Listening 5.2 COUNSELLING

Eileen Miller works as a Marriage guidance Counsellor for an organisation called Relate.

Listen, take notes and answer the following questions as fully as possible.

1. What type of person is suitable for the job?

2. Why does Eileen say a counsellor is not ‘someone with a stick of glue’?

3. What is the basic problem most clients have?

4. What is the first task Eileen mentions? Why would she set this task to a couple?

5. What was the second task? Why did she set it to the couple she mentions?

6. What does she mean by a ‘contract’?

7. What will she normally talk about in the first few sessions?

8. What might cause her to depart from the contract? Explain her reference to tissues.

9. Why does Eileen find that the word ‘counsellor’ is not a very good name?

10. Why does she mention the postcard she received?

Fill in the following with prepositional expressions. Each line represents a word.

a) Quite often it …………….. ………….. that in fact they stay together.

b) The underlying problem which my clients often have ………….. ………….. is a lack of communication.

c) Could you ………………. ………….. that a bit - the tasks?

d) I ……………….. ……………. a first session, which I suppose is essentially an assessment.

e) And then we will ……………. ……………. from there to deal with the problem that seem to be around.

f) Quite often the contract has to ……………. …………. ………….. …………. ………….

g) You have to deal with what I would call the ‘here and now’ problems which …………. ………………

h) We …………….. ………….. a lot of tissues.

i) And that actually for me ………….. …………… successful counselling.

Match these meanings to the expressions above.

1. happens, in the end

2. progress (to another stage, step)

3. shared

4. use up, consume

5. be abandoned (a plan, idea, policy, etc.)

6. say more about

7. occur unexpectedly (usually problems, situations, etc.)

8. expressed the essential point about

9. organize, arrange (meetings, etc.)

MARRIAGE MEDIATION

There is another option: some couples find using a mediator instead of an attorney can make for an equitable divorce

by Joanne Macrae

After a year of marriage counseling Owen and Sandra Bedford had reached a stalemate. Owen, a 37-year-old lighting-plant manager who had been raised in a traditional household where the wife did everything, said he was happy, even though he spent most of his time at home making intricate stained glass panels in his basement workroom. He wanted to continue the 11-year marriage. Sandra, 35, who had been suffering from recurring bouts of exhaustion and depression as she attempted to hold down her job as a public school teacher, as well as shouldering the burden of raising two preschoolers, wanted out. Still, it took their therapist to actually say the words: " The two of you are headed in opposite directions. Owen, you are going to have to accept the fact that Sandra has definitely decided to end this marriage."

Sandra proved the point by making an appointment for the following week with a Bay Street lawyer. Twelve floors up and two secretaries later, she was ushered into a spacious, thick-carpeted inner sanctum where she numbly took in the cityscape view. The lawyer, thirtysomething, feminist and in the full bloom of pregnancy, listened carefully and noted the details of Owen's assets, salary and the projected earnings from the new job he had just taken. After agreeing to take on Sandra as a client, she offered her first piece of advice: " Take him for everything you can get."

The Bedfords (not their real name) sound like a classic case. They were both stretched to the point of breaking, and both were suffering from severe emotional stress as they faced the painful reality of divorce. They were about to untangle their financial and personal lives under the watchful, adversarial gaze of their respective legal counsel.

Yet Sandra Bedford left the lawyer's office without scheduling another appointment, feeling as she said later, surprise and anger over the lawyer's lack of compassion for her husband.

" As far as she was concerned, he was simply an object to be exploited, " she says. " I wasn't going for blood. I just wanted to get out of the marriage quickly, with as little bitterness as possible."

The way she found, and one which an increasing number of Canadians are discovering, was divorce mediation. Acting on a friend's advice, she contacted a Mississauga, Ont., family mediator who explained the basics of the process. She was told that, ideally, a family mediator would be a neutral party who would help them walk through everything from the splitting of assets to custody arrangements, so they could walk away with a draft separation agreement that would be the foundation for their divorce. The idea was to make the process as quick and painless as separation can ever be, and by dealing directly, keep the cost down. Sandra Bedford was quoted a $ 700 fee for however many sessions it would take to arrive at a separation agreement.

With some difficulty, Sandra convinced Owen to try it. At their first session the mediator asked them background questions about why the marriage was ending and their ideas about how they would organize their lives apart. He then explained his approach. He said he was a lawyer and his expertise would be in helping them divide their assets and set support payments. A social worker would sit in on sessions where they were discussing issues of child custody and access, and a child psychologist would be available to counsel the children if the couple thought it necessary. He also made it clear that ethically he would not go along with anything that was patently unreasonable or unfair to one party, such as one or the other of them giving up any claim to a share in the family home.

Finally, he gave them " homework" for the next session. Each of them was to return with a list of assets, divided into " his" and " her" columns, with approximate market values attached.

