seated a considerable distance away from the table. Even more effective is to seat him away from the table and at a level that is conspicuously lower that the chairs at the table. (4) The ultimate fallback is the use of separate sessions. Lawyers are and should be reluctant to have ex parte communications with their mediation clients, because they have been trained to abhor one-‐sided contact with a person making decisions in the case. Accordingly, to Cholmondeley, the essential difference between a lawyer acting as an attorney and a lawyer acting as a mediator is that s/he must suspend the facility for making continuous


judgments about the parties to the mediation. Attorneys do and probably should make ongoing judgments about all aspects of a case including the parties. A mediator-‐lawyer must learn to disengage that capability, tendency, talent or whatever one wants to call it. It has no place in mediation, where the mediator can’t like or dislike the clients, their behavior or their positions. His/her attitude toward all clients is one of respectfulness, which is a deliberate acknowledgement that the realities of both clients always make sense to each of them in the same way the mediator’s reality makes sense to him/her. Once the facility of judgment has been suspended and a respectful attitude can be sincerely assumed, concern about unilateral contact with clients should disappear because the mediator know for an absolute fact that s/he can’t and won’t make any significant decisions so there is nothing unilateral contact could unfairly affect. FN The notion of “fairness” may be elusive to the point of near meaninglessness. It is not a helpful concept or notion in mediation. In some instances, a vague notion of “fair” is all a client has as a tool to evaluate the things that come up in mediation. In that instance, it is necessary to concretize his or her idea of fairness in spite of the fact that it will feel like a digression (It is.) and the client may resist because the vague notion can always be changed to justify changing and even contradictory positions. Where the resistance is emotional or unconscious and the client is unwilling or unable to deal with the subject intellectually and in the abstract, the problem is beyond the capabilities of meditation. I have found again and again that some clients who happen to be lapsed Roman Catholics tend toward a poorly defined belief in an external source of “fairness” and “justice.” They use those two words much more than other clients. I’m not Catholic myself so I don’t know what was involved in their religious training. I’ve been told that the ideas of right and wrong are expressed in graphic, frightening, and powerful metaphors. These metaphors, especially as they were used prior to Vatican II, were one of the reasons why some young people left their Church. They left the Church but there is no obvious way to discharge unconscious metaphors. When this is a possibility impetus to successful mediation I’ve referred men to a local psychologist who was formerly a Roman Catholic priest and women to a local psychologist who was a formerly a Roman Catholic nun. I don’t know what they do but in two or three sessions, the problem is resolved and the client is ready for mediation and grateful for the referral. I’ve talked about the theory just described to more than two-‐hundred mediation and consultation clients who were lapsed Catholics. Every one of then has listened attentively to what I’m saying; never has one objected to theory , and almost all agree that it might, at some point, apply to them. I have never observed the same thing with practicing Catholics. I have seen the same thing with clients who practice or have practiced some a religion with the same kind of strength of doctrine found with Catholicism.

articles too good to forget

Documents