Archive for: Articles and Podcasts

Almost everyone has heard of post-traumatic stress and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), but a related and new area of research has been on post traumatic growth. The idea of post traumatic growth is a more recent phenomenon that offers a positive approach to dealing with traumatic events. It is both a process that people undergo after experiencing trauma and an outcome where positive changes are experienced in response to struggling and making sense of that major crisis or traumatic event. It is a new, optimistic perspective on suffering and transforms a person into someone significantly different than who they were before. The struggle, not the trauma, engenders these changes. Researchers have found when questioned about trauma, more people report growth experiences as long term effects rather than stress disorders.

Post traumatic growth appears to develop in five broad areas: new possibilities, change in relationships, personal strength, philosophy on life, and spiritual or religious change. People may be more open to opportunities, find that they are more resilient, and appreciate the preciousness of life. The advocates for post traumatic growth emphasize that while changes or growth can be beneficial, all problems or stress are not dissolved. Rather, post traumatic growth occurs in the context of suffering. In addition, post traumatic growth is not universal.

Dr. Talya Rabina is a psychologist who researched the experiences of the Hurricane Katrina helper population. There have been numerous studies conducted on the negative effects of participating in relief efforts, but less research on positive effects such as learning and feeling rewarded for voluntary efforts. Dr. Rabina explains that post traumatic growth involves finding meaning out of an experience that throws one’s whole understanding of the world on its head. In her experience, she found that changes in relationships and adjustments of philosophies were the most transparent. People needed other people who had the same experience to reflect and understand that event. In addition, people redefined their values and goals and thus revised their perspective on life; this especially related to developmental stages. People who were in their twenties considered how they were going to proceed in their career. An older generation who already had an established career pondered more deeply the way in which they performed their work. Traumas, such as Hurricane Katrina, instigate post traumatic growth.

How intense does a trauma need to be in order to experience post traumatic growth?

Does it have to be a natural disaster or war, or can it be divorce or something similarly common? In order for post traumatic growth to develop, the trauma needs to threaten one’s mental security and how one perceives the world. Dr. Rabina notes that trauma needs to cause a significant amount of distress and dissonance, and this dissonance leads one to a psychological process of working through and sorting out this trauma: “the brain wants to feel even and good, and when something like trauma occurs, the brain is thrown off and needs to reformulate” which generates a new understanding of the self in relation to what’s happened. Dr. Rabina also mentions that people witness violence every day, whether in direct or indirect settings. These exposures to violence are all sort of mini traumas and our capacity for post traumatic growth depends on how we approach these traumas. Essentially, what constitutes trauma depends on the person who experiences it.

Influencing Psychologists, Individuals, and Society

Dr. Rabina finds the post traumatic growth concept useful in her clinical work. She explains that it’s easy to get pulled towards focusing on the negative because people typically enter therapy with problems. While value lies in dissecting the negative, exploring the positive side is necessary and broadens the perspective: “As a therapist we have power in the way we ask questions. If you’re asking only about the pathology and not about the potential for growth and strength then you’re not seeing the whole picture. What [post traumatic growth] has done for me is allow me to see the strength in my clients in a different way and maybe help them see it in themselves. I’m grateful for that.” She also describes that she knows the potential for growth is there in her patients but that this post traumatic growth model has provided her with a way to understand and capitalize on eliciting that growth.

The implications of post traumatic growth for individuals and society can be extremely constructive and stimulate positive change in our culture. There is a certain social transformation of trauma, where the results of trauma on individuals can produce collective social change. The founding of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Alcoholics Anonymous are indicative of this. Even closer to home, the Eve Marie Carson Scholarship (which is awarded to students who have grown significantly in areas related to academics, social justice, and leadership) was established in response to the senseless murder of Eve Carson, UNC’s Student Body President.

Ultimately, post traumatic growth allows for an alternate, more optimistic view on life despite suffering through traumatic experiences. This is not to suggest PTSD and post traumatic stress are not real as well, and people experiencing this deserve empathy and help. Post traumatic growth work can be one way to move through the stress of the trauma and regain a sense of well-being.

