Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to, it's All Your Fault On True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and influence the most challenging human interactions, those involving patterns of high conflict behavior. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my co-host, bill Eddie. Hi everybody. We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California where we focus on training, consulting and educational programs and methods, all to do with high conflict. In today's episode, we're going to talk about sole custody versus joint custody in divorce and child custody matters specifically, is sole custody ever warranted or does the principle of equal time with both parents no matter what the best policy? But first, a couple of notes send your high conflict related questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or on our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast where you'll also find all the show notes and links.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Alright Bill, so today we're going to have a listener question and this one to do with custody as we've been introducing. So here's the question. I know every case is unique, but is sole custody ever warranted? My husband has sole custody of my stepson, sole legal custody and primary placement. The child has overnight visits with the other parent every other weekend and one night during the week. There are many reasons the judge made the decision for sole custody six years ago. One being the other parent has been arrested for domestic assault on multiple partners, has subjected the child to multiple emergency room visits and department of child youth and family investigations alleging child abuse, which were all shown to be unfounded and consistently withholds the child's child from my husband's parenting time. The other parent and child have lived at 11 different addresses in six years and have been evicted from multiple residences.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
However, the other parent continues to reopen the case and fight tooth and nail for joint custody despite their being no change in circumstances we've been made to feel like we are the monsters by the co-parent therapist and the child's play therapist for not conceding and agreeing to joint custody. These two professionals believe in joint custody across the board and that children should have equal time with both parents. Are we the bad guys? If we knew this would end the fighting, we would agree, but we know the other parent will never stop behaving this way and are worried for the child's wellbeing. We keep trying to consider all perspectives and be mindful that no one can be 100% right all the time, but agreeing to joint custody feels unsafe. But we were wondering if sole custody is inappropriate for all scenarios and maybe it's us that are the problem. So Bill, I know you have a lot of
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Thoughts. Well this is a huge area. Let's start with presumptions. Presumptions for joint custody, presumptions for sole custody. First of all, throughout the United States and most industrialized countries, there's a belief that both parents should be significantly involved with the children. That's generally called joint physical custody and the children should have a good relationship with both of their parents. And so joint custody, joint physical custody, and I'm in California, I'm a California lawyer, California therapist, so I'll use the words we use, which is joint physical custody is the standard. Now it doesn't mean 50 50 times, it just means both parents are significantly involved. And here's a really important point and that is 80% of divorcing and separating parents don't use the courts to make their parenting decisions. They're able to do it on their own. So if there's a presumption for joint custody, that works just fine for this 80% they define it themselves In divorce negotiations, divorce mediation, there's varying degrees of one parent has usually at least 25% of the time like alternate weekends and one overnight during the week on up to both parents having 50% of the time.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
But this whole range needs to fit the parents and it does and that's 80% of people. People don't realize that the courts not deciding most parenting plans. Court is like the emergency room of families and it's not the place that everybody should be and that's why you don't need more detailed presumptions like 50 50. There's talk about that some of the states are considering a 50 50 presumption. I'm personally opposed to presumptions about this aside from both parents being significantly involved because they should work out the schedules, the percents, et cetera. Now lemme talk about legal custody least in California. Joint legal custody is very much the standard. That means both parents participate in making the big decisions where the child goes to school, who the doctor is, whether they get counseling or not, and that's as it should be. So now let's talk about sole custody, sole physical custody, sole legal custody.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
This is when there's a problem. It's only when there's a problem and so it should be considered. One of the things that people don't realize yet about that we talk about is personality disorders. Personality disorders. About 10% of adults in the US have a personality disorder according to the diagnostic manual, the DSM that therapists use. And I think that's realistic and that's mostly about a problem. Interpersonal problem with close relationships such as one's partner and one's children. And research says that personality disorders can pass emotional difficulties onto their children. Even more than a parent who has schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or a substance abuse disorder, that personality disorders are the most interpersonal of disorders. And so being hostile, repeatedly hostile, very hard on children, being unpredictable, very hard on children. And one of the things, one study that was done with over 900 children in Norway but recognized throughout the world, this study said that even if people just have traits of a personality disorder, that their children can be emotionally affected by that.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
And what seems to help with a parent with a personality disorder is having another parent who doesn't have one, who's a moderating influence, who's a more flexible, less hostile, more predictable person. Well guess what the research says. If that parent isn't living with the personality disordered or one with traits parent, then the emotional difficulties are six times higher. To me that makes sense because the child's exposed to someone who's hostile, whose mood swings very aggressive without the benefit of another parent to soften that. And in these cases, having sole custody with a more reasonable parent may make sense and may be necessary for the child's mental health. Now with that said, I don't believe in no contact with a parent. I think it's not good for the child. Children need to know that both parents love them even if they're incapacitated unhealthy. They also need to know what their parents really like.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
So if their parents' a jerk, then having an hour or two a week with that parent will keep them in touch with reality. Years and years ago before I became a lawyer and I was a therapist, I volunteered taking children to visit their parents in prison for a while and these kids got so much out of seeing their parents in prison and the parent in prison said, don't do what I did. And the kids love their parents and they got good messages and lessons from their parents. So most parents in divorce, even high conflict divorce, aren't in prison. And I think the child should have some contact, but I think limited contact is fair, is reasonable, and a sweeping joint custody presumption is not the way to go. That is not 50 50 presumption. Joint custody is good, but let the parents define the numbers.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
So how does a parent who seems to be being dragged into court, being reported to department of child services, child abuse agencies, how do you go in and talk about that to the court?
