Divorce and Ambigrams

I am sorry I have not been able to blog for awhile. Just did not seem to have the time. I enjoy blogging and missed it and will try harder to blog at least once a week.

I was fascinated by ambigrams before I knew what they were called. My initials WM and my license plate zwmz are both ambigrams. I learned the name for the first time when I read Dan Brown’s “Angels and Demons.” For those of you who don’t know what an ambigram is the following quote from Wikepedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambigram) explains:
“An ambigram is a typographical design or art form that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation. The words readable in the other viewpoint, direction or orientation may be the same or different from the original words. Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." Different ambigram artists (sometimes called ambigramists) may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form.” The above drawing is an ambigram for the word divorce.
My daughter says I can make anything into a blog about mediation. As usual, she is correct. This in part the case because I believe in synergy which may be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable. In this case I am taking ambigrams, divorce and mediation.
In mediating a divorce the parties must look at things from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation but hopefully come up with a similar result. With an ambigram we look at a word in a different way (usually upside down) but see something not only similar but the same. When we do this in mediating a divorce we come up with new and creative solutions to the problems the couple is having resolving their case.

As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(232) 10/20/11

Divorce Myths

I recently looked at the old copies of our newsletter called “The Divorce Mediator.” In the June 2003 copy which was our 11th newsletter, we did an article about Divorce Assumptions and Myths. As I am always thinking about potential blogs and programs for Arizona ACR, I thought this would be a good topic to identify mediation myths. As usual I googled “mediation myths.” I was surprised as usual to find there were lots of hits. I am always reminded of Sherlock Holmes saying in “A Study in Scarlet, “There is nothing new under the sun. It has all been done before." As usual Sherlock is correct.

Our list for Connecticut law of divorce myths was:
1. The husband must pay the wife a year of alimony for every two years of marriage.
2. The wife’s alimony terminates when she remarries.
3. The mother always gets physical custody of the children.
4. Assets are equally divided and each person keeps premarital assets.
5. The person who pays child support gets the tax exemption and credit.
6. Property in an individual’s name is not marital property.

Steven H. Kruis in an article on the National Institute for Advanced Conflict Resolution at
http://www.niacr.org/papers/article3.htm listed the following mediation myths.
Myth No. 1: All Mediations are the same -- One Size Fits All.
Myth No. 2: Certain Types of Cases Cannot Be Mediated.
Myth No. 3: Ex Parte Communication before the Mediation Is Improper.
Myth No. 4: When the Case Has Not Settled at the Conclusion of the Mediation Session, the Parties Proceed to Litigation.
Fran Tetunic in an article in the Florida Bar Journal, May, 2008, Volume 82, No. 5 and cited at
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Articles/E0C6EB07D4D91DA285257435005E4BB9 listed the following mediation myths

1) Everything in Mediation Is Confidential.
2) Confidentiality Prevents a Lawyer-mediator from Reporting Attorney Misconduct During Mediation.
3) A Lawyer-mediator Must Advise Mediation Parties to Seek the Advice of Counsel.
4) If All Parties Waive Any Conflict of Interest Disclosed by the Mediator, the Mediator May Mediate.
5) The Mediation Is Not Over Until the Mediator Declares Impasse.
6) The Mediator Holds the Privilege to Refuse to Disclose Confidential Mediation Communications.
7) The Mediator May Predict an Outcome at Trial if Requested by All the Parties.
8) The Mediator Has the Obligation to Write the Mediated Agreement.
9) Mediators Report to the Court When Parties Fail to Mediate in Good Faith.
10) Mediator Misconduct, Like Legal Malpractice, Does Not Serve as a Basis for Setting Aside a Mediated Agreement.


Do you have any myths? There must be thousands more!

As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(231) 9/14/11.

Divorce, West Memphis Three, and Alford Doctrine

Recently the West Memphis Three, stood up in a courtroom, proclaimed their innocence even as they pleaded guilty, and, minutes later, walked out as free men. This is known as the Alford Plea or Doctrine. In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt. One example is a situation where the defendant has no recollection of the pertinent events due to intoxication or amnesia. A defendant making an Alford plea maintains his innocence of the offense charged. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge. Acceptance of an Alford plea is in the court's decision. The Alford guilty plea originated in the United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Alford (1970). Henry Alford had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder in 1963. Evidence in the case included testimony from witnesses that Alford had said after the death of the victim that he had killed the individual. Court testimony showed Alford and the victim argued at the victim's house. Alford left the house, and afterwards the victim received a fatal gunshot wound when he opened the door responding to a knock.
This made me think whether the thinking behind the Alford Doctrine could apply to divorce cases. In fact we probably do. We often have one party who does not agree to for example paying alimony. Under the Alford Doctrine the party would say I don’t believe I should pay alimony but in order to avoid something worse, I will pay it.
As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(230) 8/31/11s

Divorce and Street Names

Driving I often see names of streets which I think are funny. This lead me to see if I could find street names which related to divorce. The following is the list so far. Let me know if you have others.