I remember being in my first year of therapy practicum at a local community mental health center with a supervisor who, well, let’s say was not my most favorite supervisor of graduate school. He was a bit gruff, incorrigibly stern, and often times rudely sarcastic. There are many things I would like to forget about the year I spent under his supervision, but one thing will really stick with me as a psychologist, spouse, friend, child, and parent – it’s okay to be sad and it’s okay to let others be sad. The lesson started when I played an audiotaped recording of a session for him (of note, I had client permission to do so as part of my training). The client was audibly crying, there was a pause, you could hear some movement and then I stated, “Here you go.” He asked me what had happened and I explained I had reached over to give the client a tissue. He just looked at me. Blank. After what seemed like an eternity he finally asked, “Why would you do that?” What? Why? Is he serious right now? I was fuming on the inside, but hopefully didn’t let it show. I repeated myself and explained the client was crying and I had handed her a tissue so she could wipe her face. He asked if the tissues were visible and within reach of the crying client. Yes, they had been. “Then why” he asked “did you hand one to her?”

From my perspective, I was being polite – doing what my mother raised me to do. From his perspective, I was inadvertently telling her it wasn’t “okay” for her to be sad. She should clean herself up. She should wipe the tears away from her face. I understood his point, I did. I think it might be a touch overboard, but nonetheless, an important point to learn as a budding psychologist, and even as a friend, partner, parent, child, for any and everyone really. It seems that all too often we unintentionally send messages that it’s not good, not okay, for someone to be sad. How many times have you heard someone say, “It’s ok, don’t be sad,” or “Don’t cry, everything will be alright?” Some emotions are more difficult to acknowledge and manage than others, especially emotions with a negative or painful connotation, such as sadness and anger.

I recently watched the new Disney/Pixar hit Inside Out, a film about Riley, a young, athletic girl whose family relocates from Minnesota to San Francisco. Although Riley is the central human character, the true stars of the film are Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust, Riley’s personified emotions who operate Headquarters (her brain) and manage her current emotional state and interpretation of events, which ultimately become her memories, via a switchboard type station that translates her thought process into behaviors. Headquarters is mostly operated by Joy, a spunky, pixie-ish character who lives up to her name, while Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust play supporting roles. Not long after relocating, the role Sadness plays increases as she mopes around Headquarters, with her woe-is-me demeanor and a defeated tone of voice. She begins touching Riley’s once happy memories, shifting them from a golden glow to a blue glow. In a panic to keep Riley’s memories intact, Joy runs around monitoring Sadness to keep her from touching too many memories. Eventually, Sadness runs off and Joy follows to retrieve Riley’s Core Memories, which ultimately impact her Islands of Personality. In their absence, Anger, Fear, and Disgust are left to manage Headquarters. You can imagine how this part of the story plays out, with a young girl being “operated” by Anger, Fear, and Disgust! Riley becomes curt when speaking to her parents, doesn’t enjoy the activities she previously loved, and eventually runs away from home for a day. In a series of fortunate events, Joy and Sadness make it back to Headquarters in time for Riley to realize her state of sadness and prompting her to return home to her parents, where she collapses in a loving, tear-filled embrace.

Moral of the story – it’s good to be happy, but it’s okay to be sad, too! In fact, it’s not only okay, but actually important for helping people realize their own mental state and being able to communicate that to others. In Inside Out, Riley’s situation begins to significantly change once she is able to express her sadness to her parents. So, instead of telling people, “It’s okay, don’t be sad,” we should be helping them realize they are sad, let them be sad, and help them work through it. After all, when we try to subdue a particular emotion other emotions soon take over, much like the movie, and often create a bigger problem than we started with!

Here are some quick tips for helping children identify and communicate their emotions:

1. Increase your child’s emotional vocabulary. Help them recognize their own emotions by labeling them. If your child is crying, interpret “Billy, you are sad because daddy left for work and you won’t see him until dinner time.”
2. Parents, label your own feelings. “I’m feeling frustrated because I can’t get this computer to work.”
3. Help children recognize the emotional state of another person. Using books, feeling charts, and emotion faces will help your child recognize the behaviors associated with various emotional states. Ask them how they think Farmer John is feeling in this picture where his arms are crossed over his chest and his brow is furrowed. Then have them point out behavioral cues that led them to identify Farmer John is feeling angry.
4. PRAISE your child when he or she communicates what emotion they are experiencing. Teach them emotions, all of them, are good! And, help them express their emotions in a socially-acceptable manner.

