Written on
February 9, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times reveals the teacher’s view of family vacations and missed classes.
Wendy Knight writes (excerpt):
“Personally, I understand it, because they want to visit family,” Mrs. Amaya said. “But as a teacher, it’s a pain. I have to go back and teach them everything they’ve missed.”
Teresa Plowright, editor of a family travel Web site, travelwithkids.about.com, agrees, saying, “It places a real burden on teachers.”
Mrs. Plowright, who has three children and sometimes travels with them when school is in session, obtains assignments from the teachers before a trip. (Another site with articles about family travel issues, including taking children out of school, is www.familytravelforum.com; a yearly subscription costs $38.)
Some principals discourage teachers from providing work in advance, however, since it appears to condone the taking of kids out of school for vacation. Absenteeism, even for a week, disrupts the learning process, educators say. While some work can be completed during or after a trip, lectures and classroom discussions are impossible to replicate.
“Long absences from school sends a dismissive message to the child about the importance of school,” said Marlene Maron, director of psychology at Fletcher Allen Health Care and the Vermont Children’s Hospital, both in Burlington, Vt. She noted that parents initiated such time off when it met their own needs, not necessarily those of the child.
Additionally, she said, “It can breed resentment in peers left in the classroom, particularly if there are group projects going on.”
***
Missing even a few days of school is often difficult for a child.
“They miss quite a bit of information, even for one day, and when they return, their responsibilities have doubled,” said Nancy Reaven, a health care consultant in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif., who has two daughters, 15 and 12. “Frankly, the hassle associated with being behind is not worth it.”
Posted in Families/Children 
No Comments »
Written on
February 8, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Sports Illustrated highlights the State of Michigan as part of its 50th anniversary celebration. The SI list of the 50 greatest athletes included:
1 Joe Louis, Detroit
Brown Bomber’s 12-year reign (1937-49) was longest of any heavyweight champion; won 25 consecutive title defenses.
2 Earvin (Magic) Johnson, Lansing
Took Michigan State to 1979 NCAA championship; won three MVP awards while leading Lakers to five NBA titles.
3 Charlie Gehringer, Fowlerville
Had 2,839 career hits, all as a Tiger; started at second base for AL in first six All-Star Games.
4 Bennie Oosterbaan, Muskegon
All-America in football and basketball at Michigan in 1920s; coached Wolverines to ‘48 NCAA football title.
5 Hal Newhouser, Detroit
Won 80 games from 1944 to ‘46 with Tigers; two MVP awards and one world championship.
6 Dave DeBusschere, Detroit
Averaged 26.8 points as senior at Detroit; player-coach of Pistons at age 24; pitched for White Sox; starred on two NBA title teams with Knicks.
7 Ron Kramer, Eastpointe
Two-time football All-America and three-time basketball team MVP at Michigan; played tight end for Lombardi’s Packers.
8 Kirk Gibson, Pontiac
All-America wide receiver at Michigan State; hit Game 5 homer to clinch 1984 World Series for Tigers; famed pinch homer for Dodgers in Game 1 in ‘88.
9 Fielding Yost, Ann Arbor
His four undefeated football teams from 1901 to ‘04 made Michigan a national power.
10 Stanley Ketchel, Grand Rapids
Won middleweight title in 1908; had a 52-4-4 record with 49 knockouts.
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
February 6, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Shipley tells you how to read minds in “Stop the Guessing Game.”
Deb Dowdle writes (excerpt):
What do you really need and how do you best communicate it?
Learning to communicate our specific needs and wants is a learned skill. And it is an absolutely critical
part of effective communication. So, what’s it going to take to learn this skill?
First, start with YOU! . . . Become as self-assured as possible, knowing you’re capable of being and becoming what you need to be in order to create successful relationships.
Learn to effectively manage your emotions and thoughts. Live everyday by your personal set of unchanging “core values”. These will define who you are and give you confidence. Take full responsibility for your stewardships, keeping your promises to yourself and others. And learn to cope with change gracefully. . . .
Second, reach out to others. Develop an interest in learning about the personalities of others
and how they interact. Become concerned about their emotional needs, goals and perspectives. Learn to listen empathically (without the need to respond or relate and try to feel what they’re saying.). You must truly care about other if you wish to earnestly serve them!
Third, time to make a difference! Before you decide to start expressing your needs and wants to
others, account to yourself if you have a sincere desire to see others receive the same courtesies.
Evaluate yourself with the questions* below. Remember, it takes a lifetime to feel comfortable to
give a resounding YES to any of them. But aspiring to becoming this kind of person will open the doors
to creating an environment where your desires are met as well.
