Rashomon and Divorce Mediation

One of my favorite movies is Rashomon. It is an Akira Kurosawa in which a crime witnessed by four individuals is described in four mutually contradictory ways. The film is based on two short stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. The word Rashomon is now commonly used to describe the effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. I just heard it used today on NPR and I made my daughters watch the movie so they would understand the word. It is seen often in popular culture and has been used on All in the Family, Grey’s Anatomy, Happy Days, The Simpsons, How I Met Your Mother and many other TV shows. I once tried a case where a women was hit by a car as she was walking in a cross walk. There were three witnesses and each saw a different color traffic light. I am surprised I have not blogged about the Rashomon Effect before because it happens all the time in marriage and divorce. There is not much a mediator can do about the Rashomon Effect but recognize the effect and to have the parties agree to disagree. Neither party will ever convince the other party. They must Accept and move on.
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(236) 11/17/11

Divorce Mediation and Good Behavior

After a mediation, I often see the couple speaking in the parking lot of my office. This happens so often that I now offer them the opportunity to talk in one of our conference rooms which is at least cooler. They often look different in the parking lot. More angry and agitated. I also recall that many years ago, I was doing mediation and for about 20 minutes, the couple spoke to each other and I said nothing. I suggested that they did not need me and they said something which helps explain the parking lot conversations in reverse and another use of a mediator. What the couple said was they needed me because they were on good behavior when I was there. I have thought I could make money and couples could save money if I could sell them a blow up doll version of me. I think the dynamics of this is that people behavior is better with strangers. Once you cease to be a stranger which happens after a while in mediation this is no longer the case. What is happening in the parking lot is that I am not there and they don’t have to be on good behavior and can say things unrestrained. That is why I have always felt there is a window of opportunity to resolve a case. Couples need to take advantage of this opportunity.
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(235) 11/10/11

Divorce Ring

The divorce ring was brought to my attention by my younger daughter. I have previously blogged about Divorce Ritual at

http://centerfordivorcemediation.blogspot.com/2008/04/divorce-ritual.html.

The ring is another aspect of Divorce Ritual. The ring pictured above is made of 18K gold and diamonds and was created by Spritzer and Furman. It is available at Alice Kwartler Antiques. The divorce ring costs $3,200. The ring costs more than many divorce mediations I have done. Pity the man who has multiple divorces and must buy a few rings. I can hear wife two saying “You bought one for wife one! I want one too! As usual, mediation is less expensive than litigated divorce. I think you can tell the two rings apart. 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(234 11/3/11)

Divorce Word Cloud

Recently, I seem to have a fascination with depicting words. I have seen visualizations of words in the media. With iPhone apps people can now do things that use to take expensive software. I was please to see I could get a free app that would create word clouds. A word cloud is a visual representation for text data, typically used to depict the frequency of each word shown with font size and/or color. The assumption is that important words are larger and in a different color. The word cloud above is a visualization of the documents necessary to start a divorce action in court in Arizona. I had to increase the frequency of a word appearing to at least 20 times and taking out some common words or it would have not been readable. It is interesting to see how the words COURT and YOU are the biggest and most frequent and the word attorney is in the smallest font. The word child is somewhere in between. I am not sure if this is a significant statement about the divorce process but it certainly is interesting. Unfortunately, the word mediation did not show up at all. As I write this, I think I will do another word cloud using the Divorce Memorandum of Understanding and Consent Decree and see how it compares.

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(233) 10/27/11

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