What is the difference between a clinical psychological evaluation and a forensic evaluation? Knowing when and how to obtain a forensic evaluation – which typically goes beyond the scope of a basic clinical interview or a non-forensic psychological evaluation – could make or break your case. Following are several things you should look for in a forensic evaluation:

1. In all evaluations, psychologists complete a clinical interview with the client. While a clinical interview is certainly better than no evaluation by a doctor, it is not a thorough method of assessment as it is purely self-report.

2. Psychological testing must be used so the bulk of information is not based on the client’s self-report. Many psychologists administer psychological instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), which is an objective measure of personality and major categories of psychopathology. The MMPI-2 is widely used because it is well known to be a reliable, valid test. It also has a Lie Scale to help determine if someone is trying to form a favorable impression or mislead the examiner regarding severity of illness. However, though better than an interview only, this test is, again, based on the client’s self-report.

3. It is therefore recommended that multiple tests be completed. A full battery should look at the client’s cognitive, emotional, and personality functioning. A battery gives added weight to your argument that the client was fully evaluated. This may be where some psychologists end their evaluation, which would still mean this is not a forensic evaluation.

4. A full battery could still be a clinical evaluation and not a forensic evaluation. According to the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, a full forensic evaluation includes actively seeking information from more than one source that would differentially test plausible rival hypotheses. This means psychologists need to actively seek prior records. They also need to talk to people who know the client, to assess both pre- and post-functioning. These collateral contacts may at times be family members or friends with a vested interest in the client, but better collaterals are professionals or disinterested parties who will provide impartial accounts of the client.

5. In summary, be sure when sending your client for a ‘psychological evaluation’ to be used in court the evaluation meets the standards of a forensic psychological evaluation. This type of comprehensive approach, testing alternative hypotheses by using multiple testing and data sources, creates a strong evaluation useful to the courts. Be sure the psychologist you use knows to do a forensic evaluation and not a simple psych evaluation.

No one person can own it. It’s a movement of terms, phrases, articles, blogs and books. But it’s there. An inanimate cloud of cliché, opinion and advice that takes on a life of its own. A favored ubiquitous phrase is ‘work-life balance’ so as to not point fingers or leave anything out. ‘Leaning In’ and ‘Having It All’ often invoke strong feelings about the life choices of women and men. It’s hard not to arrive quickly at an opinion or take offense at a perceived standard of judgment. So, how does one navigate with all the conflict and debate?

There are standout pieces to point to for reference. Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote a 2012 article in the Atlantic entitled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in which she recounts her own story of choosing family over career. In 2013, Sheryl Sandburg wrote Lean In which found enough following to support a foundation and website promoting women’s equality in the workplace and male equality at home. In January 2015, Jennifer Szalai with the New York Times tried to help us understand “The Complicated Origins of Having It All”. Pointing back at least to the late 70s, there is a suspicious finger that flips through a wide variety of topics including feminism, parenting, corporate structure, entrepreneurial spirit, leadership and the American dream. But before you dig your heels any further into confirmation bias, let’s take a moment to think about how we apply information presented to us as ‘normative’ to our individual choices and life decisions.

First it is necessary to accept that we are all conformists to some degree, as conformity exists in any group. The negative connotation of conformity comes when choices are made without objectivity and lead to harm. This can be described as part of a concept called Groupthink. The term was popularized in research by Irving Lester Janis in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink and again in 1982 with a revised Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. But the term goes back much further in popular literature including a definitive 1952 article by Willliam H. Whyte, Jr in Fortune magazine. Whyte and Janis both reference the similar concept of ‘doublethink’ described in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

For the sake of irony, let’s hear the definition from Wikipedia. “Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” And for the sake of scientific validity, Janis defines Groupthink as “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action…the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.”

While Groupthink can easily become a scapegoat for bad personal decisions, the value is to avoid harmful decisions by objective reasoning and multiple sources of information. People often go astray into Groupthink when they feel they are upholding a universal value. Some values often associated with the discussion of ‘work-life balance’, ‘leaning in’ and ‘having it all’ are equality, freedom of choice, optimal health and quality parenting. Who can argue against these things? But the argument comes in how these values are upheld and what methods are used to achieve them. Two people who think they are upholding the same value can find themselves with opposing choices and methods.