[*Questions]
Can you quietly listen to someone else express themselves without interrupting?
Can you ask probing questions to help others better articulate what they are trying to communicate?
Can you praise someone else without feeling that you are devaluing yourself?
Can you give constructive feedback to “lift” others?
Are you willing to take the time to foster the needs of someone else?
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
February 5, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The 17th Circuit Court and the Court’s ADR Plan Oversight Committee is holding an informational meeting for Kent County domestic mediators on the afternoon of February 26, 2004. If you are an approved mediator in Kent County, or you are planning to serve as a neutral mediator in this circuit, you should contact the ADR Clerk Diane Johnson at (616) 632-5052.
The meeting will discuss:
Updates on policies and procedures related to the ADR Plan and will take your questions
Some of the most common complaints against mediators and a mechanism required by court rule to receive and respond to those complaints
Scheduling Conference Statements and Case Flow
Courtview
Mediator Applications and Approval Maintenance
Mediator Status Reports, Order of Referral and Notice
Standard of Conduct for Mediators
Quality Assurance Procedure
Fee Agreements
Evaluative Mediation & Its Use
Posted in Mediation/ADR No Comments »
Written on
February 4, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Principles:
1. Keep it simple; limit the testimony to clearly significant, important facts and opinion.
2. Use simple, carefully chosen language and ask the witness to explain complicated concepts and technical words.
3. Focus the witness’ attention on the jury.
4. Organize logically.
5. Highlight significant aspects of the witness’ background and credentials.
6. Articulate the claims and evidence being addressed.
7. Direct the witness’ attention to specified portions of evidence referred to by an opponent.
8. Use hypothetical questions which include the particular evidence and claims that the witness will refute.
9. Elicit description, then action.
10. Elicit general and flowing descriptive narratives.
11. Use pace.
12. Use repetition to highlight important evidence.
13. Volunteer weaknesses.
14. Listen to the answers.
Structure:
Name, address business or occupation
Relationship to case
Experience, education or training
Sources of knowledge, information and opinions
Facts: scene, description of scene, action, results
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
February 3, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
CNN/Money gives the short guide (5 tips) to prenups.
Lewis Schiff writes (excerpt):
Ensure that it’s needed. Sit down with your spouse-to-be and outline exactly what each of you would want to accomplish with a prenuptial agreement. State laws already cover how property is divided during divorce, so it usually only makes sense to have a prenuptial when both parties want a different outcome.
Get legal assistance. Prenuptial agreements are legal, enforceable contracts and the laws governing them vary from state to state, so this is one time you should not try to do it yourself. To ensure an agreement that addresses your particular needs and is fair to everyone, each party should consult with their own family lawyer.
Make full disclosure. Both sides need to disclose all of the assets and liabilities they are bringing to the marriage. Failing to so will usually void the agreement. You’ll need to consider
Keep it strictly financial. Courts will only uphold agreements that are monetary in nature. So don’t try to sneak in anything about requiring your future spouse to take out the trash every week.
Plan ahead. While there’s nothing to stop you from drafting this kind of agreement after you’re already married, I recommend doing it before — when you’re madly in love and have your partner’s best interests at heart.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
February 2, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
CNN/Money reminds us that of that refrain “money can’t buy me love.”
Jeanne Sahadi writes (excerpt):
So whenever you find yourself fantasizing about having a wealthy spouse (perhaps after barking at your short-of-a-million honey), consider some of the potential challenges you’d face:
“Controlling share” is not just a corporate term. Making decisions in a marriage is always a bit of a power struggle. But if your partner has 1,000 times more wealth than you, does he or she get 1,000 times more say in how money is used and how much you get to spend?
***
Money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s made by Type-A personalities who may rely on sweat shops. Sometimes a partner’s wealth, whether earned or inherited, can become a source of conflict when you learn how the money was made and realize those methods clash with your values.
***
Meet the parents. They may be running your life. If your partner inherited money, his or her family may have a lot of say in what you and your kids will be doing for the next 20 years. Conditions of trust funds may include the schools your kids must attend. And the culture of wealth may start to overtake your daily living in ways you’d never expect.
***
How’s ’bout you help manage the money, honey? One way to preserve your identity in a marriage of unequal means is to keep pursuing your career.But what if you luck out and marry a rich spouse who not only wants to share the wealth but wants you to take an active role in managing it? All of sudden you’ve not only married into money, you’re being asked to make it your life’s work.
