Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Sun Herald reminds us that kids appreciate respectful speech.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
Words are extremely powerful. Words can hurt, soothe, excite or calm. Our language can convey disdain and disrespect, or courtesy and civility.
Let’s say you object to another person’s point of view. You can say, “Your ideas suck” or “I disagree with your ideas.” When you are very upset at your spouse, does it matter whether you say, “Shut up” or “Let’s not talk about this right now”?
It really does matter how you express your thoughts and feelings. Words are a reflection of good manners, and some words are better than others. Good manners help us get along with each other. They indicate a thoughtful and courteous way of relating to each other. They show respect for another person.
We live in a culture that seems so focused on encouraging people to express their feelings. Aren’t there times when we shouldn’t express the intensity of our feelings, and instead communicate in more moderated and muted tones? Maybe adults and young people need to stop expressing their feelings in whatever way feels right at the moment.
I’ve been very strict with this language rule in working with a number of young people of various ages and backgrounds. Here’s the good news: Young people respect such expectations and change their behavior accordingly.
Posted in Families/Children 
No Comments »
Written on
January 21, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
THEME AND THEORY OF CASE:
1. What it is:
a. Perspective you want the trier-of-fact to view case from.
b. Your position and approach to the evidence to be presented.
c. Persuasive theme integrating case.
2. What it does:
a. Reminds you what is important, what is not, and why.
b. Persuades the trier-of-fact to accept one of several disputed versions of case.
c. Unifies trial.
3. Benchmarks of a good theory:
a. Be grounded in strong facts and fair inferences based, as much as possible, on uncontested facts.
b. Be consistent with all uncontested facts.
c. Provide a basis to explain away in a plausible manner as many unfavorable facts as possible.
d. Have common-sense appeal which is readily acceptable by a trier-of-fact.
e. Not be based on wishful thinking about any phase of the case.
4. Construction:
Identify the legal and factual issues in the case.
Analyze evidence supporting your position.
Analyze evidence supporting your opponent’s position.
Compare the evidence and pinpoint the critical areas.
Think how to exploit your strong points and your opponent’s weak points.
Think how to “shore up” your weak points and your opponent’s strong points.
Come up with tentative theory.
Check theory against benchmarks.
Revise theory if necessary.
Consider your opponent’s probable theory.
Revise theory if necessary.
Discuss theory with others.
Revise theory if necessary.
5. Theme:
Summarize your theory in one sentence.
Weave into each phase of the trial.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
January 20, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The surcharge on past due support (MCL 552.603a) has been as amended. The Friend of the Court charge as of January 1 and July 1 of each year will “be calculated at 6-month intervals at an annual rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer. The amount of the surcharge shall not compound. “
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
January 20, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Daily Telegraph explained how a woman gave birth to two “unrelated” sons.
Roger Highfield writes (excerpt):
Although the woman, “Jane”, conceived them naturally with her husband, tests to see if she could donate a kidney suggested that somehow she had given birth to somebody else’s children.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr Margot Kruskall, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston, Massachusetts, showed that Jane is a chimera, a mixture of two individuals – non-identical twin sisters – whose cells intermingled in the womb and grew into a single body.
Dr Kruskall believes the most likely explanation is that Jane’s mother conceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of the pregnancy to form a single embryo, according to a report published today in New Scientist.
For some reason, cells from only one twin dominate in Jane’s blood – used for tissue-typing. In her other tissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both twins live amicably alongside each other, hence the apparently impossible genetics of her three sons.
One son came from an egg derived from the twin whose cells dominate Jane’s blood, while his brothers came from eggs derived from the other twin’s cells.
Around 30 similar instances of chimerism have been reported, and there are probably many more who will never discover their unusual origins. Most chimeras probably go through life unaware of their unusual constitution.
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
January 19, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times highlights the hazards of dating when you have a teenage daughter.
Jay Allison writes (excerpt):
Lillie: Is she one of the first five people I would guess? Is she Madonna or Britney Spears? Is she my English teacher? Does she have a gut? Is she good at poker? What’s on her iPod? Do you even know her last name? Does she have any scars?