In life, liberty and the pursuit of work-life balance, there are a few ways Groupthink can sneak up on you. The most obvious one is to accept someone else’s standard as normal. The essence of the warning to avoid Groupthink is that people can become so blind that they do not question a given standard of normalcy. A perfect example of this is the prolific nature in which women are asked how they achieve work-life balance but men rarely are asked the same question. Even more ironic is that these questions are often asked by other women who are intending to advance the cause of women’s equality. Another trap of Groupthink is to believe that ‘everyone thinks this way’ or to lump different voices together in agreement. An example is the thought that all feminists believe you can have it all and that women should push themselves to extreme measures of achievement to demonstrate this fact. This type of erroneous thought is often believed on opposite sides, by women who want to uphold feminist values and feel guilty if they don’t measure up and by those who criticize feminism and perceive the movement as a planned attack by feminists on traditional gender roles.

Equally important is not to blame Groupthink where it doesn’t exist. Such as to wrongly personalize one option as a standard by which there is judgment. A good example of this is the vilification of Lean In as an anthem against the choice of a woman to raise her children while not simultaneously in the workforce. Instead, Sandberg promotes that the option should exist for women to advance in careers without sexism or penalty for choosing to simultaneously have children. To advocate for one choice is not necessarily judgment against those who make other choices.

There are many voices on leaning in, having it all and work-life balance. Remember that while you are a member of various groups, you are an individual. You may choose to lean in or not, but be sure you are not leaning in to Groupthink.

Bibliography:

Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote the article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Sheryl Sandburg wrote the book Lean In and subsequently created a foundation and website

https://leanin.org/

Jennifer Szalai wrote “The Complicated Origins of Having It All” in the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-complicated-origins-of-having-it-all.html?_r=0

Irving Lester Janis wrote 2 books: Victims of Groupthink and Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes

https://books.google.com/books/about/Groupthink.html?id=ZB0bAAAAIAAJ&hl=en

William H. Whyte, Jr. wrote the article “Groupthink” in Fortune magazine

https://fortune.com/2012/07/22/groupthink-fortune-1952/

We often get clients referred to us who are asked to undergo an evaluation related to a DUI/DWI offense. We thought we’d share a little about what that entails, so you can know what your clients may expect when they seek an evaluation from a private practice following a DUI.

Our evaluation involves a clinical interview with the person to get a sense of the event that led to their arrest. We’ll also ask questions about their background, history of substance use, and current use. We’ll look into any risk factors that literature tells us is a predictor of substance problems, as well as any resilience factors which may indicate substances may not be much of a problem in one’s life. The client should bring with them an official copy of their driving record from the DMV, and a copy of their recorded BAC.

We’ll then ask the client to undergo some psychological testing. This generally involves a look at their current psychological functioning, as well as some testing specifically focusing on their relationship to substances. In order to ensure we’re getting a clear and accurate picture of their usage pattern, the testing will involve clinical validity indices that parse out dishonest reporting.

The assessment results in recommendations that generally take two forms: (1) completing a substance abuse education class, i.e., Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School (ADETS), and/or (2) completing a treatment program (usually outpatient). The state requires that evaluators always recommend one of these two forms of intervention following a DUI.

Education

The criteria by which a person may be recommended for ADETS are:

1. The results of the substance abuse assessment shows that the person does not have a substance abuse diagnosis,
2. The person has never, in his or her life, had another DUI/DWI conviction anywhere,
3. The person’s BAC was 0.14% or less, and
4. The person did not refuse to submit to a chemical test.

Those clients who do not meet the criteria for ADETS must be referred to treatment.

Treatment

There are four progressive levels of treatment, determined by the degree of diagnosis:

1. Outpatient, Short Term: a minimum of 20 hours of treatment that must last over a period of at least 30 days.
2. Outpatient, Longer Term: a minimum of 40 hours of treatment that must last over a period of at least 60 days.
3. Day Treatment/Intensive Outpatient: must last for a minimum of 90 hours for a minimum of 90 days.
4. Inpatient: composed of both an inpatient stay coupled with an Aftercare (Continuing Care) program, both of which must last for a period of at least 90 days.

Even the most confident parent sometimes wonders, “Did I do that right?” This question commonly comes up in times of discipline, so we usually end up giving more thought about how to engage with our children at those times. But not every moment of interaction with our children is about handling unwanted behavior. How can we go about engaging more conscientiously with our children when there is not a conflict to resolve?

John Gottman, Ph.D., a renowned relationship researcher, posits that how we go about connecting with our child when they’re experiencing a difficult emotion is crucial to our relationship and their development. The difficult emotion is sometimes paired with inappropriate behavior, so we might be inclined to address the behavior and be done with it. In Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child – The Heart of Parenting, Gottman implores us to explore the more vulnerable emotions behind the anger and use the moment as a bonding and teaching experience. Gottman identifies four types of parenting styles: Dismissing, Disapproving, Laissez-Faire, and Emotion Coaching.

