Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Domestic Violence in Family Law: Part 2

Transcript

Domestic Violence in Family Law: Part 2 · It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People

• Megan Hunter: Welcome to It's All Your Fault on TruStory FM, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and deal with some really challenging people and situations, the most difficult of difficult people, those with high conflict person. I'm Megan Hunter, and I'm here with my co-host Bill Eddy. Bill Eddy: Hi everybody. Megan Hunter: And we're the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California. In today's episode, we continue with part two of the domestic violence series with my co-host Bill Eddy, attorney Annette Burns and judge Karen Adam. But first we have a few quick reminders. Here's the deal, we want to hear from you. Have you dealt with a high conflict situation, been blamed, experienced violence or abuse from an HCP, or maybe simply dread seeing that person again, but probably have to tonight at home or tomorrow at work? Send us your questions. And we just might discuss them on the show. Megan Hunter: You can submit them by clicking to submit a question button at our website, highconflictinstitute.com/podcast, or emailing us @podcast@highconflictinstitute.com and you can drop them on any of our socials. You can find all the show notes and links @highconflictinstitute.com/podcast as well. Make sure you subscribe, write and review, and please tell all your friends about us. Telling just one person that you like the show and where they can find it is the best way you can help us out and help more people learn how to address high conflict people. We appreciate you so very much and now on with today's show. Megan Hunter: Welcome back to part two of the DV series. We'll continue the discussion about a six part video series in which Bill, Karen and Annette interviewed 16 domestic violence experts. If you haven't listened to part one and met these three really amazing people in part one, that's okay. You can listen to that episode any time, and you can read more about our guests in the show notes, along with a link to the video series that they're discussing. So we're just going to get right to it today. All right. The first question will go to Annette Burns, who is a family law attorney and Annette, thanks for coming back for episode two. So why should lawyers and mediators screen all of their cases for DV? Annette Burns: This was a really important area of the discussion in the interviews for me, because not only am I an attorney in private practice, but I do a lot of dispute resolution like mediation. So this was really crucial. I can't tell you how many times when I was acting as a neutral, like a parenting coordinator or a mediator, and it would come up during the dispute resolution process that there's been some degree of violence or IPV in the relationship and it had apparently not been addressed previously. So the screening issue was crucial to me. When we're sitting in our offices as attorneys and people come in for that initial appointment to find out about a divorce or a paternity matter in child custody, it may not come up. Annette Burns: We can't assume that people are going to bring it up on their own, unless the professional asks about it. Sometimes the issue even comes up post court orders, after orders have been entered for parenting time and no one's ever addressed violence in the relationship, but the parties are still dealing with it. And the parenting plan is still showing that it's being dealt with. So the screening and the discussions about it were so great for me. We talked about MASIC, M-A-S-I-C, as a screening tool. We talked about other questionnaires. We talked about the terrific resources available on the battered women's justice project website, the safer information and screenings they have. So I probably fell into a mistaken belief that, oh, if I'm representing a person, I'm never going to force them to be in the same room as the abuser. So we're okay, they're safe. Annette Burns: But unless I do that screening, I don't know how to keep them safe. Either when I'm representing them or in a mediation. So, and I fell into what I now believe is a mistaken belief that when I'm a mediator and if we're doing mediation by Zoom or strictly shuttle mediation, that that's keeping a survivor of domestic violence safe. And I no longer believe that as the result of these interviews and all the information we have. Bill mentioned a little bit of it in the earlier podcast, part one of this, that we can't assume that there's still a lot more going on and just being on Zoom with a survivor and an abuser on the same Zoom, that doesn't protect anyone. There's still a lot going on there. Megan Hunter: What was that called? Absence presence. Annette Burns: Absent presence, yes. Megan Hunter: Presence. Annette Burns: Bill referred to it better than I am, but, and Loretta Frederick, when she was talking about this, she said, we carry around this perennial hope as professionals that people can get their acts together and they can behave okay. Annette Burns: Either in a court setting or a mediation setting, that somehow whatever went before won't come up again, because there's other people present and that's just not realistic. Megan Hunter: I think we call that wishful thinking, don't we? Annette Burns: Exactly and well, it's the... Well Loretta said perennial hope and I liked that. We are hopeful, but it's unrealistic for a lot of these