***
Like filling bottomless pits? Sometimes it’s not you but your partner who has an identity crisis.Suppose the wealth holder can’t get over the suspicion that you only married him or her for the money. That mistrust, sometimes ingrained from a young age, “puts an extra burden on the spouse” to show the wealthier partner he or she is truly loved, Pearne noted.
***
Bad news. Prince Charming can leave, die or fail. This is a particularly troublesome fact for women who become dependent on wealthy husbands after making home and family their focus, but it also applies to working wives who leave all the money management to their wealthier husbands.
***
“It’s wonderful to marry money,” she said, but at the end of the day, “you’re your only source of security.”
Posted in Relationships 2 Comments »
Written on
February 1, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Cox News Service presents the ten most frequent challenges of being a parent.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
1. Remaining calm. . . .
2. Staying physically fit. . . . Maintaining an exercise regiment becomes important for a parent’s health and to meet the many demands of parenthood.
3. Letting go. . . . Knowing when and how to let our children experience the real world is a tough part of being a parent.
4. Dealing with friendships. Aside from parents, our children’s friends are the most important influence on their development. You want some impact on those decisions, but beyond grade school it’s difficult.
5. Avoiding being overprotective. We want our children to be safe, but the world feels so dangerous. There is an inclination of parents to overly supervise and safeguard their children from any pain or perceived threat. In doing so, we leave them ill-equipped to deal with the real world when they are beyond our supervision.
6. Dealing with the personalities of different children in the same family. . . . Flexibility is the key, as parents learn to adjust to the different needs of each of their children.
7. Living in a society with values that seem so wrong. We see many acts of kindness and caring, but we also experience a world of hate, nastiness and dishonesty. . . .
8. Being a good role model. What we do teaches more than what we say. . . .
9. Staying consistent. Parents have been persuaded that being consistent is critical to being an effective parent. It’s an impossible and unnecessary standard. Parents feel they are somehow hurting their child if they occasionally vary their rules and consequences depending upon the situation.
10. Balancing your personal needs with those of your children and spouse. . . . It’s knowing when to do what that seems to be the most difficult part of having children.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 30, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
ABCnews looks at why girls consider suicide.
Lee Dye writes (excerpt):
Part of the answer emerges in a major study published in the January issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The simple answer is girls need close, personal friends more than boys, and when those friendships fail girls are far more likely to think of ending it all.
The study, by sociologists James Moody of Ohio State University and Peter Bearman of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University, draws from a wealth of data collected during 1994 and 1995. That data is part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, which resulted from interviews with thousands of adolescents across the country in an effort to measure the health and welfare of our young people.
Bearman and Moody combed through the data to see what they could learn about teenage suicides. They had expected to find some difference between boys and girls, but they were not prepared for the scale of that difference.
They found that girls were twice as likely as boys to attempt suicide if they had few friends and were isolated from their peers.
“That’s an astonishing figure,” says Moody. Isolation among girls ranks right up there with having a friend who commits suicide in terms of causing a youngster to think about ending it all. But it had no effect on boys.
The statistics also show that it’s important for a girl’s friends to be friends with each other.
***
The difference in the statistics for males and females lies primarily in their relationships with their friends, the researchers conclude.
“Boys’ relationships tend to be more diffused,” Moody says. “They hang out as a group, and the relationships are much more fluid.”
“Girls spend a lot of time on their phones, in close, tight-knit social relationships,” he says. You don’t have to be a sociologist to see girls involved in intimate conversations, exchanging secrets that boys would never reveal. Take away those friends, and girls have fewer places to turn.
The study also suggests that when those relationships fail, girls tend to internalize it all. Boys, Moody says, tend to externalize it, making them more likely to carry a weapon to school to seek revenge. That, too, often results in suicide, but Moody says that’s probably not the main motive. Boys just want to get even, he says, and girls are more likely to blame themselves.
Of course, it’s easy to generalize these things and draw broad, sweeping conclusions on the basis of scant evidence. Peer relationships are very complex, and there’s probably a little bit of the chicken and the egg question here.
Are girls who consider suicide pushed that way because they are isolated, or are they isolated because they are a bit suicidal and not exactly the kind of person anyone wants to hang out with?
“That’s a great question,” Moody says. “And we don’t have a perfect answer.”
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 30, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times exposes the emotional side of dividing up the personal property in a divorce.
Jesse Kornbluth writes (excerpt):
We left it to lawyers to work out the financial part of the divorce. All we had to do — and our lawyers were clear we had to do this ourselves — was divide our marital property.
Easier said than done.