Jay: You haven’t asked if she has a tattoo.
Lillie: Well, does she? Does she know you have a long hair on your nose? Does she work in public radio? Does she know whom she’s messing with? Does she wear glasses? Is she a pothead, an alcoholic, a psycho? Does she play games with your heart? Did you watch the sun set over a lake? Did the night watchman catch you hooking up? Does she wear hats? Does she know Britney Spears? Can she get me tickets? Is she good for things like that?
Jay: It was just a date, you know. . . .
Lillie: She’s not a Yankees fan, is she? Is she one of your old girlfriends, like the freckly one from ”Indiana Jones”? Does she kiss on the first date? Would she like me? Is she taller than me?
Jay: I’ll tell you one thing. We drove on Route 35, I’m not saying what state that’s in, and there was no one around, and it was late at night and rainy. We stopped the car and turned up the radio and danced in the road.
Lillie: High five! Well, as long as she makes you happy, Pa, I can’t hate her too much. . . . I can still egg her car, though.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 19, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
BBC reports on the exam fears of English children (excerpt):
Eight out of ten secondary school pupils worry about exams, a report by a children’s charity suggests.
The NSPCC also found that 10% were so concerned by problems at school that they were anxious about leaving home in the morning.
Meanwhile, a third of the 750 children interviewed across the UK said they were always worried about something.
***
Having nobody to discuss problems with was worrying for 47% of the young people questioned.
Parents and friends were criticised for not being supportive enough.
Problems such as abuse and bullying were also being kept hidden by a reluctance to talk, the NSPCC said.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 16, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing RYAN v RYAN (January 15, 2004, Case No. 240695). The decision is noteworthy for the breadth of issues covered and the comments regarding second-guessing a fit parent’s decisions.
Kelly writes (excerpt):
***
II. Mootness
“A case is moot when it presents only abstract questions of law that do not rest upon
existing facts or rights.” B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d
117 (1998). Generally, this Court need not reach moot issues or declare legal principles that
have no practical effect on the case “unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to
recur, yet evade judicial review.” Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112; 649
NW2d 383 (2002). Because this case was dismissed and plaintiff has since reached the age of
majority, the issues presented on appeal no longer rest upon existing facts or rights. But we
address the issues nonetheless because we find them of public significance likely to recur, yet
evade judicial review.
***
III. “Divorce” from Parents
The trial court’s September 19, 2000, ex-parte order and the order appointing the
guardian ad litem, entered pursuant to plaintiff’s complaint for divorce8 are void because the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action for “divorce from parents,” a claim
unrecognized in Michigan.
***
IV. Emancipation Petition
The trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s
emancipation petition because it was defective on its face and lacked factual support. Although
the trial court did not deny defendants’ motion, but instead granted Benedict’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice, we conclude that the trial court should have granted defendants’ motion for
summary disposition and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
***
V. Abuse and Neglect
Defendants’ also argue that the trial court improperly exercised its jurisdiction by
ordering plaintiff into temporary placement. We agree. Not only did the trial court err in failing
to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause existed to authorize the petition,
MCR 5.965, it denied defendants the right to a trial on the allegations in the petition, MCR
5.972.
***
VI. Conclusion
We are deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as
long as and in the manner in which it did. Based on improperly filed documents filed by an
attorney without authority to act on plaintiff’s behalf, the trial court, in a fundamental
misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, stripped defendants of their basic constitutional
rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. All of the orders entered
completely ignored that, absent a showing of parental unfitness, the state may not interfere with
an intact family.
We reverse and remand this case to the trial court with the direction to enter an order of
dismissal with prejudice in favor of defendants and vacate all previous orders. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes 1 Comment »
Written on
January 15, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Money mixes marriage and money in its discussion of financial goals. Gerri Willis writes (exceprt):
For help getting started, here are today’s five tips.
Tip 1: No secrets
Many couples can talk about religion, sex, and what they are going to name their kids. But often they’re far less open about money, which is frequently cited as a reason for divorce. . . .