cases. So again, the screening is imperative. So we know going in what we're dealing with, what our client is either accused of or what our client has gone through, depending who we represent. And so based on the interviews and all the information we got, I've concluded that this screening and we all pick our individual kinds of screenings. There are professional ones like MASIC we can go to, but most of us develop our own procedure for that. We've got to do it in every case. It's not going to come up organically. Sorry. It's just not. Megan Hunter: Oh, that's so important to know. And in this video we have a whole section on those different types of screening tools. So you can get those from that video. And then, if you need to adapt a little bit for your own practice, that's a good place to start. So Karen, let's talk now about the courts a bit. What's the importance of the courts or for the courts in receiving a full picture of domestic violence? Hon. Karen Adam: I couldn't have had a better intro than what Annette just said, because if it applies to lawyers and mediators, it applies to judges and is maybe even more critical because a judge is making the decisions, all sorts of decisions and all sorts of decisions that are impacted by domestic violence. People don't think about it, but child support, the division of debts and assets, whether to award spousal maintenance or alimony as it's called in some places, how to divide up the parenting time. All of those things are greatly impact by the presence of domestic violence. And if you don't have all the information, you can't make a full and fair decision. Getting the information is really, really challenging, especially since in about 85 to 90% of family law cases and in many other types of cases across the board, civil, probate, child support and some cases in juvenile court as well, people are self-represented and these issues are really challenging to present appropriately to the court and not everybody is confident enough or has the right tools to gather the evidence that's appropriate and will be admissible. Hon. Karen Adam: And then to present that evidence in court in a way that will convince the court. And then I have to harken back to what I said about the variation between and among benches and judges on what will be acceptable, what won't be acceptable, how willing is a judge to allow the relaxed rules of evidence to apply in a case especially with self-represented litigants. Is someone going to be a complete stickler and just stonewall the person attempting to present evidence either side? Hon. Karen Adam: And so it's really, really important for judges to know what to look for. Judges can ask questions. You can ask questions in every single kind of case. Of course, you can't step over the line and ask a question that's going to supply the one missing element in a criminal case, for example. But you can ask questions in deciding whether to issue an order of protection. You can ask questions in deciding what kind of a parenting plan to issue. As long as you're fair to both litigants, as long as you ask the same questions, when they're appropriate of both litigants, you're allowed to do that. And you should do that to get the whole picture because you want to make orders that are lawful, that are enforceable, and that allow families to move forward safely, to ensure that children are protected to ensure that survivors are protected. And you can't do that unless you have all of the information. Megan Hunter: That must be a pretty tough place to be, hearing allegations of domestic violence and not knowing whether they're true or false. And it leads me to think about just being a human sitting on the bench, right? We all bring bias. And I know there's a ton of bias training, but what would you say about that? How can a judge avoid bias in domestic violence cases? Hon. Karen Adam: Okay. I used to teach that. In each topic, I have no idea how you convince people really to set aside all the little decisions that are being made in their brains, that they don't even know about. However many thousands of thoughts go through your brain and all of these things called heuristics, which are brain shortcuts, which happen to everybody and happen especially when you're under stress, when you're in a time crunch and when you're dealing with really, really challenging topics. So voila, a domestic violence case on a packed calendar when people are maybe acting out, may be very emotional and where the judge is expected to be superhuman and perform a sort of a Herculean task of waiting through all of that to get to the truth or to get to what the real issues are, or to try at least make a decision that's going to ensure everyone's safety. It's really, really challenging. Hon. Karen Adam: And I tell you, I remember in the beginning, as I mentioned in part one about 1981 or so, when courts and lawyers started really paying attention to domestic violence. And for 20 years after that, people, judges and court personnel hated domestic violence cases. I remember being at a judicial conference at probably 1984, 1985 and [Sarah Bule 00:12:16], at the time, and still a renowned expert in domestic violence and a fabulous speaker had a three hour session at our bar, our judicial conference. And judges were furious that they didn't... They know this, they don't need to be told how to act on and on and on. Now, when you do a domestic violence training, they're oversold. Judges want to know, they want to make the right decisions. It's really, really