The common wisdom at moments like this is “get on with your life.” By which people mean: “Leave everything to your wife. Start fresh.”
On a practical level, I could not do this because I’d been writing about décor and design long enough to know that replacing my share of our furniture, art and tchotchkes would cost a great deal more than it had in 1986. Back then, I had flown to London, where my wife was then living, with $3,000 in cash. In three days, it bought a venerable mahogany breakfront, a Biedermeier table and armchair, a painted screen faded dark as a Rembrandt, a folding card table so well used the green felt was ripped and a bunch of antique table lamps. Once we were settled in New York, we acquired a couch, silver side tables with mirrored mercury-silver tops, a George Smith coffee table and a wonderfully worn Oriental rug. Add a Duane Michals photo and some English watercolors, and we were talking about a significant collection of stuff.
It was, however, the sentimental value that mattered more. The end of any marriage is painful, and I spent my share of evenings playing Nick Drake and Leonard Cohen dirges. But most of my memories of our marriage were sunny. For me, those 12 years were about a big love story, the writing of seven books by my wife and three books and innumerable magazine articles by me, and, most of all, the creation — with the enlightened cooperation of the children’s father — of a functional blended family that shared summer houses and spent holidays together.
I do not believe there’s such a thing as closure. I think one’s history is a life companion. My wife and I might be getting divorced, but I was not divorcing the children. As much as possible, I wanted to march into the future with them or, because they were both away at school when their mother and I separated, with the things that they had used and cherished.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 29, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
ABCnews reports on ministers refusing to marry prospective couples.
G. Jeffrey MacDonald writes (excerpt):
Among the signs of a raised bar is increased usage of premarital inventory tools among clergy who counsel couples. In 1993, just 100,000 couples took such tests measuring communication skills and compatibility in such areas as finances, sex, children, and religion. Today, about 800,000 use such an inventory, according to Michael McManus, founder of the national marriage strengthening project, Marriage Savers.
Since 10 percent of inventories come back with a “don’t proceed” message, 80,000 couples a year find their wedding plans facing a red light. Clergy seem increasingly willing to deliver the bad news, with hopes of preventing future disaster.
“You’re seeing more pastors saying no [to the couple wanting to marry] because the inventories suggest it,” McManus said. “Most churches have become wedding factories. Organized religion has some responsibility here that it has not borne.”
Although major inventories rely largely on a common set of criteria, not all pastors say no for the same reasons.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 28, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
OPENING STATEMENTS:
Content:
1. Be as brief as possible.
a. Long enough to cover subject.
b. Short enough to keep interesting.
2. Include only what you know you can prove.
3. Present characters, setting, story.
4. Personalize your client.
5. Discuss basis of claim or defense (elements).
a. Incorporate into story if possible.
6. Emphasize strong points.
7. Consider briefly stating problems/weaknesses and show how overcome.
8. Emphasize fundamental weaknesses in opponent’s case.
9. Highlight facts which resolve conflicts in testimony in your favor.
10. Explain technical terms.
11. Explain vital pieces of evidence/witnesses/use of depositions.
12. Tie in closing argument if possible.
a. Phrases.
b. Structure.
Structure:
1. Introduction:
a. Tell what kind of case.
b. Find something dramatic, interesting, or identifiable.
c. Get attention with something compelling and strongly put.
2. Middle:
a. Present characters, setting, story.
b. Tell the story.
c. Tell from client’s prospective.
d. Let facts argue for you (statement not argument).
3. Conclusion:
a. Essence of claim or defense.
b. Finish with confidence.
c. Explain remedy or verdict you want.
Delivery:
Be yourself.
Talk to the trier-of-fact and use conversational tone.
Be clear, simple and uncomplicated.
Don’t read. Maintain eye contact.
Be confident. Be forceful and positive without being argumentative.
Use exhibits and visual aids if appropriate (especially maps, photos, diagrams).
Tell a story.
Be animated. Give it emotion. Excite, interest, entertain = persuade.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
January 27, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
In Michigan, we are adapting to the changes in our rules of evidence relating to expert testimony (MRE 702, 703).
The Federal Judicial Center reports on an interesting study (pdf file) addressing expert testimony in federal civil trials. The report, “Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials,” by Carol Krafka, Meghan A. Dunn, Molly Treadway Johnson, Joe S. Cecil and Dean Miletich, was originally published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2002, vol. 8, no. 3, pages 309-332 (2002, American Psychological Association).
The report includes these findings (excerpt):
Judges, for example, appear to be taking a more active role in scrutinizing expert evidence, although their decisions concerning admissibility still tend to rely more heavily on the traditional Frye general acceptance test (Frye v. US, 1923) than on Daubert criteria . . . .
