Whatcom Collaborative Professionals Hearts Day Group Meeting (with bonus chocolate!)

Monday 2/9/15 at noon at the Whatcom County Superior Courthouse.

Present: Adella Wright, Pamela Englett, Pat Henderson, Laura Weight (with bronchitis, vertigo, and a bag full of chocolate!! Mixed feelings there!), Shannon Montoure (who really was at the last meeting despite everyone suddenly remarking how nice it was to see her and that it had been a while!), Kira Lieberman (and most enviable accessory of all: Baby Jared), Sandy Voit, Kathryn Resnick, Roy (in time! phew!!), Sandy Voit, Penny Henderson (assured that though she is "technically" late in the sense of not arriving at noon exactly, she is not late-late but generally "on timeish)

... last minute as the door is closing...

Tardy folk by one full minute!: Patrick Gallery (in a dapper suit and fancy new haircut, which explains the dilatory arrival no doubt and we appreciate his commitment to our meetings), Robert Kelly, Betsy Brinson

Gone but not forgotten: Eric Weight (home sick, so certainly not homesick, with equally sick kids), Kathy Westover, Leon Henley Sandra Andress, Chris Taylor

Prelude to a meeting: Roy made it just under the wire, but the check writing party had already commenced. Dues dues dues! We know now that Laura, Pat, and Sandy have definitely paid their dues. We're not sure if Penny and Patrick did. Roy has now learned the first lesson of being a Treasurer: the biggest question you will ever answer as Treasurer (bigger even than "to whom do we make the check?? Did we really do that last year too?") is "did I give a check already?" He'll be forearmed at the next meeting with a list of payers and debtors. He may even go so far as to send a shaming public email with pictures of the unpaid wearing pajamas with attached bunny slippers while eating pints of Ben and Jerry's at midnight... in their offices.

Laura scattered chocolate across the table. Everyone eyed this warily at first. Afraid perhaps it was a trick. Perhaps that the first person to leap across the table would collapse as Laura's vertigo magically passed from her into the new host body. Or perhaps just not wanting to appear too greedy for those nummy doves. But a gradual passing around of the pink foiled hearts led to a little more acceptance. And possibly at the end, Adella maybe ended up stuffing handfuls of the remainder on the table into her purse. Because... had to clean up the table somehow right?

Other Important announcement: Everyone is sick. Laura has vertigo. Kathryne is disoriented from a migraine. Kira has had this darned bug for the last eon. Adella is still pregnant and therefore contemplating attending future meetings in a bikini with a mini-fan. And half of the group would just prefer to hide in the dark at the far side of the table.

And with only a wee bit further ado...

12;10 on the aquiline roman nose:

Jared commenced the party with his famous party dance!

Business:

* Graphical Timelines

- At long last we have our exquisite graphical timelines. Patrick brought in about eight for members to set upon. Sandy subsequently took a picture of them and has turned the poster into a flier for handing out to potential clients! We are awash in nifty graphical tools!

* Brochures

- Kathryn officially has the brochures that Laura got from the IACP. It's been long enough she kind of forgot what she's supposed to do with them. We explained that while the paper machier dinosaur would make a jolly pinata, we actually were hoping she'd use her color printer to print off several labels with the WCP website listed, and then affix these little labels to the brochures in the appropriate spot.

Grander and Greater Business:

Kira outlined some of the board's discussions about our goals, and about our plans for making these visions manifest. We all understand that this may be more of a three year plan, but to give the group a sense of our current vision...

Board's visions and action plans:

1. Increasing open discussion of difficult issues, increasing sense of connection, vulnerability within the group. Gel as a cohesive group.

Action plan 1: Inter-group training with Joe Schaub that focuses on building group trust, connection and vulnerability.

Action plan 2: bringing conflict to meetings. This is more of a long-term goal that we are aiming for once the container is properly in place. We are not, at this moment, suggesting a Collaborative Law Fight Club. But if we were, our first rule would have been not to talk about it, so you may not want to take my word on that.

2. Increasing use of full team model - blocks, questions, case discussions

Action plan: use time after business to talk about questions. Keeping a parking lot of questions for spare moments. There will be no spare moments when we're done.

