Collaboration & Coparenting

Today’s culture of divorce compels parents to do the unnatural, that is, to work with the very person that one would like to see vanquished (beaten, bested, defeated, outdone). There is no cordiality in divorce despite the amicability one manages to exhibit if around others. The truth is always dire, that it, the person one divorces is the very person ones would wish never to see again (except in case of unresolved lost love, but even this is contaminated with anger and hostility).

The strength of this emotional reaction to one’s “ex” or ex-spouse is experienced to such degree that it could be labeled as a Post Traumatic Stress symptom. “Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in DSM-IV-TR, (is) a disorder that results when an individual lives through or witnesses an event in which he or she believes that there is a threat to the life or physical integrity and safety and experiences fear, terror, or helplessness.” One’s reaction defines the disorder, “The symptoms are characterized by (a) reexperiencing the trauma in painful recollections, flashbacks, or recurrent dreams or nightmares; (b)… (c) chronic physiological arousal, leading to such symptoms as exaggerated startle response, disturbed sleep, difficulty in concentrating or remembering…” (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2007, pg 717.)

The personal dynamics between two previously married people do not go away just because divorce has occurred. In fact, the negative personal dynamics have intensified and the positive dynamics have disappeared. This is more true of the spouse who did not want the divorce than is true of the spouse who did want the divorce according to research, but regardless of one’s position about divorce, the emotional dynamics are still negative and intense.

The intensity of two adversaries who are locked together forever is reminiscent of ancient allegorical tales where two opposites are tethered together forever. For example, one is depicted in a Tarot card where a man and a woman are chained together at the neck as they try to pull away.

The words contained in Christian traditional marriage vows such as the promise to stay together ‘until death do us part’ become alive and perilous in a divorce battle when children are involved. It is as if when one divorces, and one wants the children to stay with them, then the other ex-spouse/parent must die or disappear. There is a natural need to rid oneself of the ex-spouse, their influence and their presence, and the reminder of all those negative experiences which are triggered again in each interaction.

Joe and Mary, according the judge’s court orders, have to mutually raise their children together. How ironic that the two people who wished to sever all ties with each other now have to work together as partners. They in effect have to collaborate ‘with the enemy’ in order to coparent. They may feel they have to “cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy” since the drive to divorce naturally causes perceptions of one’s ex-spouse as being the foe. Divorce usually commands that one view the other spouse as someone who is an opponent, one who is adversarial to one’s wishes, one who is likely to maim one’s emotions with dishonesty, distrust, and disrespect. At the very least, divorce means a level of dislike, aversion, or repulsion.

Parents will often begin this attempt at coparenting by just taking turns at parenting. When the kids are with Mom, Mom thinks she should do the parenting; when they are with Dad, Dad should do the parenting. Never mind that the two parents have different values, different rules, and are still hating the influence the other parent has on ‘my beloved child.’ Homework, bedtimes, food selections, clothing decisions, rules about socialization with friends will all be different depending on whose home the child(ren) is in. This might work if each parent would allow this to work, but inevitably, the same differences that drove the two parents apart will also drive them to be critical of the other parent’s patterns of parenting.

“Your father let you stay up until when?” says the Mom, incredulously and accusatorily. No child will miss the underlying tone that means Mom has just criticized Dad. But if asked, Mom would deny that she actually criticized Dad to the children. She would say she was concerned about the welfare of her child(ren) and that she should be. If Dad happened to overhear this statement, he would be completely convinced that Mom is degrading him to the child(ren).

Dad could just overlook this comment made by Mom. After all, these kinds of intonations happen in all families all the time. Or if he had a close and open relationship with Mom, later he could say, “Why did you ask (our child) about their bedtime in that tone of voice? Did you think I had done something wrong?” Mom could then say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be critical, I was just surprised that you let (our child) stay up so late when I was out of town last weekend, especially since they had a swim meet early the next morning.” Dad could then either say he was sorry and had made a mistake, or he would have the chance to explain, “Well, they wanted to see this movie that didn’t come on until 9 pm and I told them they could only watch it if they made a promise to get up on time the next morning for their swim meet, their choice. I thought they should be learning to make their own decisions and experience the consequences.” Mom, “Yea, OK, I see why you did that, good idea.”