***
The most frequent reasons cited by judges for excluding testimony relate to traditional rules governing expert testimony. In 1998, judges most frequently said they excluded testimony because it was not relevant (47%), because the witness was not qualified (42%), or because the proffered testimony would not assist the trier of fact (40%). Similar reasons applied to judges’ earlier decisions to exclude testimony, the most frequently cited reasons in 1991 being that the testimony would not have assisted the trier of fact (40%) and that the witness was not qualified (36%). The earlier survey did not include an option for judges to indicate whether exclusion was based on a decision that the expert’s testimony was not relevant. Other reasons for exclusion in more than 15% of the trials referenced in 1998 were that the facts or data on which the expert’s testimony was based were not reliable (22%), that the prejudicial nature of the testimony outweighed its probative value (21%), and that the principles and methods underlying the expert’s testimony were not reliable (18%). About 10% of judges said they excluded evidence because the proffered evidence was repetitious and wasteful of court time, and an equal number said the expert’s testimony was not applied reliably to the facts of the case.
As noted, 18% of judges who excluded expert testimony said they did so in part because they deemed the methods and principles of the expert unreliable. The evaluation of an expert’s methodology is consistent with judicial application of Daubert criterion for determining admissibility. Judges invoked other Daubert criteria only rarely, however. They cited problems with the acceptance of the expert’s methods by others in the field, the absence of peer review, and insufficient theory testing in fewer than 8% of the cases in which they excluded evidence. Problems with the nonfalsifiable nature of an expert’s underlying theory and difficulties with an unknown or too-large error rate were cited in less than 2% of cases.
***
The two most frequent problems with experts cited by judges and attorneys involve experts who become advocates for the side that hired them and the excessive expense of hiring experts. These two problems received mean judge and attorney ratings above the scale midpoint, indicating that they occurred with some regularity. No other problems were rated above the midpoint by judges, and attorney ratings for other problems fell at or below the midpoint.
***
Judges are handling admissibility issues most often in the context of motions in limine and objections to expert evidence raised at trial. Motions in limine are in much greater use than they were prior to Daubert, so it is not surprising to find that judges are holding more pretrial Daubert-like hearings than previously. The bases for limiting or excluding testimony do not appear to have been greatly affected by Daubert, at least not with respect to the cases we sampled. Judges who excluded testimony in the recent survey did so most often because it was not relevant, the witness was not qualified, or the testimony would not have assisted the trier of fact. These reasons are similar to reasons most frequently cited by judges in 1991, and they do not reflect the factors cited in Daubert.
In addition to changing the way judges deal with expert evidence, Daubert appears to have altered the behavior (or at least the self-reported behavior) of many attorneys. Perhaps in response to the increasingly active role of the judges in excluding or limiting testimony, attorneys reported more closely scrutinizing the credentials of their own experts and filing more motions to exclude opposing expert evidence. They also reported greater involvement in the preparation of their expert’s testimony.
Although expert testimony has received increased judicial attention in the years since Daubert, problems with testifying experts have been largely unaffected by the passage of time. Judges and attorneys in the recent surveys reported frequent problems with partisan experts and the excessive expense of experts. These same issues dominated in pre-Daubert times.
Posted in Procedures/Rules No Comments »
Written on
January 26, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently honored its 2003 volunteer mediators in family law cases. In the court’s press release, Court of Appeals Chief Judge William Whitbeck explained, “We could not offer this service without the good offices of these volunteers. Thanks to them, one in three cases in this program settle, with savings of time, money, and emotional wear and tear for the parties.”
Judge Michael J. Talbot, Chair of the Court of Appeals Settlement Committee, said, “Our goal is to have 95 percent of all cases disposed of within 18 months. Accordingly, in the settlement program, we do not suspend filing or other deadlines.”