3. Build support in for newer or less confident members.

Action plan: membership, sitting in on meetings/sessions

4. Increasing buy-in from group members. Making it worthwhile for people to come to these meetings.

Action plan: Seeking feedback from members. Starting meeting promptly. Filling meetings with relevant and engaging material. Trying to stay in touch with what real members are thinking about and wanting to figure out. Limiting group business to the first ten or fifteen minutes and packing meetings full of substance.

5. Understanding Pacing and Timing Within process in light of the Stages of Grief and Neurobiology. Including coaches at what point? Is the couple ready to meet together in the same room? What are they ready for in the process.

Very Personal Business Relevant to the Group:

Laura took some time to explain a situation Eric has been dealing with for the past three years. They had not previously been at liberty to discuss the matter, but are finally free to do so.

Eric was the subject of a bar complaint for things that occurred several ice ages ago and which bring chills to our lawyerly spines just from the mere "meh" of it. He didn't attack clients, he didn't run drugs with them or start a brothel with his client's services as new payment. It was kind of boring, technical stuff. Which is what really scares us.

As the story goes: Just after the twins were born, the Other Party in case filed a Bar Complaint and filed a lawsuit regarding an attorney's lien that had been placed on property involved in the case. The law suit resolved last year. After some consideration and involvement in the proceedings, Eric signed a stipulation last July in which he would be suspended from the practice of law for one year. They've been in limbo since that time, while waiting for approval. This stipulation will go into effect two weeks after the Supreme Court rubber stamps it. It's been very difficult as other rumors attempt to fill in the gaps and to be unable to seek even support from colleagues.

Now that they're able to talk about it they want people to feel free to approach either Eric or Laura (but preferably not their three year old twins, who may throw ice cream at you and giggle and well... not the most productive approach). We are all aware that there has been gossip and rumors going around

the legal community in the absence of information. It’s time to clear the air, especially within our group where an open dialog and trust are so essential. If group members would like, they will share the entire stipulation.

It has been a journey through the stages of grief over these last years for them, but it has also brought insight into what it’s like being in the client’s chair, something we attorneys all too often forget. It is scary. It is stressful. It can consume your life and make it hard to find clarity. As lawyers we all too often forget this in our day to day routines that play dice others lives.

Although it has been very hard, Laura feels so lucky that she is able to work and Eric can be with the kids. She feels less lucky about having bronchitis, a double ear infection and vertigo, and she’s a bit overwhelmed at the moment. But these things will pass.

As I think all attorneys understand at heart that – no matter the dialogs and mandatory ethics credits foisted upon us – we don’t really understand our Kafka-esque disciplinary system or the final sheen on those recondite RPCs that are so rife for seminar but protean in concrete interpretation, there was much sympathy and a sentiment of “there but for the grace of god…”

Some members asked for advice on how we might avoid similar situations.

A few tips:

1. If you get a bar complaint and 2 weeks later get a second one, your deadline to respond to both is from the first complaint. Not knowing this cast Eric in the “non-cooperating” light and brought more scrutiny upon himself from the beginning.

2. The bar does not like attorney liens. Beware in particular of liens on community assets.

3. If you change a fee agreement at all (even to the benefit of a client) advise your client to seek separate legal review and advice. The dependence of a client on an attorney puts them in a contract of adhesion situation.

4. The legal disciplinary system is fairly scary. So much of an attorney's time is wrapped up in non-billable hours that ensure no violations are created. We chose kind of a precarious position, even if it sometimes seems like "other" attorneys can get away with egregious stuff with nary a glance.

Roy expressed his strong hope that Eric would be able to continue attending meetings. Laura was hesitant, due to the stipulation requiring that he avoid all legal groups and involvements. She will ask, but would like us otherwise to hold off an any more letters to the BAR (though Kira has an outstanding offer to do so if it would be helpful) for the time being.