The Dismissing Parent views their child’s difficult emotions as harmful and their focus is for these feelings to go away quickly. They fear intense and difficult emotions because they don’t know how to handle them, plus they feel burdened as they interpret the child’s feelings as a demand that we fix something. They discount the child’s feelings as unimportant and irrational and they minimize them by making light of them or distracting the child. They don’t help the child understand these feelings nor do they teach problem-solving. Children raised in this environment tend to believe that there is something inherently wrong with them to have such feelings, and they learn to discount themselves. They have trouble with emotion regulation.

The Disapproving Parent is similar to the Dismissing Parent but more negative. They see difficult emotions as a sign of a bad character and their focus is to make the feelings go away quickly and for the child to understand they should not express them. They use criticism, reprimands, punishment, and set a lot of limits to make this happen. They believe children use emotions to manipulate and tend to be very concerned with obedience. They believe that children need to become emotionally tough to survive. The effects on children are the same as with Dismissive Parents. but with the added effect of chipping away at their ego with shame.

The Laissez-Faire Parent views all emotions and emotional expression as acceptable. They offer comfort to the child in distress but they don’t help them understand their emotions or problem-solve because they believe the only thing you need to do with emotions is express them and wait for them to pass. They typically are permissive and offer few limits and little guidance on behavior. Children of Laissez-Faire parents tend to have trouble concentrating, forming friendships, getting along with others, and regulating emotions.

The Emotion-Coaching Parent views difficult emotions as opportunities to bond with their child. They believe that difficult emotions are normal and healthy, and are able to sit through them with their child while setting limits on inappropriate expression. They respect the child’s emotion and allow them to feel whatever they feel. They teach the child about emotions, and guide them in problem-solving. These children learn skills for problem-solving and emotion regulation, trust their feelings, have a high self-esteem, and tend to do well socially and academically.

So how do we become Emotion-Coaching Parents? This is Gottman’s five-step approach:
1. Notice the child’s emotion.
2. See it as an opportunity to bond and teach.
3. Use empathic listening to validate their feelings.
4. Help them label their emotions.
5. Set limits on appropriate behavior and help the child problem-solve.

While it seems simple on paper, each step can be a challenge for any parent. The key is to start with the beliefs that experiencing a full range of emotions is healthy and normal and that feeling bad doesn’t give us a free pass to behave however we want (the initial obstacles for Dismissing, Disapproving, and Laissez-Faire Parents). Then you can jump in to the middle of the emotional maelstrom and weather the storm with your child, helping them navigate their way out of it so the next storm isn’t so brutal.

COURT-ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
COVERED BY INSURANCE

One of the most common questions we get is regarding what court-ordered services, if any, can be covered by insurance. I say “if any” because attorneys and clients sometimes have the mistaken assumption that mental health services cannot be covered by insurance when they are court-ordered.

However, it is not the referral source that determines whether a service could be reimbursed by insurance. Two criteria must exist for a service to be medically necessary, a relevant CPT code (i.e., service code) and diagnostic code. Or in plain English, if a client meets criteria for a mental health diagnosis that can be treated with therapy or medication, that claim can be turned into insurance.

So here’s the QUICK GLANCE for potential insurance reimbursement:
Therapy – yes (includes all forms of therapy, for all presenting problems)
Psychological (or substance abuse) Evaluation – yes
Parent Coordinator – no
Custody Evaluation – no

Hey, where did the “nos” come from! you may ask. Let me explain.

Parent Coordinator (PC) appointments are not covered by insurance. The insurance companies say that if PC is a role that can be held by an attorney as well as a mental health professional, then it is not a medical role and not reimbursed. There’s logic to that for sure. Also the PC has authority to make some limited decisions for clients, and therapists cannot actually make legally binding decisions for clients. Conversely, if the court orders family therapy to address co-parenting that could be coded under family therapy (CPT) and adjustment disorder (example diagnosis; other diagnoses may apply as well) generally those clients can use their insurance to get reimbursed. That doesn’t automatically mean therapy versus PC is the best choice for a family with co-parenting concerns. For some families they really need the PC component of the PC being able to make a binding decision when they can’t come to agreement, so then therapy doesn’t cut it since a therapist doesn’t have that dictate.