The twenty-six attorneys from Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Marquette, Okemos, St. Joseph and Traverse City included:
Bruce A. Barnhart, Grand Rapids
Roger W. Boer, Grand Rapids
Jennie Boldish Bryan, Grand Rapids
Jayne A. Dykema, Grand Rapids
Anthony P. Gauthier, Grand Rapids
Mary L. Koewers, Grand Rapids
Norman K. Kravitz, Grand Rapids
Diann J. Landers, Grand Rapids
Donna E. Mobilia, Grand Rapids
Robert B. Relph, Grand Rapids
Richard A. Roane, Grand Rapids
David C. Sarnacki, Grand Rapids
Richard M. Spruit, Grand Rapids
Ann M. Stuursma, Grand Rapids
Connie R. Thacker, Grand Rapids
Diane J. Wechter, Grand Rapids
James W. Zerrenner, Grand Rapids
Robert J. Barnard, Jr., Kalamazoo
W. Jack Keiser, Kalamazoo
Janice K. Cunningham, Lansing
Keldon K. Scott, Lansing
Karl P. Numinen, Marquette
Meri Anne Stowe, Okemos
Deborah L. Berecz, St. Joseph
Robert B. Guyot, III, Traverse City
Charles B. Judson, Traverse City
The forty-six attorneys from Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Midland, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne counties, and one from Florida, included:
Veronique M. Liem (Ann Arbor)
Diana Raimi (Ann Arbor)
Monika U. Holzer Sacks (Ann Arbor)
Harvey I. Hauer (Bingham Farms)
Barry L. Howard (Bingham Farms)
Sheldon G. Larky (Bingham Farms)
Mark A. Bank (Birmingham)
James P. Cunningham (Birmingham)
John F. Schaefer (Birmingham)
Denise R. Alexander (Bloomfield Hills)
Evanne L. Dietz (Bloomfield Hills)
Edward D. Gold (Bloomfield Hills)
Ronald Graham (Bloomfield Hills)
Albert L. Holtz (Bloomfield Hills)
David W. Potts (Bloomfield Hills)
Evelyn L. Redmond (Bloomfield Hills)
Carol A. Barringer (Brighton)
Robert K. McKenzie (Brighton)
Richard M. Trost (Brighton)
Felice V. Iafrate (Clinton Township)
Max D. McCullough (Clinton Township)
Zenell B. Brown (Detroit)
Margaret M. Tobin (Detroit)
John R. Urso (Detroit)
Susan E. Paletz (Farmington)
Nina Dodge Abrams (Farmington Hills)
Joseph E. Baessler (Flint)
Scott G. Bassett (Bradenton, Florida)
Katherine L. Barnhart (Grosse Pointe)
Ann M. Tobin-Levigne (Grosse Pointe Woods)
Peter L. Conway (Lapeer)
Joseph R. Novosel (Marysville)
Charlotte L. Allen (Midland)
Carl E. Chioini (Mount Clemens)
Daniel T. Stepek (Mount Clemens)
Marc Sherbow (Pontiac)
Sharon Parrish (Port Huron)
Keith D. Zick (Port Huron)
Elizabeth McKenna (Plymouth)
James P. Ryan (Plymouth)
William M. Brukoff (Southfield)
Laura E. Eisenberg (Southfield)
Amy M. Spillman (Southfield)
Jessica R. Woll (Southfield)
Sandor M. Gelman (Troy)
Kathleen G. Galen (Warren)
Paul A. Longton (Wyandotte)
Posted in Mediation/ADR 1 Comment »
Written on
January 25, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Charlotte Observer presents tips for treating kids differently.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
• Stay flexible. Don’t strive to treat your children alike. They have different personalities, needs, wants and temperaments. Parents seem reluctant to treat their children differently from each other for fear of being criticized as being unfair.
Children are very sensitive to real and perceived differences in how their parents interact with them and their siblings. Any hint that one child is receiving any type of special treatment evokes an outcry of “it’s not fair.”
Parents should not be held hostage to this accusation. Stop trying to be fair to your children, and instead focus on being effective. Their needs are different, and you should adjust your discipline and parenting style accordingly.
• Respect individual differences. One of the many exciting things about having more than one child is an appreciation of how children from the same family can develop so differently from each other.
Don’t compare your children. You can enjoy both the achievement of your first born while appreciating the humor and outgoing personality of your second child. One is not “better” than the other.
• Talk with other parents. Talking with other parents and reading about second children helps parents develop realistic expectations of what it will be like to parent your second child.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 24, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
AZCentral explains the difference between loving and liking your child.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
There are some things, even in the emotional security of a therapy session, that are very difficult to discuss. I have rarely met a parent who did not have a fundamental love and care for his or her child. However, I have met a number of parents who, with great guilt and embarrassment, acknowledge that they simply don’t like their child.
When parents talk with me about not liking their child, it is usually because of one of the following reasons:
My child reminds me of my ex-spouse. . . . It is hard for some parents to look beyond superficial characteristics and appreciate the unique personality of their child.
I have nothing in common with my child. . . . The early teen years are an especially high-risk time when this alienation may occur.
My child embarrasses and disappoints me. . . . The love may always be present, but how can you really like someone who is nasty and mean?