In addition to sympathy, there is perhaps a modicum of jealousy. Sure it’s a stipulation, but it’s also kind of a forced detox! For all we know, he may regain his sanity in this year and realize nobody in his right mind pursues family law willingly! As every lawyer has fantasized about “what would I do if I weren’t in the legal profession,” we as a group have several suggestions for him during his year off from the muck and mire and family fun and courtroom drama:

1. There’s the ubiquitous authorial calling of course. Then again since Eric is staying away from all legal involvements as part of his stipulation and most lawyers-turned-authors seem compelled to write up legal dramas, perhaps this isn’t the best call. However, since Eric will be taking care of some adorable little kids, perhaps a blog. There’s Scary Mommy. Perhaps Petrifying Daddy could make an appearance?

2. Stay at home parent. I think most of us vacillate between fantasies and nightmares about this one. Heaven or hell? Perhaps Eric can tell!

3. Male model. We’ve seen you practicing your Blue Steel, Mr. Weight.

4. Fashion designer. Ok, the lawyer who tried out on Project Runway way back when wasn’t too great, but hey, this is your year and we know you’ve got style to spare.

5. Food truck purveyor. Seems like a trendy thing to do these days. Possibly new spins on comfort foods. Still looking for that grilled gouda and bleu cheese on a glazed donut (glaze turned inside) with a good tomato dill soup. I hear that bacon is still popular and Nutella are quite the trends right now. Perhaps a whiskey-quinoa battered bacon crossointwich with Nutella spread and pickled kale (editor’s note, the transcriber of these suggestions may in fact still be pregnant)! Alternately, there’s the old standard Ice Cream truck. Because who doesn’t get all twitterpated upon hearing that music echoing through the streets.

6. Unwashed graduate student. How many of us ended up siphoned from our lit/history/art BAs into Law School due to some spontaneous afflatus of that old accursed practicality. How often do we wonder how life would have been different if we’d just gone for that MFA or that MS or that MA or even – heaven forbid – PhD?? The comforting ebb and flow of a regular quarterly schedule… The symposium with like-minded intelligent (hopefully) souls... The feast upon complex theoretical tomes created by the finest minds… Pure simmering in knowledge and theory in an ivory tower… Or you know, more loans and the excuse to wear the same pair of jeans for two weeks in a row while living off of coffee.

7. Monk. The quiet. The contemplation. The brandy… the abandonment of all those pesky secular duties…

8. Forget monk. Cult leader! Let’s face it, Eric’s a charismatic guy and having your own bevy of chanting disciples in robes and funny hairdos has its perks. Like built in babysitting and housekeeping. Just a thought.

In all seriousness, though, we will miss Eric if he is unable to continue attending meetings. We know that he is a very capable guy who will have no problems finding alternative work during this year if he

desires. If he wisens up and decides to branch out to greener career pastures, we wish him well. And if he returns to law, there will be a welcome wagon.

Internal Business: S u ncadia emails and concerns.

There was an exchange of emails that caught the board’s attention and which we’d like to address. In it, some members were quite enthusiastic about getting broad attendance at the Suncadia Conference, exhorting others to go and emphasizing the importance of maximizing group attendance. Other members responded that the costs were too high and that it would be quite burdensome to attend for them. There was a sense that there may be a split in the group between those that can go and those that can’t.

Adella emphasized that our concern more generally is that in our enthusiasm to get greater group buy-in, there’s a risk of stigmatizing those who appear less engaged, which would ironically only disengage them further. We do not want to accidentally create an in-group (of those who go to all the trainings and retreats and practice cases together) and an out-group. This is a goal of ours even down to the meetings. We recognize that members give up valuable time when they attend these meetings or other events. It’s on us as a group to make these events practical and worthwhile. It’s on us to figure out how to get full group engagement. We do want your input about how we can make these things more engaging and relevant to you. We don’t have any intention or desire to shame or otherwise push people out, unless they really do not feel they're a fit for the group.

With the trainings that are so expensive, we hope those that can go will return and share their enthusiasm with the group in a way that allows the experience to increase inclusion and camaraderie all across the board.

Retreat to the Discussions about the Retreat

Solidifying retreat timing: We really really really sure we want September?? Because Roy kinda thinks our mouths say September but our eyes say MAY we please do MAY!?!