Start by having small conversations. Not just one big one. And do it on your leisure time. Don’t try to fit it in on the way to work or when you both come home and are exhausted.
Tip 2: To combine or not to combine?
***
Figure out as a couple what your joint expenses are as well as how you want to save and how you want to spend your money.
If you are a younger couple without a lot of assets, a joint account can work well. . . .
But if you’re an older couple or going into a second marriage, separate accounts may make sense. . . .
A third option is to have a joint account for some expenses (joint savings and living expenses) and separate accounts for individual spending money. . . .
Tip 3: Things change
***
That’s why, in addition to monthly money meetings with your spouse to keep abreast of near-term financial issues, you should discuss your big money picture at least once a year.
***
And take time to discuss the “what ifs.” What if one partner loses his or her job? What if one wants to go back to school? What if someone gets a job in another part of the country? Will the other spouse be willing to pack up and move?
Tip 4: Forget gender roles
***
Whatever your situation, don’t buy into the notion that money equals power in a marriage . . . .
Remember, marriage is a team effort. So keep an open line of communication with your spouse to discuss your expectations and fears.
Tip 5: Discuss tough topics [estate planning, credit cards for women, prenuptial agreements]
Posted in Finances/Tax No Comments »
Written on
January 15, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The issue of domestic violence and mediation is addressed in virtually all mediation books and training materials. In his book, Mediating Child Custody Disputes, Donald Saposnek highlights the vigorous debate on this issue. He lists the competing arguments:
Concerns of critics of mediation–power imbalance, unfairness, safety, coercion, intimidation.
Supporters of mediation–better than litigation when safety precautions used, screening, separate waiting rooms, separate arrival/departure times, use of caucus methods, presence of support persons, safe terminations, trained and skilled mediators.
In his book, The Fundamentals of Family Mediation, John Haynes rejects a blanket prohibition (excerpt):
I reject the argument that abused women are not entitled to mediate because I believe that mediation gives all clients more control, and certainly an abused spouse needs all means to gain control over her own life. There is no evidence that the legal route provides any better control for the abused spouse. She gives control of her case to her attorney and a county prosecutor who decide for her. She must still deal with all of her fears and aching desire to get the divorce over and done with as quickly as possible. Every person contemplating divorce must negotiate a separation agreement. That is a requirement the state places on every married couple. People should opt to negotiate the separation agreement as a free choice.
Posted in Mediation/ADR No Comments »
Written on
January 14, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
A photo “fairy tale” essay summarizes a relationship book’s tips, punctuated with photographs, into 5 tips for changing your attitude (excerpt):
1. Make a list. When you find yourself feeling critical of your beloved, sit down and make a list of “All the Things I Still Love About My Mate.” This will remind you of why you first fell in love.
2. Start spreading the news. At least once a day, compliment each other. Because everyone loves to hear good news.
3. Learn what to say. (And how to listen.) When it comes to communication, men and women have different needs. Men need to hear they’ve done a good job. So remember to compliment him for things he does. (Even if he doesn’t do them that well.)
Women need to feel their man is listening. Men can help by learning the “Mantra for Men” and practicing it often, saying to themselves, again and again… Just listen, don’t give advice. Just listen, don’t give advice. Just listen, don’t give advice. The results can be amazing.
4. Learn to soothe frayed nerves. When your partner is having trouble coping—either with the world or with you—don’t shout, don’t pout, don’t run away. Just turn to your mate and lovingly say… “Honey, what do you need from me… right now?”
5. Give a little more. Instead of trying to get your way, try to give a little, then give a little more. Learn to think more “We” than “Me.”
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 14, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
COURTROOM PREPARATION OUTLINE:
1. Prepare theory of case.
2. Develop theme.
3. Prepare closing argument.
4. Identify each factual component of closing argument.
5. Decide which fact sources you will use at trial (documents, direct examination testimony, cross examination testimony).