These are hard situations to talk about, and even harder to change. What I’ve learned from successful parents is the need to continue to reach out to your child at all ages. Find something, almost anything, that can help connect you to his or her world. With that connection will usually come an appreciation and liking for the type of person your child is becoming.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 23, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Time Magazine’s January 19, 2004 issue seeks the “Marriage Savers,” a “new breed” of relationship therapists
Richard Corliss and Sonja Steptoe write (excerpt):
Lately, however, a new breed of therapist and “marriage educator” is shaking up the profession. These therapists reject the passive, old-style therapies that emphasize personal growth over shared commitment and take a more aggressive, hands-around-the-neck approach to saving marriages. “They feel therapists have been too quick in calling an end to relationships and having people move on,” says University of Chicago sociology professor Linda Waite. The new breed also advocates premarital skill training and early intervention in problems–learning the ropes before tying the knot. “It’s like a vaccination,” says Waite, “instead of having to do surgery when something goes wrong.”
***
Sadoff, a clinical social worker trained in PREP, explains the method to the Lewises and a younger couple sharing the session. They are to agree to set aside a time each week to talk over their problems. These discussions must follow certain rules, which can be posted on the refrigerator door. “The word I is allowed,” Sadoff says. “You is not.” The partners take turns talking, without interruption. The speaker makes brief statements, which the listener must paraphrase to show he understands what was said. There are also time-outs, which allow one partner to leave the room for an emotional break. . . .
***
[D]uring arguments, couples in stable relationships have five times as many positive factors present as negative ones. “In relationships that were working, even during conflict, there was a rich climate of positive things, such as love, affection, interest in one another, humor and support. Couples in unstable unions had slightly more negative factors than positive.”
Conflict is endemic in a relationship, Gottman says, but adds–with peculiar precision–that “only 31% of conflicts get resolved over the course of a marriage. The other 69% are perpetual, unsolvable problems.” His insight: don’t bother trying to fix the unfixable. Spend your energy on selecting a mate with whom you can manage those inevitable annoyances, then learn how to manage them. To admit some problems can’t be solved is the first step toward finding a larger solution. Says Gottman: “We try to build up the couple’s friendship, their ability to repair conflict and to deal with their gridlock.”
The Gottman technique usually involves a $495 two-day workshop, followed by nine private therapy sessions costing $1,260, which Gottman recommends as a supplement. These attempt to conquer the four most common, corrosive negative factors in unstable unions: criticism (You never … You always …), defensiveness (Who me? I’m not defensive), contempt (You’re too stupid to realize how defensive you are) and stonewalling (I’ll just let it blow over). Gottman says 85% of stonewallers are men.
***
Schnarch argues that the main issue for most troubled couples “isn’t their lack of communication skills. If spouses aren’t talking to each other, they are still communicating. They each know they don’t want to hear what the other has to say. But communication is no virtue if you can’t stand the message. We help people to stand the message.” He says couples don’t get that from conventional therapy, which tends to pathologize relationships rather than work with their strengths. In the Crucible system, “we don’t treat people like they’re sick. We speak to the best in people, not their weaknesses. We’re about developing resilience and standing up for yourself.” People in a troubled marriage say they have grown apart. Schnarch says it’s the opposite. “They’re usually locked together, emotionally fused. More attachment doesn’t make people happier, and it kills sex.”
Schnarch uses the word crucible in two senses: metallurgical (a strong cauldron) and metaphorical (a test or trial). Both definitions can aptly describe the state of marriage. So in his therapy it’s out with the elevator-music approach to saving marriages, in with the hard rock and harsh truths. Dare to tear apart the fuzzy, flabby, ego-suppressing dual personality that is your marriage and find your inner you. That effort will create a stronger individual, one who can deal with a partner with more integrity and authenticity.
***
To re-create a sense of connection between the couple, the EFT therapist creates an environment in which both spouses feel safe talking about their feelings, needs and fears. Like Suzanne and Tom, most couples are pleasantly surprised to hear that the feelings behind apparently hostile behavior are not rejection but a need to connect with their partner. Without that emotional security, Johnson says, all the communication skills in the world won’t rebuild a relationship. “You can teach people communication skills up the wazoo,” she says, “but if they’re afraid of losing the person they depend on, they don’t use them.”