This retreat will focus on building interpersonal trust, openness and vulnerability within the group. As such, it’s not repeatable with other workshops or with other practitioners. It’s about working with Joe Shaub, per se. It’s about work within the group with Joe Shaub’s help. So again, we want a date that will work for everyone.

The benefit of Spring would be that one of our stated goals was to create a foundation for increased vulnerability and inter-group openness. Having this training earlier in the year would give us more time to address and develop on the foundation laid in our training. There’s also a chance that Adella may be unable to make a September training depending on her compliance with that August 14 th due date. She thinks, frankly, she’s pretty typically always early or obscenely and profanely on time for things, so it shouldn’t be a problem. But apparently she has no idea what she’s getting into with this baby thing and no amount of books or classes are gonna tip her off until the little Fonzarelli is out and kicking.

The benefit of Fall would be that September has been time tested over several years to be the absolutely ideal time for attorneys to attend retreats, conferences and trainings. It’s a recovery month from summer. The fall flurry hasn’t quite amped up yet. There’s enough time to avoid setting trials in the future. And a bunch of us won’t have spent copious quantities of time and money attending the WCP conference. The group still likes September.

The board proposed, Laura moved, and somebody seconded that The training will be held (subject to Joe’s availability) on September 25 th and 26 th of 2015.

Mark your calendars with 9/25/2015 – 9/26/2015

Additional Request:

In keeping with our goal of keeping meetings engaging and addressing real questions and concerns, Kira asks that we write down questions and problems we encounter through the month and bring these to meetings.

And pull curtain, curtain calls for ACT I finished

Prepare the babbling brook and open the theater doors…

****

Intermission.

Talking of being eaten by dogs, there’s a dachshund at Brinkley who when you first meet him will give you the impression that he plans to convert you into a light snack between his regular meals. Pay no attention. It’s all eyewash. His belligerent attitude is simply—"

Sound and fury signifying nothing, sir?"

That’s it. Pure swank. A few civil words, and he will be grappling you . . . What’s the expression I’ve heard you use?"

Grappling me to his soul with hoops of steel, sir?"

In the first two minutes. He wouldn’t hurt a fly, but he has to put up a front because his name’s Poppet. One can readily appreciate that when a dog hears himself addressed day in and day out as Poppet, he feels he must throw his weight about. Is self-respect demands it."

Precisely, sir."

You’ll like Poppet. Nice dog. Wears his ears inside out. Why do dachshunds wear their ears inside out?"

I could not say, sir."

Nor me. I’ve often wondered.” 

  

*****

Welcome back! We return your stirring episode of

COLLABORATIVE LAW: PRO DEV 2!!

12:45 - 1:30 p.m.:

Without too much further ado and nary a second to spare, we switched gears right to Professional Development with special guest host, Pamela E. Englett!

It had been teased in the meeting agenda: “Pam will lead a discussion about the proper role of screening clients prior to beginning the collaborative process. Please read the attached articles.”

They were the same articles sent out on Monday February 2, 2015 with a request to read them and a subject line about HOMEWORK. And articles sent out previously by Laura and Sandy at various times.

…

Like we said earlier: No shame. Really. You didn’t read them. We get it. You’re busy. We want to make these things worth your time, not force more crap on you. And after all that talk about email

management, it’s clear half of us feel their stomachs cherry bomb with each new email; and that several of our members go running for the hills, before camping out in tears underneath the nearest bed covers as soon as they click “open”. Understandably, these things don’t always get read.

But – sniff sniff – just for the record, Adella tries. She tries so hard. She really does. Nobody wants to know how many billable hours are lost to these emails and tomes and novellas inflicted upon the group. Nobody wants to know the ways she’s tried to “Spice Up that Email Life” to reignite that spark that once was there. She puts little pictures of adorable kitties and name drops all your names with cute little stories about you that are only sometimes accurate. And sometimes, just to see if you’re listening, she includes snippets from other works… all because she really wants you to read her minutes and agendas. Because unlike Eric facing his world of possibilities, she’s still just a frustrated attorney fantasizing about all the fun things she could do if she didn’t have to be a silly little lawyer (she’s got a beautiful La Tigre that she’s been practicing for months, and has made level two of her at-home lion-training course). Fantasies aside, she just wants to entertain you. Let her entertain you! She knows the NSA receives and scans all her emails, but it’s you the reader she really wants to reach. You! She stayed up all night thinking about you and imagining your radiant smile as you found those little touches she added just for you.