shifted. It's not that everybody is still doing what we would all consider to be the right thing every time. Hon. Karen Adam: But judges are very, very interested in this topic, very committed to it. I think largely because so many judges come from the practice. And if you end up in family law, family court, hopefully you've had family law experience or you've had a criminal practice and you've had someone who's been involved in a domestic violence situation. It has definitely changed, but it is still one of those topics that makes people kind of shudder and get really anxious because there are so many variables and because you don't want to do the wrong thing. You don't want to be that judge. Megan Hunter: That's a tough, tough place to be. So I'm glad there are screening tools and a lot of training and education. And I know you've been a big part of advancing that in this country. Now, Annette, how can family lawyers impact cases with DV? Annette Burns: Well, they can impact them in very negative ways and in positive ways. So hopefully the interviews we did and the information we got leans towards the positive. I'll start with a negative though, because this is what we see a lot at what family law attorneys can do. We're under terrific time constraints when we go to court in family law especially. And I think very often lawyers tend to say real negative things to their clients who may be a survivor and say, we don't have time to cover that, don't go into that. The judge doesn't want to hear that, it's irrelevant. And by saying these things to a domestic violence survivor, we're doing a lot more harm. Now, we have to balance that with the practicalities of, if we only have a one hour hearing in front of a judge, we can educate our clients and say, we have 60 minutes. Annette Burns: So let's talk about how we're going to use that 60 minutes. Yes, you need to tell your story, but we need to do it in 10 minutes. And then we need to talk about the children and what's going on with the children for a while. So I think we can do it better than we're doing. Obviously, one of the best situations would be if we have more time in front of a judge, but right now that's not really happening. So that's some of the negative things we do. I think positively, going forward as attorneys, we can recognize by the time the domestic violence survivor gets to us, we're not the first line of person they've talked to about this. We're kind of far down on the totem pole. They've already presumably talked to family and friends about what they've gone through, hopefully. They may have talked to the police. Annette Burns: They may have talked to medical providers. By the time they get to us, they may have... They may be all talked out. They may have told their story and nothing much has happened. And they're feeling like everyone's going to ignore them unless we ask. So they may not bring it up, the things they've gone through, unless we bring it up first. So that goes back to the screening and actually asking the questions. They've also been in a culture where they've been taught that things like this are kept secret. Megan Hunter: Mm. Annette Burns: They don't talk about, so maybe they haven't talked to anyone at all, and they're not going to talk to a lawyer either. So again, asking the questions and taking them out of that culture of silence and the culture of let's hide this, is very important. And of course, that comes up when you're representing children too, either as a best interest attorney or a child's attorney, they've been taught, they don't talk about this. Annette Burns: They are not to bring it up with teachers, doctors, anyone. So it's very hard to get the information out. So those are some things that family lawyers can educate themselves to do, to try to help and in conjunction with working with my client in how present this to the court and that it may be in a very limited amount of time, also making sure that my client is getting appropriate counseling, where they can talk about the experience and not be limited to 10 minutes. There's other ways they can do that without being in front of a judge. So I think those are the most important things we can try and move forward. Megan Hunter: I think we're asking a lot of lawyers right, in these situations, it's just a lot to handle but- Annette Burns: We're asking a lot of everyone we're asking a lot of the judges, but hearing from the domestic violence advocates during these interviews was really, really helpful to me because they are more the frontline people and telling us what these survivors need and when they need it. That was incredibly helpful to me as an attorney. Megan Hunter: Good, good. So, Bill, we haven't talked about one important role in family law cases, and that is the role of therapists and mental health professionals. And there are many roles they take in family law cases. So what kind of impact can they have in cases with domestic violence? Bill Eddy: Well, we heard from people treating abusers, people treating children, people with other clients. So there's really an aspect for each, I would say, since I was a therapist for a dozen years. One of the first things is to talk about couples therapists, because many cases that end up in couples therapy may have domestic violence in them. And I think that therapists should also be inquiring of the clients, just like family lawyers and mediators should be, to do some screening because if you help couple work out a behavioral agreement and have no idea that there's domestic