Speaker 2 (10:19):
I think first of all, I think courts need to be more aware of the presence of personality disorders, the dynamics of personality disorders, the lack of change. People with personality disorders are very resistant to change. So the problems they have now, they're going to have six months from now, a year from now, six years from now, mostly the judges. With that in mind, it makes sense to restrict one parent and have the other parent have majority of time just for what the children are going to learn and what they're going to be exposed to and their sense of stress and anxiety. But one of the problems is people with personality disorders are also very confusing and can also be deceptive so that the courts can get these cases backwards. And that's another reason I don't think you want to totally exclude one parent, but the history this parent describes is a very strong history of someone with personality problems. I'm not saying I don't know if they have a personality disorder or not, but they have a lot of problems and they should not be required to do equal time with the other parent for the sake of the kids.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
So back to the listener question, talking about the co-parent therapist and child's play therapist, does it seem to be of late bill that many in those communities in that profession I guess are really on the bandwagon for joint custody? Across the board?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
There is a push for joint custody across the board, mostly amongst parents who have been restricted parenting time because of a high conflict parent who ends up in charge. And when this happens, I can see them saying, look, joint custody gives me at least half the time. That's a good solution. And sometimes it may be in some specific cases, but a presumption for 50 50 parenting time, 80% of people don't need any presumptions. They can work it out themselves. And the 20% that have problems, the problem needs to get figured out, not just with a presumption. And I might add with this, kicking it down to the kids and say, okay, kids, where do you want to live is also a big mistake. And that's also being considered in at least a couple states, teenagers as young as 14. The cases where there's a dilemma like that are a problem, they shouldn't just kick it to the child and say, you vote on your parent, they should say there's a problem and we have to figure out what the problem is. Maybe there's an abusive parent, maybe there's an alienating parent. Both of these exist on a large scale in the 20% that have parenting disputes in family court.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
How would a parent in a sort of educate the co-parent therapist or the child's therapist about having multiple perspectives?
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Well, they would have 'em listen to my seminar for a FCC on confirmation bias where people assume one method and everybody fits into that method. They really need to be realistic. They have to have at least three theories of a case. One parent's acting badly and the other's doing just fine or the other parent acting badly and the one that's accused of acting badly is doing fine, or both parents are acting badly. You've got to figure that out if you're really going to give the kids the best possible parenting.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Okay, well let's take a short break and we'll come back and talk more about the kids. All right, we're back, bill. Let's explore a little bit more around the courts asking the kids with their preference. Who do you want to live with? Why is this not a great idea?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
It's a terrible idea to put the child in that position. And I'll give you an example. I had a case, I represented a parent and the child was 17 and he says, I'm not going to let my parents the hook. I'm not going to say who I want to live with. They're going to have to figure that out as adults. And they went and they met with the family court services counselor who said, tell me what you do with your dad. Tell me what you do with your mom. What do you like with your dad? What do you like with your mom? Blah, blah, blah. And the boy says, I'm not going to decide this. He was angry at both parents. Fortunately he was 17, so he knew he had a year more of this parenting battle. But he said, I'm not going to figure this out for you.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
You're going to have to figure it out. But the problem is, let's say you have a 14-year-old. 14 year olds really are not interested that much in their parents. They're interested in their peers, they're just learning about peer relationships, all this stuff. And parents is supposed to be the rock that they can count on and not put their energy into. They want their rock to encourage them to reach out and have good activities, relationships with other kids, all of that. So it's only families with a problem. Where this would come up, as I've said before, 80% of families don't have this even in the 20% that go to court, the ones where there's a real conflict over parenting and one of the parents say, refuses to see a parent. That's maybe 25% of the court custody cases at most. And that means there's something wrong with the family.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
I think of it as the family illness and the child carries the family illness, and this is health issues or mental health issues. Children get caught up in the family system, they call it. And in the family system, they play a role usually to try to help the family become stable. And so if they have a personality disordered parent with high conflict behavior, they often focus on that parent because that's where you need to calm the person to have stability. So the child says, okay, mom, I want to be with you and I want to calm you down, dad, I don't care about you. I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about mom. But then mom wants him to hate that. Okay, I'll say I hate that. And sometimes the kids do start to hate a parent because of the story they're given by the other parent.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