6. Prepare cross-examination.
7. Prepare direct examination.
8. Prepare opening statement.
9. Prepare objection strategy.
10. Prepare trial notebook.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
January 13, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently applied the presumption for service by mail in LYONS v COATES (January 8, 2004, Case No. 242666). The memorandum opinion affirmed summary disposition against a party who claimed the motion papers were never received, contrary to the proof of service on file (excerpt):
Documents properly addressed and placed in the mail are presumed to reach their destination. Crawford v Michigan, 208 Mich App 117, 121; 527 NW2d 30 (1994). “This presumption may be rebutted by evidence, but whether it was is a question for the trier of fact.” Stacey v Sankovich, 19 Mich App 688, 694; 173 NW2d 225 (1969). Plaintiff denied receipt of the papers but presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt. The mere denial of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Cf. Ins Co of North America v Issett, 84 Mich App 45, 49; 269 NW2d 301 (1978); James v James, 57 Mich App 452, 454; 225 NW2d 804 (1975). Under the circumstances, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
January 13, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Recent changes to the Michigan Rules of Evidence include:
Expert testimony (1/1/2004)
MRE 702–amended to emphasize the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in excluding unproven expert theories and methodologies. See Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999).
Bases of expert testimony (9/1/2003)
MRE 703–amended to exclude opinions based on facts or data not in evidence. See MRE 1101 amendment.
Friend of the Court (FOC) reports (9/1/2003)
MRE 1101–amended to allow trial judges to consider FOC reports prepared pursuant to MCL 552.505(1)(g, h).
Posted in Procedures/Rules No Comments »
Written on
January 12, 2004
by
Scott Bassett
One of the least well-kept secrets of law office word processing is that Microsoft Word saves as hidden information a great deal of data about who created a document, who modified it and when, and what those modifications were. If the recipient of one of your Word files knows where to look, he or she can learn a great deal more than you want to reveal. When you send legal document to a client or opposing counsel for review, your best bet is to convert it to an uneditable “image” format such as PDF (Adobe Acrobat). But if you need to send it in Word format, make sure your case, client, and career are not jeopardized by the hidden information, called “metadata” that is transmitted with that document.
Until now, effectively stripping metadata required that you buy a third-party utility such as Metadata Assistant from Payne Consulting Group. Last week Microsoft finally stepped up to the plate and offered a free utility of its own to strip metadata from Word and Excel documents. The catch is that it works only with Office XP and Office 2003. If you are using an older version of MS Office (such as 2000 or 97), the additional law-firm friendly features in Word XP and Word 2003 make an upgrade more than worthwhile anyway. The new tool is called the Remove Hidden Data Tool. It is available as a free download from Microsoft here. By the way, it only works with the Windows XP operating system. This is yet another reason to ditch you old Windows 98 or ME dinosaur and buy something more modern, speedy, reliable, and efficient.
Posted in Technology 1 Comment »
Written on
January 12, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times reports on households with “Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home.” Ginia Bellafante writes (excerpt):
In assuming those roles, demographers say, the two are part of an emerging population of gay men who are not only raising children but are also committed to the idea that one parent should leave the workplace to do it. Of 9,328 same-sex couples with children whose census returns were randomly selected for analysis by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the male couples included a stay-at-home parent, said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. That figure is one percentage point more than for married couples with children and four percentage points higher than for female couples, said Mr. Gates, who performed the analysis for this article.
The percentage of men who stay at home is significantly smaller among married heterosexual couples, Mr. Gates said.
The obstacles of finding surrogate mothers and of discriminatory adoption laws that favor heterosexual couples have led some gay men to pursue parenthood with fervor.
“Being a planned gay father is such a project in itself,” said Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University and a senior scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. Often, Professor Stacey said, gay fathers or those aspiring to be “remain very judgmental of parents who don’t stay home.”
To some gay men, the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems to defeat the purpose of parenthood.
***
Same-sex couples with a stay-at-home parent are doing this even though census figures show that their median household income, $35,000, is lower than the $45,000 for a heterosexual married couple with a stay-at-home parent, Mr. Gates of the Urban Institute said.