(Practicing her motherly guilt thing… how’s it working?)

But seriously, it’s ok. They’re all on the website. You can find them if you’re curious. Refreshers for reaching the website can be found in previous emails but also will be provided upon inquiry. See link below for details.

But Pam is canny enough to know that nobody actually was likely to have read the articles. Should you be curious to see them in their full resplendent glory, they have been sent a few times and may be lingering in your email. Or they may be found on the member website under “Member Documents and Pending Business”

But first, she wanted us to clear our minds and wash away all the dross and drudge of our upper minds. Apparently, she felt that instead of just screaming out unformed opinions in law-school gunner urgency, we might quiet ourselves and get back in touch with the deeper creative levels. Those who are fans of the neurobiological would perhaps say that she was hoping to draw out our parasympathetic nervous system, flushing away the cortisone and adrenaline we built up in our practices, slowing our heart rates, and allowing us to see bigger pictures (possible involving flowers and streams) in a mindful and totally mellow peaced out kumbaya kinda way (technical terms).

Our first challenge: Putting our phones down! A few people fainted. There were gasps, but we managed.

Our second: Closing our eyes, focusing on our breathing, and picturing ourselves in our favorite space (cue sudden internal panic over superlatives and what on earth my favorite place might be – Beach? Mountain top? In bed under the covers? A forest glen? Haggen’s on free sample day??).

Our third: to smell the flowers (achoo! No really, our brain flowers yield no pesky pollens, unlike our unseasonably warm February and its insistence on highlighting global climate change with an onslaught of tree pollens just to make those of us who didn’t catch that nasty cold going around, feel like we might be catching it, but no we’re just allergic to the air!!), picture a stream, and then picture our anxieties and our constant inner monologue floating away in the stream (cue beginnings of pregnant lady bladder twinges)

After a few interrupted snores and the requisite Coast Guard interventions to rescue a few folks lost in the stream, we came back to the room refreshed and mellowed out.

And were ready to return to the topic at hand!

Which was…. How/why/if we should screen cases before beginning the Collaborative Process?

Pam gave an excellent historical summary (somebody missed her calling as a TA/unwashed grad student) of our previous discussions about the subject and of the three articles that have gone around a few times

1. At the Retreat:

We identified certain Red Flags – e.g. client not willing to disclose, attorney feels client or other party using process to manipulate, presence of mental health issues.

There were other questions in how we want to screen that were not thoroughly resolved.

Laura also brought an article that included various questions to get at these red flags.

2. At that time, Laura sent out an IACP Article by Gay Cox entitled Tips and Questions for Use in Assessing Factors Related to Appropriateness of CP in Divorce Matters.

This is a handy tool for having charts relating to success of cases when various factors are present, as well as providing a series of questions that we can use to identify these factors.

Some factors raised:

Trust level - need some with each other and in the professionals in the process.

What mental health issues

How much empathy do client's have - extreme lack = increasingly difficult

If one or both think the other has made absolutely no contribution to the marriage

Refusal to disclose

Whether either has invade privacy of the other and how much and how great invasion

Whether they're able to cooperate at all

A handful of questions as examples:

What are you most worried about/concerned about concerning divorce?

Which of your goals and interests do you think your spouse has in common with you?

Have you or your spouse ever speculated or drawn the conclusion that the other had a personality disorder or mental illness of any type?

What professionals have you, your spouse or your children seen for therapy?

Has anyone secretly followed the other? Read the other’s private journals?

Have you ever hired a lawyer before? Describe that experience.

When your spouse feels sad or hurt, do you feel it yourself?