Custody evaluations are not used primarily to determine the presence or absence of a psychological disorder. They are used to determine parenting abilities and best interests of the child with regard to custody. Thus they are not medically necessary.

Why is it then, you may wonder, do clients or attorneys sometimes hear from a therapist or evaluator that clients cannot use their insurance at all for any service court-ordered? Well, great question. In my opinion they are being overly conservative and saying: court order = not medically necessary. But remember, it is not the referral source (such as court order) that determines whether something is medically necessary, but rather the person’s functioning, and it’s pretty clear most people court-ordered into therapy legitimately need services, and the same with the psychological evaluations ordered.

One caveat with psychological evaluations: sometimes people evaluated do not meet criteria for any disorder. In which case there is a CPT code to turn in to insurance, but no diagnostic code. In that instance the insurance company may not reimburse for the evaluation. But for clients providing an evaluation for the court that may be exactly the outcome one party is hoping for, i.e., an evaluation to shows they do not have a mental health diagnosis. And if a client does meet criteria for a mental health diagnosis, not all diagnoses are detrimental to functioning as related to the legal questions at hand.

Keep in mind this information is not a guarantee that insurance will cover a court-ordered service turned in for reimbursement by a client. Of course the various insurance companies have the final say on a claim-by-claim basis what they cover. But the brief, positive take away is: Clients should definitely turn in their court-ordered mental health services for insurance reimbursement. There is a good chance they will be covered and reimbursed just like any other service would be.

Marital Counseling Makes Cents….

Words of Wisdom from a Divorce Attorney

Written by Tre’ Morgan

A common refrain that I hear from clients and social acquaintances is that they would have liked to try marital counseling before their separation or divorce, but they just could not afford it.

With the scope of health insurance coverage narrowing and the increased number of people without health insurance due to job losses, there is a very real financial barrier to marital counseling for many people. But, aside from the obvious potential benefit of preserving the marriage and an intact family, there are financial reasons that marital counseling makes sense.

Most people do not consider is the cost of the alternative to marital counseling …divorce. Obviously, marital counseling will not save every marriage and not every couple that might benefit from marital counseling will end up divorced. But, when people are evaluating their financial ability to obtain counseling, the cost of a potential divorce should be considered. Using rough numbers, one session of marital counseling may cost a couple $150 per week. Over 50 weeks, that adds up to $7,500. And let’s assume that all of that expense is out of pocket and not covered by insurance. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is for most of us.

But, let’s compare that to the cost of a divorce. $7,500 would be a fairly low amount for what one of these folks would spend on one attorney to resolve the issues involved in a divorce. Now, multiply that by two because each person will need an attorney. Add in the cost of therapy for each party to deal with the trauma of a divorce, therapy for the children to help them process the divorce, potential expert financial professionals and the miscellaneous expenses of litigation and divorce.

Also, add in the 25% to 50% increase in the cost of living to support separate households and potential lost productivity at work due to the distraction of a divorce. In the end, the financial toll can be in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.

Ironically, many people who claim that they could not afford marital counseling somehow find the money to pay for a divorce. Some people are more comfortable asking their family for money to pay for a divorce than asking their family for money to pay for marriage counseling. I suspect that family members would be happier about contributing money for counseling than divorce.

The point is that when compared to divorce, the cost of trying to save a marriage is minimal. Given the potential benefits that can be reaped from marital counseling, it is an investment that should be considered before incurring the costs of a divorce.

For more articles by Tre’ visit https://www.tremorgan.com/

One of the hardest parts of getting divorced is how it affects the children. Parents are often asking how to help their children through the process. Here are some commonly asked questions and ways to respond honesty without placing the children in the middle.

Why are you getting divorced? – Kids only want to know vague reasons so keep it simple and focused on their fears or concerns. “When we got married we thought we would want to always be together, and one of the best things about being married was that we had you. We are so happy we have you! But now your mom/dad and I have decided that we are not happy living together and should live apart. We both love you very much and are doing everything we can to keep things as normal as possible for you. Are there any changes in particular you are concerned about?”

