“Best Interest of the Child" Easy to say it - but how to find it?

Anyone familiar with Canadian family law has heard the phrase “best interest of the child”. It’s the ONLY criterion a judge can use to decide on disputes between parents. That says a lot. The convenience of the adult doesn’t matter, only the welfare of the child(ren). 

In my experience as a family mediator, working with parents getting divorced, this “best interest” principle provides a solid foundation. If adults disagree on any parenting issue, the only argument that works is to explain how your position promotes your child’s best interest. 

It is an elegant measuring tool. It banishes all discussion of who is a better spouse, parent or person. Canadian Family Law has been a no fault process since 1968. Instead of judging who was right or wrong in the past it simply seeks the best decisions for the children’s future. 

But like many enlightened principles, the devil is in the detail. How do you predict what’s in the child’s best interest?  Let’s see how this can play out in key issues. 

Should We Divorce? 

Does our child fare better if we stay together, or if we separate our homes and financial resources? Contrary to popular belief, divorce can actually be better for children. Child psychologists generally agree that the single greatest predictor of long term mental health issues for children is not whether their parents were divorced, but whether they were exposed to prolonged, unresolved conflict. Cold, silent conflict is as harmful as the loud, hot variety. So the verdict is, if you can’t resolve your ongoing conflict, the best interest of the children may well be to separate. 

What Parenting Schedule? 

This can be intensely difficult to decide. Women are more often the primary caregiver for very young children, yet mom needs to let go eventually because close bonding with dad is equally important. Shorter blocks of time with each parent work best in the early years, while older children thrive on less shuttling back and forth. In other words, schedules should evolve over time.  To do that without conflict, positive communication is essential, which is one main benefit of mediation over court. 

Parenting Style – Hers or His?  

Both. Mom might be strict and dad more playful. Or dad cooks vegan and mom orders out. If you’re living in separate homes this isn’t your problem. When the kids are with you, do it your way, and give your ex space. Kids benefit from the best of both worlds. Instead of worrying, try having faith in their natural intelligence. In the long run your kids will gravitate toward the parenting style that is most healthy for them. 

Who’s the Boss? 

In my child protection training I learned to “give the child a voice, but not the choice”. Adults are responsible for decision-making.  But decisions truly in the best interest of the child require the adult to be attuned to their changing needs and emotions. That means asking. And listening. And maybe inquiring about the solution they think is best. This begins an early training in thinking through the pros and cons of difficult decisions. Although the final decision is yours, the more you collaborate with the child on arriving at it, the more empowered by it they will be. 

I “best interest” principle may not be easy to employ, but it provides a wise guide to our thinking. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

Why Mediation Works

People hate to be in conflict. Shifting the lens can help.

As a mediator, I facilitate difficult conversations, most often between family members whose emotional issues with one another may have been brewing for decades. The threads of misunderstanding are always difficult to untangle. Yet most of these conversations work out well – surprisingly well from the viewpoint of participants who often begin with negative expectations. I count on the fact that people dislike being entrenched in conflict. They are hungry for healing. When offered an attentive ear and a safe space, most individuals open up. They speak honestly and learn to listen responsively to one another’s point of view. They hear and are surprised by one another’s pain. People feel relief because they feel heard and have gained a new perspective on an old story. The process reduces bitter feelings and helps repair relationships. 

That is my experience most of the time. People are willing to change the lens through which they view their conflict, and to see matters from a new point of view.  

I am often moved by moments of beauty in these conversations, by a sudden breakthrough that enables one person to see the other in a new light. Moments like that explain why I love the work. There are also slower transformations that gradually cause one family member to appreciate the hidden motivations of another, and thereby rebuild empathy and respect.  

When the opposite occurs, it can be disappointing. I’ve never seen a case when dislike or distrust is greater at the end of the process than it was at the beginning. But sometimes one party or both are unwilling to consider the situation in a new light. This might happen because a person doesn’t get that mediation doesn’t work like court. It doesn’t investigate fact scenarios, doesn’t seek “objective truth” or try to judge whose story is most truthful.  Disputes over facts aren’t the focus of our discussions. The goal is to rebuild a respectful relationship, and we do that by focusing on practical, soloution-oriented questions. “What behaviours do we need to agree on for things to be better in the future?” 

The idea of “shifting the lens” to see the conflict in a new way is asking a lot.  Change is always frightening and never easy. It requires significant courage and humility to consider conscious, willing change. In the short run it may appear safer to insist that their own version of truth is the whole truth, to stay secure in the story as they have told it. But those who remain unwilling to look through a new lens, who try to play it safe, are sadly not the most successful at resolving their conflict. 

My heart goes out to those people. I respect their wishes, their timing, their goals. It’s not for me to say if, or how, or when they should change. But I can’t help wishing I had a way to encourage them to consider shifting their approach. I keep looking for ways to help family members view themselves and others through a new lens. 

  ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

Why Don’t Men See It Coming?

I’m a family mediator. I get in the middle of other people’s problems. Things can get loud at times, but I wouldn’t be invited if things were going well.

My clients are most often couples seeking to separate or to save their marriage, but may be siblings who have fallen out of touch, parents at odds with their teenage children or adult children disagreeing about end of life care for their elderly parent. Every situation is unique.

The primary goal, however, is nearly always the same: to find answers to the issues that keep triggering conflict in the relationship. In short, to improve communication.

Participants are often shocked by how quickly they reach agreement, once they get to the table. As the mediator, I’m shocked by how long it takes them to get to the table.  

Here’s another puzzling thing I’ve noticed: it’s almost always the woman who reaches out first.

I’ve had dozens and dozens of cases in my career, and in more than 80% of those cases, the first contact is initiated by a female. What’s going on with that? Why are women the ones who seek help? There are just as many men as women in difficult relationships, just as many men who are suffering emotional pain or hanging on in situations that are stressful.

Why aren’t the men doing the google search and emailing or picking up the phone? 

Take heterosexual couples for example. Almost every case is initiated by the woman, who reports she is “living in parallel”, experiencing minimal intimacy or feeling taken for granted. The man may be a good father, yet acts like he’s on auto-pilot in the relationship, shrugging off her complaints saying “things aren’t really that bad”, dismissing her unhappiness as “an over-reaction”, avoiding the conversation by saying “why can’t we just relax and have fun like we used to?”.

He may look like he doesn’t care but most often he does and just doesn’t know how to express it. That’s what’s so tragic. When she finally says “I’m fed up. I want a divorce,” he feels blindsided. By the time they arrive in mediation he’s the one who presents as most devastated. 

Once our work begins, men are equally able to listen respectfully, to articulate their needs and collaborate on solutions. They are as willing as the women to practice the communication skills I teach, and just as appreciative when they succeed.

So why aren’t they as quick to admit the dysfunction and seek solutions before things fall off the rails?

Is there a way to shake men awake before they wake up alone? Anything helpful you or I can say?

The vulnerability that some men fear (and therefore avoid) is actually the door to their deepest strength and connection. The door can be opened with honest communication, if only they could see it that way.

If you have any thoughts on how to pass men the key, please share your suggestions in the comments below.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

7 Steps To Agree Despite Uncertainty

In October 2014, when the CBC fired radio host Jian Ghomeshi for allegations of sexual misconduct, I noticed how quickly and strongly many people reacted to the news.  They were outraged.   “How dare a public corporation invade the private life of an employee.”

Those certainties evaporated shortly after when a number of women came forward and spoke of the violence they experienced at his hands.  Public opinion then swung just as quickly to the opposite certainty: he must be guilty. 

He likely is guilty, given the number of women who have spoken out.  I’m not arguing one side or the other, just observing how quickly people claim certainty. 

You can see similar patterns in other public scandals, such as Mike Duffy and the Canadian Senate seeming to be victims one day, culprits the next.  On a broader historical scale, unfounded certainties have obstructed the search for truth and justice from Galileo and the rise of science to the woman’s movement and civil rights.  As a society, and as individuals, we tend to cling to the comfort of certainty, often without bothering to examine the evidence.

If you reflect you will likely see the same pattern much closer to home.  As a mediator, trained to help people resolve interpersonal disputes, I notice that at some point in most conflicts the path to resolution is blocked by an unfounded certainty.  Consider the last interpersonal conflict you had.  Did the other party have a mistaken belief about your actions, intentions, or motives?  Or did you about theirs?  If the conflict got resolved, it’s likely because someone bothered to clear up enough of the misunderstanding to make room for trust.

I’m referring to honest conflicts, when both sides genuinely believe they are right.  In other words, most disputes.

In those situations, the story you tell yourself to justify your own position is probably fine.  After all, you know your own viewpoint.

Danger lies in the story you tell yourself about the other person’s motives.    You might think you know.  But you really don’t.   Once your interpretation becomes a conviction, you are half way toward demonizing your opponent.

Here are 7 steps to get you past unfounded certainties and help you reach agreement.

1.      Challenge your convictions.  Identify which ones are assumptions, not facts.

2.      Avoid assuming your opponent’s motives are less worthy than yours.  It’s healthier and more honest to adopt a neutral, open stance.

3.      Inquire.  Ask your opponent direct, open-ended questions about his or her actions, feelings, motives, goals.  

4.      Listen without challenging, contradicting or defending yourself.  (You’ll get your turn)

5.      Show them you understand their point of view.  (This doesn’t mean you share it, just that you “get” it)

6.      Express your truth calmly, taking responsibility for your actions without casting blame.

7.      Identify common interests and shared goals.

Now you are both ready to begin brainstorming for solutions based on understanding, not assumptions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.