***
“Traditional approaches ask people to look at the past and figure out why they’re stuck,” says Weiner-Davis, whose graduate degree is in social work. “But that insight generally leads people only to be experts in why they’re having a problem–and novices in what to do about it. People on the brink of divorce do not have the luxury of time to take this journey backward. They need an instant injection of hope.” Weiner-Davis encourages a dose of what she calls “real giving”–asking couples to realize what their partner needs in certain situations and provide what he needs regardless of whether the giver understands it. For example, if your spouse prefers to be alone when he’s upset, allow him quiet time, even if you prefer to talk when you’re upset.
Weiner-Davis’ action-oriented scheme suited Roth and Meredith. “It’s really freeing to just focus on the solution and clear out all the muck,” says Meredith. Weiner-Davis encourages couples to identify what they want the marriage to look like, then list actions they can take–dinner out once a week, playing tennis or golf together, help with the housework–to achieve those goals. “The concept of real giving is so simple, but it really gets at the heart of how to make a relationship work,” says Meredith.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 23, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
AZCentral addresses the problem of children not liking their parents.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
In spite of such turmoil, children overwhelmingly feel toward their parents the same way parents feel toward their children – an intense bond of love.
However, some children don’t like their parents. These young people never seem to emotionally connect with one or both of their parents.
Teens talk about having nothing in common with their parents, feeling like an outsider in the family, or wondering if their parents ever really wanted them.
***
I’ve never had much clinical success in trying to figure out the cause of the problem when children don’t feel emotionally connected to a parent. Instead, I ask both the parent and child to put aside the past and focus on the present. Get to know each other. Do some things together. Make an effort to reconnect.
Many parents are willing to make that effort, but some teens are not. They speak endlessly about their friends and fantasize how life will be perfect when they are away from their parents. There will come a time when these teens learn what parents already know. Friends are fine but can be fleeting; family is forever.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Pine Rest Christian Health Services (616.455.6500) is sponsoring a Parenting Conference in Grand Rapids on Saturday, February 7, 2004. The morning sessions run from 8:30 am to 12:15 pm. The event is free, open to public and being held in the new Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Arts and Worship at Grand Rapids Christian High School. There are 26 different workshops to choose from. These breakout presentations include:
Scott Shaw, Children of Divorce: How to help them get back on track
Brett May, Parenting Children with Attention Deficit Disorders
Phil Nienhuis, The Marriage-centered Family
Mary Copeland, Resources for Parenting
Mary Clark, Single Parenting
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Time Magazine’s January 19, 2004 issue seeks to understand how our love lives shape our minds, bodies and souls.
Jeffrey Kluger writes (excerpt):
“More and more in our field, we don’t even talk about sex anymore,” says anthropologist Gil Herdt, director of the Program in Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University. “We talk about sexuality. It’s something that involves the entire person, the whole life course, not just the sexual acts.”
Marrow agrees and takes the notion even further with the belief that human sexuality is a form of communication as much as it is of procreation. Nearly all creative acts are at least in part communicative. Songs are written to be sung to somebody else; pictures are painted to be hung for somebody else. Is it any surprise that sex–an act infinitely more intimate than any type of art–is also a creative way of communicating complex ideas and deep feelings? “The biologists think the biology comes first,” Marrow says. “I think consciousness is the first part of sex, and exploring that consciousness with another person is one of its purposes.” If Marrow is right, it’s no wonder that poetry and music are often included in the business of romance, if only to make that message richer.
Of course, artistry–even something as small as a well-chosen greeting card or a romantic setting for dinner–may open the sexual door, but something else must keep it from closing again. What sustains a physical relationship after the early romantic rounds end is something more nuanced than seduction and more enduring than passion. Often it’s something as wonderfully ordinary as stability. Partners who maintain a robust sex life are simply more likely to remain partners than those who don’t, something almost any couple knew long before the sex researchers thought to quantify it. If it is hard to be physical with a mate you’ve stopped loving, it can be equally hard to get to that cold point with a person with whom you still share the intimacy, exclusivity and, especially, vulnerability of sex. This is particularly true as the intoxication of a new relationship begins to fade and partners start to notice flaws they were too romantically tipsy to see before.
Not only does the relationship benefit from a steady sex life, but so can the physical and emotional health of the partners themselves. Research suggests that married people may live longer than singles, that happily marrieds do best of all, and that couples who remain at least somewhat sexual, even into their dotage, report a better level of satisfaction both with their relationships and with their lives as a whole. Certainly, it’s hard to say if people who start off happy and satisfied simply have more sex or if it’s the sex that makes them happy and satisfied. Whatever the answer, it’s clear that human beings would not be fully Homo sapiens–at least not as we’ve come to understand ourselves–without the great, mysterious, preposterous pageant of our sexuality.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