Don’t make the mistake of thinking teenagers need much more information than that. Parents sometimes get drawn in by teens’ questions and talk to them as if they were adults, telling them many more details than they would a pre-teen child. But developmentally, teens still have minimal understanding of intimate relationships, and no understanding of the complexities of a long term marriage. Empathize with their curiosity but keep the boundary of your adult marital relationship private. You can also ask why they want to know, and then address their concern, for example, a teen might wonder if fights over his/her acting out caused the divorce, or how they will know as an adult if their marriage will last.

Who wanted/asked for the divorce? – When there is one parent who does not want the divorce, this can be a difficult question for that parent to feel comfortable answering because they want to let their child know they did not make a choice to end the marriage, and they don’t want to lie and say it was a joint decision when it wasn’t. There are some important things to keep in mind as you navigate this question.

First, it is not good for children to like one parent and dislike the other. You may think you are the “good guy” in this scenario, but that can be short-lived. If you throw the other parent under the bus as the one who broke up the family, that parent will only be able to tolerate that for so long before they start to defend their decision and say, “Well, your mom/dad did x-y-z horrible things that drove me to ask for a divorce.” This results in the child’s emotions yo-yoing between being angry at each parent. Happy, healthy, well-adjusted children feel close to both parents and have a good relationship with both parents. A better option is to say, “We don’t think it is good for you to get caught up in the details of our problems. There is no good guy or bad guy here. We love you.”

Second, if it is important to you to let your child know that you did not end the marriage because you want to convey certain values you hold, consider doing it at a more developmentally appropriate time when the child is older, such as in college. Likewise if it is important to you to convey that one does not need to stay in an unhappy marriage and can start over. Whenever you do it, do not demonize the other parent. Say, “Your mom/dad and I had a difference of opinion as to whether we should divorce. My belief was we should continue to work on the marriage, and that marriage is forever. Your mom/dad’s belief was that there can come a point in marriage when if things aren’t working it’s better to divorce than remain in an unhappy relationship.” In presenting these as two opposing points of view you are able to express your values without demonizing the other parent.

Will I get to decide where I live? – or – Will I have to choose where I stay? – or – Who will I spend the holidays with? “We definitely want to hear your thoughts and feelings as we make this decision. Ultimately it is mom and dad who make this decision, but we want to hear from you before we do. Are there any specific concerns you have, or ideas you have?” Realize this is a difficult topic for many children to discuss, and they may be inclined to hide their real thoughts or concerns from their parents as they don’t want to be seen as taking sides. It may be helpful to have the children visit a child psychologist who acts as a child specialist in divorce and is experienced in interviewing children and eliciting their true thoughts and feelings.

Why is my mom/dad so stupid, or such a jerk? – Think about what you would say to your kid if they came home and said that about another kid at school. “What happened that makes you say that?” Listen and then follow up with validation of their frustration as well as “Remember that it’s not nice to call people names. You can say what you think or feel but you are not allowed to name call.”

Why didn’t dad/mom show up? –This is not your chance to get into their irresponsibility, etc. Reflect their pain and confusion and have a back-up plan for something fun if this is a pattern. “I’m not sure what happened but I know this makes you feel sad/angry/and/or disappointed. Would you like to go do ……?”

Why are we living in an apartment, eating beans and rice, taking the bus? Do not tell your child that the other parent is not paying child support. “Well, money is tight right now so we have to make some changes for a while.”

Why are we meeting in McDonalds, at school, at Target instead of one of our homes? Again, this is not an opportunity to talk about the conflict between parents. If the following is true, say, “It’s easier and faster for me and mom/dad if we meet here. Does it bother you?” If the answer is yes, what bothers them about it and can that be worked with? If that is clearly a lie and it is not faster or convenient, say, “Mom/Dad and I have decided meeting at this location helps exchanges go smoothly. Did you know lots of divorced families do the same thing?” And check in to see if it bothers the child.

Why don’t I get to see mom/dad? – This can vary based on the situation. Is there a mental health or substance abuse problem? If so, “Mom/Dad is having some problems right now so they need time to deal with that before they see you again.” Only say this if it’s true. Do not make promises that they are going to see someone again, if they are not. Telling them their parent is sick can be very scary and younger kids might assume they will die or worry that they (child) will become sick, too. If there has been abuse, then address it. “Mom/dad isn’t allowed to spend time with you because they hurt you/me and this is meant to keep us safe. I know you probably miss mom/dad so would you like to talk about that?”

Really stumped by a question? When in doubt, ask your child open ended questions about what they are thinking and feeling. This can help you recognize what they are really concerns about, and inform how you want to respond to them.