3. Sandy recently sent us an article by Karen Bonnell identifying Red Flags:

Deceptiveness - subtle invitations to collude against the other

One member gaining value from being "the victim"

Is one completely unaccepting of divorce, willing ot do almost anything to prevent divorce

Rigidity in thinking or emotional make up preventing meaningful dialog

other psychological or cognitive difference

Power imbalances (over or under)

Inability to allow new information to be assimilate, allow team to have role.

4. Sandy also sent us an article by Stephen Gaddis:

Gaddis distinguishes between exclusionary screening and inclusive screening. He doesn't think we should use those as exclusion, but as planning as the case takes shape. He’s worries that some of these will make us exclude over liberally. By contrast, these screening approaches can take place even after the case has started to assess the best approach.

The discussion:

Pam asked us to think of the cases that we have and – while breathing and basking in the stream – reflect “Are there cases that we have or which haven't worked out that gives us these signs. And what do we do about it?”

To Collaborate-Litely or The All or Nothing:

Laura related an experience with a case that is not full-Collaborative she is sharing with Pam. She feels that she was not strong enough to push for the full model and that this was a mistake based on her concerns about client satisfaction and the other attorney’s feelings about the case.

Adella asked what she thought would be different if it had been a Collaborative full model? How might have the red flags she identified have been more proactively addressed in that model?

Laura felt that there would have been more clearly defined roles for the mental health professional. From the first meeting with her client, it was clear CS and coach would be involved. In a collaborative case, these would have been two separate roles and that would have built trust. If the case was collaborative, she would have had full authority to insist her client follow the process. She feels that because she doesn’t have that container, the team doesn’t have that leverage to get the clients to engage.

Patrick wondered whether this case was just strictly not meant to be collaborative.

Laura felt they were actually great candidates for the collaborative process. Both were intelligent and put high value on protecting their children. She feels they just needed the right support and containment.

Kira echoed that to her there's a way that signing the agreement creates an invisible container.

Betsy tells clients that there are only two ways to do a dissolution: collaborative or litigation. That even the most cooperative non-collaborative case functions under the threat of court. Other members understood this sentiment but preferred the word “traditional” or “conventional” to describe this.

 Collaborative-lite success versus Collaborative Process and the Selling versus Screening Redux:

As always, it’s not strictly black and white. Many members have had very successful “collaborative” traditional cases. Often, the participants in these cases may be more committed to following most of the model than some who have signed the contract.

This led Rob to ask: When we are screening/excluding/including, does the degree to which client says "not comfortable" with pure collaborative indicate we should not be trying to change their minds? 

Pam remembered a case in which she feels that she pushed a client too hard to get into the Collaborative Process, when he was hesitant. She feels in hindsight that there were subtle signs that he was unconsciously communicating to her that she missed. This case did not succeed.

Laura feels that it’s imperative, no matter what we call non-collaborative cooperation, that we are clear on distinguishing it from the Collaborative Process. There’s a risk that clients will have negative experiences they attribute to “collaborating” when they are operating under the spectre of court and outside of the full model.

This again reminds us how important it is to follow the model closely when we are actually in a Collaborative Case. It may be worth reflecting how often cases with participation agreements have deviated from, skipped, or skimped on the full model and whether we think this has impacted the success of those cases.

Rob has a mixed practice and wonders if the people who come to him are typically more hesitant. Perhaps even the fact that they came to him indicates they have concerns about a full collaborative model. Especially when we are trying to engage clients, period, but also to make sure clients fit the model well, how enthusiastically should be discussing collaborative law when we aren’t even sure the clients are a good fit?

Sandy agrees there’s value in being clear that it's not for everybody. He prefers to be very clear that this may not be the right model. He will describe it, see if they buy into it. Emphasize that it is not the panacea. Indicate the client might not be the appropriate candidate and then describe what that candidate might look like.

Screening with the Coach:

In light of what we’d been discussing, Adella asked given our uncertainties about whether a reluctant client might be a good fit for Collaborative Law, how might we try to identify some of those red flags, whether for inclusive or exclusion purposes.

In British Columbia, they bring in the coach before the first four-way. Anne Lucas has also talked about having the coach or child specialist begin with the case and do a preliminary assessment.