And it isn't just dads that are rejected, moms are rejected. I represent a lot of moms who are rejected parents. So when you have a personality disorder parent with all or nothing thinking unmanaged emotions, all of this, the child gets kind of sucked into that vortex and they cannot have an independent mature opinion that's safe to have unconsciously they're protecting themselves by going where the power is. And courts don't realize that. They don't realize that the more aggressive parent in court is also the more aggressive parent at home and that they're aggressive about saying how rotten the other parent is. And the parent they're saying is rotten is the more balanced and non-aggressive kind of cooperative person. So they get a lot of these cases backwards. I'd say they get the majority right, but 35, 40% because they're really confused and conned by people with personality disorders and they're starting to realize that, but they still don't know all the dynamics. And that's where the education comes in that we're trying to offer with High Conflict Institute.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Speaking of education bill. So teaching the parents skills, I learned as a parent that I was lacking some skills and when I learned them, I used them very successfully and my children benefited from those. So we have those we teach here at HCI, we teach parents skills and we also have a program to help kids learn four big skills. So let's talk first about the parents. It's kind of obvious that some parents are just lacking skills and it's not their fault. There's no blame or shame around it, it's just how we show up. So how do we help parents the best in these situations by teaching these big skills? And we have our New Ways for Families program wherein we do this. So let's talk about that a minute. We have one method for divorce coaches and one method for counselors. So let's talk about the counseling method first. Back in 2009, you had this incredible idea to teach parents skills instead of just punishing them and making big decisions about their whole family's lives before they've learned these skills.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
And that's a good way to put it. We told the judges order both parents to get the same set of skills, which will make life easier for their children and easier for each other, and do that as soon as possible so you don't have to make the big decisions so the parents can. And if they can't make the big decisions after learning these skills, then the core can make the decisions of course, but understanding who has more difficulty learning these skills. So the skills are basically flexible thinking and including that we teach making proposals moderate behavior and included with that is our Biff response emails and then managed emotions and we teach giving yourself encouraging for that and of course not blaming others but checking yourself. Now the counseling method is where we started, as you said in 2009. It has six individual sessions for each parent, then three parent child sessions.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
And these I believe are particularly helpful for the children getting the same skills from the parents. And these skills help with people recovering from domestic violence, from being a perpetrator because that's extreme behavior. So learning these skills reinforces what they learned in their group therapies. Then also against alienating behavior, which is all or nothing, unmanaged emotions and extremes so that both parents learn these. It can soften alienation, it can soften estrangement if a child resists a parent because of their own abuse or domestic violence. And I'll put in a little pitch here for professionals who are involved with Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, A FCC, I'm going to be giving a seminar in Boston in June on how to use new ways for families to help with resistance and refusal because of the parent child meetings, getting the parents on the same page. So that's the counseling method.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
And how about the coaching, which the coaching method was developed to make this much more available to everyone? It started with converting the counseling method into an online class that anyone could take anywhere in the world at later we added coaching. So let's talk about that briefly.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Sure. So 2015, we did the online class. I became convinced that online classes could be good if they're interactive. So people have writing exercises that make them think they have quizzes and video clips, all of that. By 2019, we decided to add coaching with the online cast to give it a boost, but three coaching sessions are much less expensive than nine counseling sessions. And you're right, we really tried to make it much more accessible. And it's interesting that you say with the online class that people could take it anywhere in the world because they are. So for example, we have coaches with the online class in Scotland, in all of the uk, it's now available in Canada, in Australia, and I believe, dunno if we finished the translations yet, but we've been working on some translations of the online class. So everywhere in the world can get that and it's barely a hundred bucks. So it's really a good deal because skills we really believe are the future and that's really how to solve these problems.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
The skills are game changers. If you apply, learn the skills and then apply them, just have a bit of discipline. You can really impact not only your own life but your child's life. And ultimately they need these skills for good relationships down the road. So we'd also then have new ways for life, which is a way to teach kids these four big skills of managing their emotions, having flexible thinking, checking themselves and having moderate behaviors. And like you mentioned earlier, bill, we all see very extreme things on social media and media across the board. So to learn that, wow, this is not normal. This is an extreme behavior, not a moderate behavior, and I need a moderate behavior in order to have good relationships. And that's really what we do with new ways for life.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Yeah, let me just emphasize New Ways for Life is designed for 12 to 17 year olds and then new ways for families, for adults and adults teaching their kids, but new ways for life, 12 to 17 year olds, they're exposed to so much stuff. This is a way for them to learn how to respond to social media posts, how to manage their emotions, how to manage their behavior, all of that.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
So if you have kids and you'd like them to take that, we're going to have all these links in the show notes, the professional training for New Ways for families and the class for parents. If your parents or even a grandparent listening to this, we'll have all those links there.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Thank you for listening today. Thank you Bill for your wisdom. And we are wanting, again, just like last episode where we introduced a poll, kind of a survey on your thoughts on marriage and women. This time we're going to have a poll asking your thoughts on joint versus sole custody. So you'll also find that link in the show notes and it's going to be open for a week or two, and then we'll come back with the results in a later episode. Next week we're going to do just that. We'll circle back to that question about marriage and women from poll and we'll reveal the results and discuss it from there. In the meantime, send your questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast. Tell your friends and colleagues about us and leave us a review. We are very grateful. Until next time, keep learning and practicing these skills and be kind to yourself and others while we all try to keep the conflict small. It is All Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins and Ziv Moran. Find the show notes and transcripts@truestory.fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.