violence going on, one of the parties may be punished for bringing up issues during the session. So it'd be important for therapists to also have a separate screening session at some point in the process, ideally at the beginning. Now individual therapists, as we learn for lawyers, that survivors of domestic violence, don't bring up domestic violence in many cases. Bill Eddy: So they may be seeing a therapist for weeks and weeks and then, oh, and by the way, so, and it's not just saying, have you been a victim of domestic violence? That's probably the question that most people think of because they often say no. And yet if you ask specific questions, well, have you ever had a fight where you were pushed or shoved and oh yeah, we had that. Did the other person ever try to strangle you? Yeah, but I just said, please stop and they stopped. Well, that's a huge warning sign of potential difficulty. That's one of the biggest warning signs for potential spousal murder. So it's important to ask specific questions. Have you been stalked? Have you been controlled, isolated? All of those things, do you have fear? Because in any counseling, you want to know that. You don't want to end up reading about your client in the newspaper or hearing about it on TV one day. Bill Eddy: And so no, that's so important. The children, I thought that was very powerful. The interview we had with a therapist with children, because she was talking about really how children carry so much sense of responsibility. I should have put my toys away. I should have cleaned up and they all want to try harder. And just having therapists really be able to empathize with what the kids are going through and not rush them to suddenly pour everything out. And that's just scratching the surface. If they see the series, they'll get a lot more, oh, I know therapy with offenders and this is something that's so important hearing what the programs are. And I think we all agree that a year long program is a good place to start, especially with coercive controlling violence. And so those types of programs, people really need to know what they're doing. Are they going to easily be manipulated? Because coercive controllers are manipulators. They manipulate into relationships and then they manipulate during the relationship. Annette Burns: And the manipulation continues during the mediations often. When we start talking about property, even taking it away from children for the moment, property and the coercive controller is going to keep control of all the property. Well, I'm going to dole it out. She can't handle it, she'd spend it all. And then it starts to come out in other ways, wow, this is IPV screening. This is long term COER of control. When you find out that literally one person has never had access to more than a few hundred dollars a week, that's doled out. And that's the main reason we should be doing this screening up front in mediations, before it comes out in the property division. Megan Hunter: Good point. So let's talk about mediation. Is either Bill or Annette can answer, this is, I know Annette, you do a lot of mediation and Bill has written the book on mediation in high conflict disputes. So is it appropriate? Is mediation appropriate when domestic violence is involved? Bill Eddy: Well, I think this is one of the biggest areas I wanted to hear about in the series. And we have a whole hour on this. So I'll try to give you the two or three minute version. And that is yes in many cases, mediation is appropriate. In some cases it's better than court because people feel safer from not having to see each other. And because you can do shuttle mediation, which some study we heard about seemed to be a real preference for a lot of survivors that they don't have to see the other person and you can do shuttle mediation on video conferencing. Megan Hunter: And Bill, what's shuttle mediation for those who don't know? Bill Eddy: That's where you go back and forth with each party rather than having them together. So I did some domestic violence mediation before COVID where I went back two different rooms in our same mediation center. And I would discuss an issue with one and then give them some things to think about and go back and meet with the other. So they never were face to face. And so they didn't have that face to face fear element, although that may emphasize that some cases aren't appropriate even for shuttle because of that absent presence that something may happen afterwards and that they may be punished for raising an issue, proposing something and as Annette said, there's property issues like retirements that maybe by law, 50 50, and yet a person who earns that often the man, may feel that that's my retirement and how dare you ask for that? Bill Eddy: Even if the law says you can. And so that's an example of a common power struggle issue. So the question is the screening. The screening really needs to identify, is there a sense of danger? Is there a sense of danger that can occur after the mediation? And can you be together? If it's situational couple violence, I've mediated a lot of those cases with an incident of domestic violence, there's a restraining order and there's an exception for mediation. Bill Eddy: And I only did it if there was an exception for mediation, because otherwise they have to be a hundred yards away from each other, but many of those cases were appropriately mediated. The parties preferred mediation, they were pleased with the outcome. It was fairly standard and it worked well, but there are