Pam thought of a case where mental health issues arose later, and feels that a mental health professional would have been an asset in identifying these concerns and making a plan for containment or approach.

Patrick asked if we evaluating the appropriateness of a client and using coaches to do so, how do we deal with referring people to coaches. Do we send and have them pay for it and make sure they're ready?

Pam would frame it as part of the process and a way to make sure there’s enough here, but yes.

Which prospective clients would we refer to coaches for assessment?

This varies. Some believe that only those about whom there are already questions would be referred. Others feel that it would be more appropriate to have every case begin that way.

If there are children, some communities will begin with a Child Specialist pre-assessing whether there are issues of enmeshment or alienation.

Pat sees value in this early meeting. Once conflict escalates, people’s brains shut down. It makes it far harder for a mental health professional or other neutral to make a connection. Having even a brief introduction before the case begins can establish a grounding connection that will benefit in the future.

Others agree that attorneys only see their client in isolation and often the real question is the dynamic between the couple and how each reacts to the other. Somebody with a mental health background is already more likely to be sensitive to signs attorneys may miss, but they also have an improved opportunity due to their neutral status.

Rob asked after the coach works with the prospective clients, what are the criteria do we use to decide if it's a good candidate for collaborative?

It was agreed that this would be a matter for team discussion. The MHP would weigh in on her observations, and each member would assess (1) whether the case is appropriate, considering the risks and strengths of a collaborative model for these individuals (2) if there are red flags, how to create a proper container to hold these, (3) whether each member feels that s/he is capable of handling their part of the container given what is known at the time.

Placing and Pacing our Cases in Line with the Grieving Process:

In addition to screening in or out, the screening process may give significant information about the timing of the process. Are cases being prematurely taken and settled? Are the clients both prepared to begin? To move from one stage to the next? This is an issue that Kira is very passionate about and one which will hopefully shape the way we move through our cases with the underpinning of the Collaborative Process itself.

We agree that just having the graphical timelines will be helpful, but how do we then assess when and where we move along those timelines? And when do we begin?

Pat had an experience where she spoke with a husband who was a potential client. She assessed that he was not ready for the process, but referred him to a therapist to make sense of his experience and begin processing his grief.

Jared had an experience in which he felt that there had been insufficient cooing and adulation in his presence. Therefore as Kira began to discuss the importance of pacing, he hammed it up immediately until at least four members of the group dissolved into giggles and all previous discussion started to fall into that stream Pam opened up!

Depth of Process and How that Ties into Screening:

Mimi and Shannon had a case that within two meetings, mostly with the clients having worked things out previously. Coming into Collaborative, they had had several previous attempts to divorce and were very ready to be finished. However, they were not subsequently ready to let go of their hostility towards each other. They are still involved in litigation against each other.

Adella asked if they would have used screening and a sense of process any differently considering the end result. This led to the question of how deeply do people – and thus we – want to go into the process? Some want efficiency, while others want healing? At what stage is an agreement durable enough? And how many landmines should we address? What is the balance of perfect containment to reach stable agreements?

There was a workshop at the IACP that addressed this question. The exact nuances remains an issue for another day!

Screening Questions:

Laura incorporates open ended questions to ask clients that draw out conversations. Thinks such as "how do you argue?" may reveal reticent red flags as well as give valuable information for planning any case.

Rob suggests that it may be helpful for the group to work on these questions together.

Conclusion:

Kira feels that in the balance of screening in or screening out, ¾ of cases are inclusive screenings dealing with how to contain. But it is important to recognize that there are some cases that cannot be done collaboratively. It’s important for the delicate public image and word on the street about CP, that we do identify that final ¼ and not take cases that cannot work collaboratively.

 Tune in next time (Same bat-court-house same bat-time, except in March) on March 9, 2015 when we will continue this conversations. A few more things coming up:

1.   Referral process:  Discussing protocols for therapists and attorneys when making referrals for the Collaborative Process.

2. ROB WILL BE LEADING THE GROUP. PERHAPS ON HIS SUGGESTION THAT WE WORK ON THESE PRE-SCREENING QUESTIONS TOGETHER!!