The 2000 census found that there were some 60,000 male couple households with children in America, and close to 96,000 female couple households. Those figures are about 20 percent of all male couples and a third of all female couples.
Rob Calhoun and his partner refinanced their home in suburban Atlanta when Mr. Calhoun quit his job as a social worker to stay home with their baby daughter. “We really couldn’t afford it,” Mr. Calhoun said.
Sociologists, gender researchers and gay parents themselves say that because gay men are liberated from the cultural expectations and pressures that women face to balance work and family life, they may approach raising children with a greater sense of freedom and choice.
They may also not fear stigmatization in these new roles, said Ellen Lewin, chairwoman of the women’s studies department at the University of Iowa. Professor Lewin is the author of “Lesbian Mothers” (Cornell University Press, 1993) and is working on a study of gay fathers.
Conversely, feminism’s legacy may leave lesbians more ideologically committed to equality in their relationships, said Christopher Carrington, a professor of sociology at San Francisco State University and the author of “No Place Like Home” (University of Chicago Press, 2002), which examines how gay and lesbian couples divide household labor.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 12, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Recent changes to the Michigan Court Rules include:
Fax filings (1/1/2004)
MCR 2.406–adopted to establish uniform practices for courts that choose to allow facsimile filings.
Service (1/1/2004)
MCR 3.203–amended to clarify how notice is to be provided when not specified by statute or court rule.
Attorney fees (9/1/2003)
MCR 3.206–amended to shift the cost associated with a party’s refusal to comply with previous court orders.
Interviews of minor children (5/1/2004)
MCR 3.210–amended as a followup to Molloy v Molloy, 466 Mich 852 (2002) to clarify that interview is to focus on child’s custodial preference and to limit use of information to that factor alone.
Posted in Procedures/Rules No Comments »
Written on
January 11, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan court of appeals is publishing ESTATE OF CHERYL A. ROWLEY a/k/a CHERYL A. MAC INNES, v. JOE DEE MAC INNES (January 8, 2004, Case No. 241649). A waiver of life insurance proceeds in a consent judgment of divorce releases the former spouse’s rights. Neff writes (excerpt):
Defendant appeals by delayed leave an order of the trial court directing him to pay over to plaintiff $95,000 in life insurance proceeds he received upon the death of his former wife, Cheryl Rowley, where she failed to change the beneficiary designation on her life insurance policy after the couple’s divorce. The court concluded that a provision in the consent judgment of divorce, releasing all rights of either party to the proceeds of any life insurance on the other, waived defendant’s right to Rowley’s life insurance proceeds. We affirm.
***
Having concurred with the majority view in the federal circuits and concluded that giving effect to the above provision does not compromise the purpose and goals of ERISA, Melton, supra at 945, we hold that defendant waived his rights to the life insurance proceeds at issue and thus is not entitled to retain them. The above provision is all-inclusive with regard to defendant’s relinquishment of his right to life insurance proceeds from policies owned by his former wife: “[E]xcept as otherwise provided, all rights . . . to the proceeds of any policy . . . of life insurance . . . shall hereupon become and be payable to the estate of the owner of said policy . . . ” This language is explicit in its intent to divest defendant of his interest in life insurance proceeds from policies owned by Rowley. Thomas v Detroit Retirement System, 246 Mich App 155, 160-161; 631 NW2d 349 (2001); Massachusetts Indemnity, supra at 268; see also Clift, supra (no “magic words” necessary for effective waiver). In our view, giving effect to the waiver best serves the ends of justice where a divorcing couple’s intent is clear. Silber, supra at 403-404.
We find no merit in defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously viewed the consent judgment of divorce as a contract. As the trial court recognized, a divorce judgment entered by consent is in the nature of a contract, and a settlement agreement, i.e., a stipulation and property settlement, is a contract . . . .
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
January 11, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York TImes shows the new approach to public service ads targeted at kids. Shaila K. Dewan writes (excerpt):
The campaign is different from those that have gone before it. It does not try to shame the viewer into action. There are no scare tactics that end in the coffins or graves. This is not your brain on drugs. Nor does it emphasize a positive message – snowboarding as the anti-drug, say – that might seem out of reach to its target audience.