some that aren't appropriate and the screening must be done. And I must admit as a mediator for 40 years, that the first 35 years, I didn't do that. And so I got some training in that and woke up to there's a lot of cases with domestic violence in them that I never knew about. In Canada, they required divorce mediators to screen. In the United States, they don't, but I think really that's coming because this is so important. Megan Hunter: Absolutely. So let's then shift into the children that are impacted by situations like this. So how can children's concerns be addressed in mediation? Bill Eddy: There's some studies and research that have come up with some good ideas. And one of the best ideas is having someone who's well trained in interviewing children, meet with children and then meet with the mediator and the parents, and talk about taking the children's concerns into account without necessarily revealing word for word, what the children said. Because children may be in a position of danger as well. And so that approach seems to be incorporated in some really good programs of mediation. So they have, it's child inclusive mediation gets their thoughts included, but they're not sitting in the mediation session. And I think with domestic violence cases that that's the wisest approach and it was emphasized to us, you need someone who's trained in doing those interviews with children, not just anybody to understand what the kids are going through and to communicate it to the parents in a way that's protective and realistic. Megan Hunter: Okay. Bill Eddy: Let me add something I wanted to add. There's another difference between the U.S. and Canada. Canada is subscribed to the there's an international convention on children's rights that they've subscribed to so that the voice of the child should be heard in any legal case that impacts the children. The U.S. did not sign on to that, but many judges, evaluators, et cetera, are interested in the children's opinion. Again, I think it should come from an experienced person. A lot of judges don't want to do that themselves. And I agree because they're not trained in that. So an experienced person is the one who really should get that information. Megan Hunter: And Judge Adam, what should family law professionals know about kids in DV? You've worked on the youth bench. I don't know if it's called youth bench, but youth court and seeing kids in many different areas of your work. Hon. Karen Adam: First, I wanted to just add to what Bill just said. It's the UN convention on the rights of the child and the U.S. is now the only country that has not signed. Megan Hunter: Wow. Hon. Karen Adam: Yes. And so it just has to go through Congress and it's always been a very, very heavy lift. But at any rate, that doesn't mean that there aren't scores and scores of people who've written about the importance of the voice of the child and people who are completely committed to children being heard. I mentioned that I started on the superior court bench in juvenile court were every child has a lawyer in Pima county, which is Tucson. And in other parts of the state, every child in child welfare has a guardian ad litem or court appointed special advocate. Every child has someone who will be their voice in court. Because I had years of experience with children and being represented by counsel, I have a real preference for lawyers, for children. Hon. Karen Adam: I want the person who is representing the child to have the right to file pleadings, to be able to make arguments, to file an appeal and to represent the child's wishes, not to substitute their judgment for what is in the child's best interest. Some people, some judges are anxious about that. They want to know what is in the child's best interest, not being comfortable in making that decision themselves. I always trusted in my ability to decide based on the information that I had, hopefully what was in the best interest of the child. So it's really, really important that children be heard in these cases, especially, and as I mentioned with so many cases around the world involving people representing themselves, especially in cases of substance use disorder, including alcohol, mental health issues and domestic violence, it's really, really important that the children have some sort of official voice in the proceedings, or you are never going to hear what's really going on. Hon. Karen Adam: And the information that a judge can learn from either interviewing a child, which I was very comfortable doing or hearing from a lawyer for the child or representative for the child is invaluable in these cases, in determining what is actually happening in the home, because kids are more honest than, than adults often, and also in determining what would make them feel safe. So it's really important that judges know what children are thinking and feeling and saying about what's happening so that they can make decisions that ensure safety. Best interest of the child is still one of the factors that judges are required to consider when making decisions in our state and in most states around custody, parenting time and other family law issues and certainly, it's an issue in child welfare and in youth justice as well. It used to be the number two criteria in Arizona. Hon. Karen Adam: Now it's down the list a little ways, but it's still important to know what is it, the judge has to decide what's in the best interest of the child that has to be the overarching consideration. So it is really, really important that family law professionals understand the impact of domestic violence on children and it's real and it's very, very complicated. But what we know is that in about 75% of the cases where children observe violence in the home, they go on to become abusers themselves. And so it's very, very important that the family law professionals all recognize that what happens in the home is having a dramatic impact on the children. There are still professionals who say the child wasn't in the room when this happened. And when you talk to children who have laying in bed and tried to cover their heads and block their ears so that they don't even hear, don't even hear a fight, much less a violent fight. Hon. Karen Adam: None of us like to hear probably, I'll make a leap like Annette did. So not only are we not personality disordered, but we probably also really don't like being around a lot of high conflict and imagine being a child and hearing the people that you love most in the world, fighting with each other, using terrible language, and then add onto that you actually see, or maybe even try to intervene in acts of violence. The impacts are going to be huge and they are going to be long lasting. And it's really, really important that everybody involved in the case, including the judges appreciate those impacts. Megan Hunter: Yeah. Because they are lifelong. They can be lifelong and those poor kids, then their future relationships. Bill Eddy: I wanted to add something before it, it passes and that is, we need to understand that the kids may have been influenced by their parents, one or the other against the other. So it's good to have someone who really knows what they're doing to be able to filter that out. It's not just the impact on the kids, but also what the kids say may be very much what they've been told to say or what they feel they have to say because of their own fear, just like their parents. So just want to get that in there. Megan Hunter: Yeah, absolutely. So let's talk a little more about family court. Annette, what did you learn about parenting plants in this video series? I know you have a ton of experience of your own. So did you learn anything new? Annette Burns: Yeah. As far as creating parenting plans for parents who are involved in these situations, we've always known kind of the obvious things. We can't have in-person exchanges. We have to protect everyone at the exchanges, especially the children. Use third parties and public places when possible. We knew the obvious about that. One thing we learned and that I've actually seen is, when the parents are separated because of domestic violence concerns, their communication is also cut off concerning the children. And when a child is having problems, whether it's at the school or in counseling or medical problems with a provider, the school or those people want to talk to the parents, jointly both to give out information about the child and to get some feedback about what everybody should do. In these situations, sometimes the parents either refuse to have a joint conversation, even on the telephone or online, or they're prohibited by a court order from having any kind of joint conversation and who loses out in all this? The child. The child isn't getting help he needs at school or through counseling. Annette Burns: So what are the alternatives when we're creating parenting plans that involve these situations, what alternatives or what provisions can we put in, will the parents, can they safely agree to do at least some minimal telephonic or virtual communication just about the child? Can they bring in a third party who maybe can shuttle between the two of them to talk just about the child? We need to think about these really specific things for IPV and domestic violence situations that other parenting plans take for granted, that the parents are going to talk and communicate once in a while. So, and like I said, we also have the obvious things, like keep the parents apart and do exchanges through school whenever possible. But don't forget that there are non-school days, that there are days when a child's home sick, that you can't use the school or the daycare as the exchange. And don't forget, we need to name some alternative for those days or that's where the problems arise, when the parents can't rely on the third party school to handle it. So it's a lot to think about. Megan Hunter: Yeah, those are some really good tips. Now let's transition into that all important topic of treatment for domestic violence. Bill, do you want to talk about that a bit and I'll ask you the same question I asked Annette. Did you learn anything new about treatment from this series? Bill Eddy: Well, what I've really wondered was how successful are treatments. And so one of the experts was speaking, Dr. Wexler, about treating offenders and in year long programs basically because that's what's necessary. And I was encouraged to hear that he sees maybe 70% make progress, but that there's, I wasn't surprised to hear there's about 30% that they really don't touch. And so the treatment itself, building empathy for partners, building empathy for the kids, he says, we do see success with that. And one of the biggest things is that most offenders don't want to see their children become abusers or abused. Bill Eddy: And that's one of the things that really impacts them. And I think impacts their thinking throughout the divorce process is I want to do this. And especially with parenting plans, I want to do this so that the kids don't end up repeating what I've