Tuesday, July 17 , 2018, 1:06 pm | Partly Cloudy 69º

 
 
 
 

Brian Burke: About Your Divorce (Letter 99) — Cooties and the Toxic Brainwash

Dear Pinky and Spike:

Cooties the toxic brainwash.

While recording what I’ve learned from my clients about divorce during the last 30 years of practice, my first priority was to describe the way clients are abused by the divorce industry. I refer to it as the Ugly Divorce Book. You can get the gist from this sentence:

A fee agreement compensating the lawyer (and her partners, associates, assistants and clerical staff) by multiplying the number of hours they record by “standard rate(s),” creates a potential economic conflict of interest between the lawyer and the client that’s usually greater than the potential conflict of interest between the client and his/her spouse.

The second book will be longer and almost entirely positive. First, however, it needs a chapter to explain how and why I’ve been able to largely avoid Toxic Divorces for more than 20 years, and that I had little or no advice or information of use to people involved in a Toxic Divorce. I expected to do it in one chapter, which would take no more than two weeks to write. Two weeks turned into nearly three months and the single chapter turned into three. The work was dreadful, distressing and depressing.

After nearly three months, my wife, Alice, observed that what I was doing had taken a toll on me and I, in turn, was taking a toll on her.

I focused on three cases. Two were real (Marriage of Broderick and Marriage of Swithin) and one was fictional (Gone Girl). I had no professional and no personal involvement with any of these cases. In the last letter (No. 98), I said that while immerged in these lives I may have become depressed and was, at the very least, dysthymic. My subjective condition caused the content of these letters to drift to Stage IV (Depression) of the Kübler-Ross grief model.

                                                                        •        •

This letter was going to use one or two accounts from popular culture to show what it looks like when “hope” causes or permits a person to come out of a bad depression. But given the time and energy spent to learn more about Toxic Divorce, I am going to harvest and publish the “lessons learned,” which usurped all the space available for this letter. “Escape from depression via hope!” should appear just before Christmas.

My research into these three ugly divorces took longer — and took more out of me — than I expected, and it catalyzed six insights. (The list includes links to drafts of two White Papers that will remain posted for the next two weeks. Comments are invited.)

» 1. It was possible to differentiate the terms “Toxic Divorce” and “Ordinary Divorce” with qualitative comparisons. [White Paper I Toxic Divorce: Who cares? Who should care?]

» 2. “Toxic Divorces” are qualitatively different from “Ordinary Divorces.” During an extended client consultation, the client’s personal narrative usually gives me the information I need to assess the probable toxicity of the case. I was able to write an Inventory of 20 questions that elicits the same information directly.

It was possible to work out an algorithm that evaluates the responses to the Inventory questions and provides consistent predictions about the probability that the case is Toxic. [For a beta version of the Inventory, click here. It’s free and comments are invited. See also, White Paper II Toxic Divorce: Identifying the Toxic Divorce – Inventory.]

» 3. We know that these cases represent less than 5 percent of the divorcing population and that they have a vastly disproportionate influence on the development of law, whether it is decisional law from the appellate courts or statutory law from the legislatures. We also know that these cases exhaust nearly all (90 percent) of the judicial resources available to the entire divorcing population.

» 4. When third parties intermeddle — both in good faith and in bad faith — in Toxic Divorces at least two things will happen: (a) The intruder’s action will have an unintended and unexpected effect, and (b) The intruder — especially the one trying to help — will get psychologically blamed.

For example: In an effort to help and support their child, Wife’s parents provide funds for her to pay lawyers to “really stand up for her.” Let’s say the infusion of money comes 18 months post-separation. By this time, the parties have worked though Stage II Anger, or the emotional experience has peaked and is falling toward its conclusion. [Click here for the Yale Bereavement Study chart as modified for divorce.] The money will be used to refill her existing attorney’s war chest or to fill a war chest for a new lawyer. The unintended consequence is that the lawyers will “earn” the fees in reach, the case will heat up because of their activity, and progress toward resolution will slip backwards. This is probably not what the parents had in mind. This is the unintended effect on the case.

From the Husband’s perspective, Wife’s parents are no longer “supporting” their child. They have become participants in the case and they have taken sides against Husband who is the father of their grandchildren. Husband will ensure that his children know his version of the story, told in a way that undermines their future relationship with their mother’s parents. The unexpected psychological effect is that wife’s parents are vilified. Husband will hold them responsible for some of the future ugliness as will their grandchildren if Husband is clever in the way he delivers his story to them.

In other words, Toxic Divorces generate cooties to which the parties have grown somewhat immune. Professionals are paid to compensate for their exposure to them. Third parties attract the Cooties and they will get you.

» 5. By avoiding Toxic Divorces and focusing on Ordinary Divorces for so many years my perspective is unusual, unorthodox and unconventional. I’ve spent most of my professional life seeking an understanding of what happens in Ordinary Divorce. The explanations I entertain don’t have to take into account Toxic Divorce, which will skew and dominate any explanation unless they are deliberately excluded. Of the hundreds of books published on divorce during the last thirty years, a small minority focuses on the Ordinary Divorce. The Good Divorce is one of them; it was written by Constance Aarons, a good and reliable academic researcher.

» 6. When I understood the incidental benefit of studying Ordinary Divorce to the exclusion of Toxic Divorce, I could appreciate the significance of what was obvious. What do the media describe when reporting on the subject of divorce? The cases described on the covers of magazines and tabloids at the market or drugstore are Toxic, as are those reported on television, discussed online and gossiped about “over the back fence.” Why? It’s because they are interesting.

Consider: Frank and Sarah divided all their stuff in two. The kids spend time with each parent and both the parents and the children are experimenting with different arrangements to see which works out best for all involved. Frank and Sarah have been angry and now they are sad. They are reluctant to talk about “their divorce” with friends because they see it as “their divorce” and no one’s business but their own. Similarly, Frank and Sarah don’t want to talk about their friends’ divorces because it’s private — and they think their friends should keep it private. Where’s the story?

The Divorce Discourse — both public and private — is “informed” by Toxic Divorces, which creates expectations of similarities between two disparate sets. These expectations can, and often do, become reality, especially when promoted by divorce lawyers acting well within the Rules of Professional Conduct by expecting and being prepared for the worst.

Divorce is a big event. For most of us, there are few “Self”-defining events — such as births, deaths and major occurrences outside our control. Divorce is both Self-defining and life defining. It has an immediate effect on the nuclear family undergoing the reorganization and a ripple effect on nearly everyone with a connection to that family.

For us as a culture there is a gross misconception about the nature of life- and Self-defining events, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that enriches the Divorce Industry and interferes and corrupts the natural process. I fear that such interference — especially at the hands of professionals who have been trusted and paid to help their clients — reduces the likelihood that the client will complete the process as a “better person” (a term only the client can define) than s/he was at the outset.

We are the objects of mass “brainwashing.” That’s a particularly strong term, so I’ll explicitly strip it of its sinister connotation and any suggestion of conspiracy. Now the term is used to describe a situation in which the media and our own behavior have confused us about the nature of a serious life event, which needs to be well understood to promote a positive outcome.

I don’t think anything can be done to stop the “washing” or to change the shampoo. So what can be done?

The brainwashing can be followed with a brain-rinsing. It’s a do-it-yourself job I’ll explain in the next letter.

Your friend,
Bucky

— Brian H. Burke is a certified family law specialist practicing family law and mediation in Santa Barbara. A researcher and educator in the field of divorce and family conflicts, he is also the creator of the Legal Road Map™. Click here for more information, call 805.965.2888 or e-mail [email protected]. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >