Once the lawyers and judges have made their way out of your life, you are left with the often challenging job of co-parenting. If there was significant conflict between you and your former spouse, this can make joint decision-making for things like education and medical care seem like a minefield. Innocuous things like starting a new medication or changing an IEP can turn into a giant conflict.
Today's post details a technique you can use to circumvent many of those conflicts and hopefully avoid things like lawyers and dispute resolution.
In my experience, the origin of this conflict is frequently the history of the parties, and not the subject matter at hand.
This is best illustrated with an example. Let's say our hypothetical parents have a child who needs to go on a new medication for ADHD. Mom and Dad had a really contentious divorce and they are only a couple years post-finalization, so the wounds are still raw. Mom feels like Dad was an uninvolved parent. Dad feels like Mom is trying to force him out of all aspects of the parenting.
Let's say that Mom typically takes the child to the doctor, and that the need for this new medication was relayed to the mom by the doctor at the most recent visit. Since decision making is joint under the parenting plan, Dad will have to agree before the child can go on the new medication.
Mom's Worst Strategy: "I want the child to go on this medication. I need your agreement within 48 hours so I can get this scrip filled at the pharmacy."
Where to begin with this type of message? The message starts out with what Mom wants, as opposed to relevant information about the child or why the medication is needed. There's no reference to the doctor at all. The phrasing makes it seem as if the agreement is a foregone conclusion.
Dad may have absolutely no issue with the medication, but may have huge issues with Mom imposing her will on him or treating him like a second-class parent. Those issues are based on wounds from years prior, but they absolutely still exist and have an impact on the relationship. Dad may fight on general principle if approached like this, either out of spite or fear that he's going to get ignored as a parent if he does not push back.
Mom's Better Strategy: "The child's doctor wants him to go on this medication. I'd like to do what the doctor recommends. Are you OK with this? Let me know if you want to talk about it before I get back to the doctor."
We have now at least introduced the topic as coming from a third party. That may seem subtle, but it is not. Dad has baggage with Mom, and not the doctor. Having the request come from a neutral third party is a way to side-step the ocean of tension between Mom and Dad. Mom's phrasing helps a ton here, as well. It does not presume an outcome and it invites dialogue. These things may seem insubstantial, but as a professional communicator, I can tell you they make a mountain of difference.
Mom's Best Strategy: In a perfect world, if Mom knew this was on the horizon, she would have made sure Dad knew about the appointment in advance. It is always better from the other parent to get the guidance directly from the professional. It takes co-parent out of the loop entirely, and often saves time since the professional can answer any questions the other parent has. That is way better than a game of "telephone" with someone you have major history with.
Even if the other parent doesn't accept the invite to come to the appointment, it is still good to make the offer. It makes other parent feel included and makes a clear record that you are trying to make decision-making collaborative. (In this case, it also pushes against Dad's feelings that Mom is trying to push him out of the parenting.)
Assuming Dad didn't make the appointment, the ideal message about it might read something like this:
"The child's doctor wants him to go on this medication. Here are the reasons the doctor wants this. Do you want to talk to the doctor directly about this before we decide what to do, so he can answer any questions you have? If you're OK without talking to him, please let me know what you'd like to do."
Again, you are keeping the focus on the third party and not yourself. Your co-parent gets to have the agency of deciding if he/she wants to talk to the professional directly. Questions about his input are asked in a way that does not dictate an outcome.
This isn't a "magic bullet," of course. This strategy works often, but not always. If your co-parent is abusive or mentally unwell, these emails might be much shorter or matter of fact (but that is a different post). With that said, though, even with difficult co-parents, these methods can still work well. Even unwell people respond to them, and at bare minimum, consultation with experts and attempts at dialogue will put you in a very strong position if the matter does ultimately go to court.
Use in Other Contexts: This technique can be used in all sorts of places. By allowing the co-parent to get information directly from doctors, teachers, or coaches, so much of the baggage between the parties can be side-stepped. Any time you find yourself in one of these potential "battles of wills," look and see if there's another messenger that can come into the discussion.
As always, hope this helps.
Comments