Before deciding the fate of microwave ovens and antique clocks the Bedfords were able to make one mutual decision: they would use the mediator and split the fee equally. But as they soon discovered, mediation was still painful because it forced them to lay aside their differences and strike a series of bargains. It imposed a strict discipline on them. As Toronto mediator Jane Hartrick says, " In your lawyer's office, you can really bitch about the idiot you're married to. In the mediator's office, you may be forced to listen to your spouse bitch about you."

Mediators typically handle outbursts of rage, sometimes actually separating couples and giving them a " cool down" time. Likewise, they often have to prod flinty-faced spouses out of long, impenetrable silences. But invariably, they use an issue-oriented agenda, moving from simple issues to complex ones as they guide couples to agreements.

Dividing financial assets turned out to be the most contentious issues for Sandra and Owen. Because she'd forced the end of the marriage, he was angry and uncommunicative on the subject. Sandra initially did most of the talking, explaining what she wanted. And when the mediator pointed out that Sandra's demands were relatively modest in relation to what she was entitled to under the law, Owen started to thaw.

Owen was beginning to discover that mediation is about tradeoffs. For instance, he wanted to stay in the Westend Toronto home the couple had purchased two years before. They agreed Owen would buy out Sandra, who would take the proceeds and buy a townhouse nearby. They had the house professionally appraised for current market value. But to ease the financial burden on Owen, Sandra agreed to settle for half of the original purchase price of the home, rather than taking half the market value-which added up to a difference of about $15, 000.

In return, Owen agreed to waive all rights to the pension plan and RRSPs held in Sandra's name. (Sandra likewise made no claim on Owen's RRSPs nor on mortgage investments he held jointly with his father.) The mediator raised no objections to these terms.

Mediation presumes the equal bargaining power of both spouses. Critics point out that mediation may be lopsided in favor of the more " powerful" spouse, usually the husband. If mediators discover obvious intimidation or abuse, they will usually suspend or stop the sessions permanently.

More often though, imbalances are subtle and if unchecked result in unfair agreements. A wife eager to reconcile may agree to her husband's terms in a hopeless bid to win him back. Or a husband leaving his wife for another woman may feel guilty and cave in on every front. Sandra herself admits, " I took less than I was entitled to because I wanted to end the marriage with some peace of mind."

Both partners were also able to come away with peace of mind on the difficult issue of child custody. They agreed the children would live with her but would visit Owen one evening a week and every other weekend. He agreed to pay monthly support of $350 per child with an annual cost of living increase based on the inflation rate.

After just six sessions with the mediator, the Bedfords had a draft separation agreement they were both happy with. To obtain a no-fault divorce, it simply meant waiting one year from the date of separation. In the end, neither of them had to go to court. Their legal papers went to court with their respective lawyers, in a rubber-stamp process.

Three years later, Sandra and Owen have kept their agreement and, if anything, respect each other as parents more than ever. Many wives have trouble collecting child support, but Owen has made his payments faithfully. " People hate to pay support when they are humiliated, " observes Toronto lawyer and mediator Dr. Barbara Landau. " A parent is more likely to pay a higher amount, and pay it more consistently, when he or she negotiates the agreement."

Both Sandra and Owen say they're satisfied with the outcome of their mediation. As each of them points out, they saved money and came to amicable agreements over children and property-including the microwave oven, which he got, and Grandma's antique clock, which now sits in Sandra's townhouse. But as Sandra puts it, mediation may have had a far greater intangible value. " My mental health was such that I couldn't have stood a long battle with lawyers. I'd recommend it as the least painful way to go through a very painful time."

MEDIATORS VS. LAWYERS

Mediation attempts to defuse conflict by aiming for a no-fault separation agreement. The idea is to have direct communication between spouses. Lawyers, on the other hand, are like hit men: they're on your side and they don't go to court to lose. They'll happily embellish the faults of an opposing spouse to build a case. They're willing to have spouses communicate with one another, but only through them.

Toronto mediator Dr. Barbara Landau argues that when lawyers make demands on the phone, fire off threatening letters or hold meetings where the clients are not present, communications rapidly degenerate. " There's no eye contact in a letter, " she says. " When the couple meets face to face, misunderstandings can be cleared up very quickly."

Mediation by definition is a private affair. Divorce litigation is very public, and the contestants can be left with the feeling that a large number of people know the details of their finances, their businesses and their personal lives.

Mediation is blessedly quicker and cheaper than litigation. Generally, a marriage can be wrapped up in five to 10 sessions over a period of two or three months. The hourly cost of a mediator runs from $80 to $150 per hour, and is split between the couple. Lawyers cost from $140 to $300 an hour, although there's no upper limit. Warring spouses have often spent from $10, 000 to $50, 000 in Ontario's courts to obtain their divorces.