Dad would think and might say, “You are always putting me down to the kids. Why can’t I make some of my own decisions? After all I am the father.” Mom would retort, “Well, if you really cared about your kids, you would know that they need a certain amount of sleep before their swim meet and so they should have gone to bed at nine instead of being allowed to do whatever they wanted. You just didn’t want to be the fall guy and make them go to bed. You’re just a ‘Disney-land Dad,’ and you make me the bad guy because I make them responsible for their actions.”

Suddenly the issue is not about the kids because the war has been inflamed between the parents. In fact, what the children need probably won’t be discussed again. The children need to learn to make their own decisions, to be accountable for their own actions, and to be responsible for their commitments. But these issues will not be discussed by these two battling parents during this opportunity. It will be missed opportunity to coparent and neither parent will see it slip away beneath the fire that has exploded between them. Instead they will become focused on themselves.

Dad, blowing up like a toad, “How can you say I don’t care about my kids? I love my child(ren). It’s you that keeps trying to turn them against me. You don’t really want me to be their father, do you? You’ve always tried to turn my kids away from me.”

Mom, defensive of herself and protective of her children, “All I have ever wanted was for you to be a good dad to my kids, which you never seemed to care about. All you cared about was watching sports every weekend. You even complained that you didn’t want to ‘babysit’ the kids when I needed to go to the grocery store to buy food. You acted like they weren’t even your kids. And now you want them 50% of the time and you don’t have a clue what they need. You don’t even know that they need sleep. Did you even feed them while they were with you? One came home hungry and said she didn’t eat all weekend. What are you doing over there? Are you zoned out on sports all day, as usual?”

Dad exasperated throws in the towel, but not without throwing in a punch, “Oh, gimme a break! You’re wacko! You’re trying to make the kids think I don’t care about them. That’s alienation. Monday I’m going to file for full custody!” And off he stomps pulling out his cell phone, ostensibly to call his attorney, his real weapon.

Mom gets scared. She’s seen him act this way before. It reminds her of the time (remember Posttraumatic Disorder symptoms) he got mad at her and left for three days returning with a new gun which he brandished around her in the kitchen. He was obviously hung-over and out of control. He had tried to shoot a stray cat in the backyard while the kids were outside playing. She was terrified and frozen with fear. When he fondled her, she decided to calm him down by mollifying him with sex, hoping he would just go to sleep, which he did. The next day he didn’t remember the incident with the gun and cat and denied that it had happened. She was just being silly he had said. He apologized for leaving for three days but he defended himself by saying he was too angry to be around her and she was better off with him gone. She never forgot it. He did.

Mom plans to call her attorney on Monday as well. She feels she needs protection and she is afraid he will ‘get the kids,’ which is what she tells her attorney. Her attorney picks up on the mother’s claim of a lack of supervision she described while the kids were with him for visitation (no bedtime, no food, no supervision). She decides to file a motion to suspend visitation until it can be ascertained if the father’s home is safe and secure for the child(ren). To summarize this simple scenario: Dad let the kids watch a movie Friday night and now Mom and Dad are going to court to battle for custody.

Many readers who are in the middle of a custody battle may scoff at this last paragraph, saying that the summary was too simplistic and thus inaccurate. Outsiders, such as the judges and other professionals, will say, yep, this is the way it happens all the time. Perhaps some can’t see the forest for the trees, and others can’t see the trees for the forest.

The law is interested in facts, not motivation or emotion. The facts are disputed: Was dad supervising his kids when they were with him for visitation? Did he make sure they got their needs met, such as needs for sleep and food? Father says yes, mother says no, the judge’s only witnesses are the child(ren). Assuming he is not ready to bring the child(ren) in to testify for and against their parents, he may order the parents into coparenting therapy with a specialist to see if the parents can resolve their differences and manage to coparent their children. The judge knows he can’t order the parents to get along, so he’s hoping the clinical specialist can convince them that they need to do this and show them the way.