Calle del Divorcio, Bogota, Colombia
401 K Street Northwest, Washington D.C., DC
Alimony Lane, Willow Oak, FL
Asset Avenue, Scott, LA
Attorney Street, New York, NY
Bankrupt Boulevard, Glasgow, MT
Children Street, Waynesville, NC
Custody Circle, CA
Debt Lane, Sumter, SC
Divorce Court, Heather Highlands, Pa.
Faultless Drive, Ashland, OH
Insurance Way, Hagerstown, MD
IRA Street, Fayetteville, NC
Judge Street, New York, NY
Lawyer Street, College Station, TX
Pension Road, Yorketown, NJ
Pension Street, Chincoteague Island, VA
Separation Street, Northcote, Victoria, Australia

As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(229) 8/20/11

Divorce Insurance

Just the other day I thought, I wonder if people would buy divorce insurance? I Googled Divorce Insurance and as usual someone else thought of it first. See article in New York Times on August 6, 2010, entitled “Divorce Insurance (Yes, Divorce Insurance)” by Jennifer Saranow Schultz. See the entire article at http://tiny.cc/cdm8111a. The article says in part, “The casualty insurance is designed to provide financial assistance in the form of cash to cover the costs of a divorce, such as legal proceedings or setting up a new apartment or house. It is sold in “units of protection.” Each unit costs $15.99 per month and provides $1,250 in coverage. So, if you bought 10 units, your initial coverage would be $12,500 and you’d be paying $15.99 per month for each of those units. In addition, every year, the company adds $250 in coverage for each unit. Have not heard of anyone using it and don’t know if mediation is covered. As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(228) 8/13/11

How I met Lenard Marlow and Became a Mediator

A recent article by Lenard Marlow in the quarterly newsletter of the Family Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution’s spring 2011 “family Mediation news” reminded me how I became a mediator and reinforced my philosophy and style of mediation. In 1985, Donald Cohen, a friend and therapist, put me in contact with his father, Dr. Max Cohen, a psychiatrist who co-mediated with Attorney Lenard Marlow in New York. They had a case in Connecticut and needed a Connecticut attorney to complete the case. I was up for trying something new and agreed to take the case. This was my first introduction to Divorce Mediation. I was not happy with a general law practice. I could not keep up with all the changes in all the areas of law and wanted to do one thing well. On a practical note, I also realized that specialist were valued more and compensated appropriately. My Wife, Mary, and I discussed it and she asked what I enjoyed doing. I told her I had like the Divorce Mediation I had done. She suggested that I get training to enhance my skills and have better credibility. I trained with Zena Zumeta and Carl Schneider in Burlington Vermont. After my training I gradually transition my practice to Family law with an emphasis on a non adversarial approach. I liked it so much and thought my Wife, Mary, would too that I encouraged her to do mediate also. We now do co-mediation as well as individual mediation. In his article, Lenard Marlow takes issues with the adversary assumption in mediation. He rather sees it as problem solving. He also sees it as a more creative process. I entirely agree with him. As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(227) 8/6/11

Divorce and the Innocent Spouse

I have always loved the term “innocent spouse.” Its usual context in a divorce case is tax delinquency. Married tax payers who file a joint return with their spouse are generally liable for the taxes of their spouse. However, there are exceptions to this rule. The following are the general requirements:

You must have filed a joint return which has an understatement of tax;

The understatement of tax must be due to erroneous items of your spouse;

You must establish that at the time you signed the joint return, you did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was an understatement of tax;
Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it would be unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax; and

The IRS has recently made changes to the requirement that you must request relief within 2 years after the date on which the IRS first began collection activity against you. See AP story in July 26, 2011 AZ Star http://tiny.cc/cdm726
When mediating we generally have language that spells out the parties tax liabilities but the IRS does not recognize this and will go after both parties. Hold harmless and indemnification agreement helps but still requires action to collect. Having “innocent spouse” status helps a lot.
As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM(225) 7/27/11