Like its precursors in the squeamish 1950’s, the wised-up 1970’s, the fearful “Just Say No” and let’s-hear-nothing-else-about-it 1980’s, the “Face the Issue” campaign reflects its time. Brutally frank and uncomfortably intimate, it delves into a world in which young people grow up faster, are more sophisticated and, statistics show, are increasingly diagnosed as troubled. Perhaps more important, rather than appeal to parents, it asks young people to take action themselves. Each message ends with the words: “Your choice.”
The 30-second spots, made at cost with the stars donating their time, have been shown on MTV, the WB and other networks. An important component is the corresponding Web site, www.facetheissue.com, a sort of online group therapy session whose users post messages about their problems. The day after the campaign began in late October, the site got 300,000 hits. As of last week, two million people had visited.
***
In the 1990’s, research showed that parents are far more effective messengers. New slogans urged parents to talk to their children about drugs and sex.
But an obstacle for teens with eating disorders or drug problems, several experts said, is their parents’ denial. A child may not have anorexia but still have serious food-related problems, said Susan Smalley, a psychiatry professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies such disorders. “The site is tapping into that group of children and adolescents that aren’t being identified,” she said.
Peggy Conlon, the president of the Ad Council, said that one way to change behavior is to change what is considered normal. She points to the Legacy Foundation’s antismoking ads, showing children ambushing tobacco executives with tough questions. “They’re making kids appear smart if they resist smoking,” she said.
“Face the Issue” grapples with another issue: what to do when low self-confidence and eating disorders seem to be the norm.
“There is no magic wand, ‘Oh, do this and it’s all going to be fine,’ ” said Ms. Semel. “The whole point was not to make the issues so negative. To take the stigma away from it and just make it like anything else in life, something you should deal with.”
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 10, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Supreme Court issued Order 2003-22 (12/23/2003), stating that the Friend of the Court (FOC) should adopt the proposed substantive revisions to the Michigan Child Support Formula relating to:
1. Determining medical support and health care coverage obligations.
2. Setting child support before determining spousal support obligations.
3. Deviating from the formula.
These amendments will be effective October 1, 2004.
The court did not order any other amendments, including those proposals relating to changes in the shared economic responsibility formula.
Posted in Procedures/Rules No Comments »
Written on
January 9, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
ABCnews’s Working Wounded column features tips on finding forgiveness. While the focus on the column is our work lives, the principles are equally applicable to our home lives.
Bob Rosner writes (excerpt):
Say that you are sorry. You’ll never go wrong when you start your apology with, “I’m sorry.” It’s amazing how much healing can come from those two simple words. The longer you talk before you say you’re sorry, the greater the risk that they won’t believe that you really are. So always lead with the most important part of the apology.
Admit that you were wrong. Have you ever had someone say that they were apologizing to you but it sounded like they were really blaming you for what happened? Talk about fanning the flames. That’s why it’s so important to clearly say that you were wrong; “It was wrong for me to take a long lunch when we’re so far behind.”
Acknowledge the problems you caused. Acknowledging the problems that were caused by your actions shows the apologizee that you really understand the problems you made for them. This can be quite painful, but it should make a huge difference in how the person you are apologizing to feels about your apology. You don’t have to go into agonizing detail, just say enough to show them that you tried to see it all through their eyes. For example, “I should have never left work early the day before a sales presentation. I realize it created a lot of extra work for you.”
Show them that you learned from the situation. Let the person know you won’t repeat the error by telling them exactly what you’ll do to keep it from happening again (for example, “From now on I’ll ask your opinion before I make a commitment to a customer”). Another way to accomplish this is to make a joke, at your own expense of course, about what happened. Proceed down this path with caution, however; you can make things worse if they think you aren’t taking the apology seriously. On the other hand, a little self-deprecating humor can go a long way toward allowing you to work together comfortably in the future.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