been doing. That's the kind of thinking that they really help with. So I'm encouraged that there's 70% that may make progress, not surprised there's 30%. I think people tend to have an all or nothing view and say, oh, treatment never works or of course he had treatments or everything is wonderful now. It's much more nuanced than that. Megan Hunter: So that gives us all some hope that getting people away from that all or nothing thinking and into understanding there are treatments available and wherever you are in the world, seek those out in your jurisdiction, find out what's available and what works. So we're almost done with this really important topic, but I don't want to leave it without talking about something that's very, very important and that's self care. When you are a professional who deals with a lot of clients who are experiencing domestic violence in any role you're in, it's going to impact you. And so I know Karen Judge Adam here has talked quite a bit and written extensively on self-care and one aspect of it in particular called vicarious trauma. So Karen, leave us with some thoughts on that. Hon. Karen Adam: As you probably have gathered by listening to us talk about this work, it's very, very difficult and all of us have to do it. We are judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, mediators. We have to do it with a complete sense of neutrality and a complete suspension of normal human emotions. Most people, when hearing some of the things that we hear, would scream, yell, start crying, or want to curl up in a ball. We, in the field, have to continue on. We have to continue representing our client. We have to continue conducting a mediation. We have to continue with a therapy session. We have to make a decision as a judge, and we have to maintain respect for the litigants and dig the courtroom. And that involves stuffing a lot, keeping our real emotions and our real feelings at a lower level and maintaining this persona of neutrality throughout whatever the proceeding is that we're involved in. Hon. Karen Adam: That can take a huge toll. The best description I ever heard of it was that you have to, this is from Dr. Kathleen West is you have to maintain that control while you're in the situation, but you have to remember to turn the switch to your humanity back on when you are out of the situation. And it just becomes easier and easier the longer you do the work to just keep yourself kind of in that mode where nothing bothers you, because you're going to have to go right back into it, an hour later or a day later, or whenever it is, you are back in the courtroom or back with your client or back in mediation, whatever the setting might be. And that's the danger is keeping the switch turned off and keeping yourself unaffected. Well, you think you're unaffected. You act like you're unaffected, but in fact, it is taking a tremendous toll on you as a human being. Hon. Karen Adam: You can lose your ability to feel, you can lose your ability to sleep. You can lose your ability to focus. You can drink too much, eat too much, gamble too much. There are just so many ways that vicarious trauma can manifest itself in a way that is very counterproductive and very negative in terms of your physical, emotional, and mental health. So it's really important when you're doing this work to pay attention to how you are feeling. Hon. Karen Adam: If you know that you have any of those issues with sleeping, eating, drinking, relating to your loved ones. If you're detached from friends, if you're not engaged in your usual activities, you're not exercising, ask some questions. There's lots of great information out there. I'll make sure that Megan has some of the easy checklists that you can look at. There's lots that's been written about this topic, and it's really important, especially in cases involving domestic violence or involving substance use disorder, involving mental health issues, all of which often collide and appear together in these kinds of cases. It's usually not just one thing that we're working with when these cases come before us. So really important to to take really good care of yourselves. Megan Hunter: Thank you, Karen. I'm sure Bill and Annette can agree with the toll that this takes on people. So it's just really important for everyone to take care of themselves, whatever role you're in. Like we did in the first episode, I'd like to ask judge Adam to again, talk to anyone listening who might be in a domestic violence situation now. Hon. Karen Adam: Of all the people who need to take care of themselves, the most important people are those who have been impacted by domestic violence, of course. If you are in a situation where you are being abused or where there is coercive control, we are very concerned that you are safe and that you feel safe. If you are in a situation right now, where there's immediate danger, obviously you must call law enforcement. If you are in a situation where you believe there is domestic violence or coercive control, but you are not in immediate danger, but you wish to have some help, you should call the domestic violence hotline in the location where you are. In the United States, it's 1-800-799-7233. You can also go online to the hotline.org, all one word, and you can text 88788. The word START, will get you connected with experts who will help you move forward with your domestic violence issues and help you develop a safety plan and a way to manage what is going on in your life. So please be safe and feel safe. Megan Hunter: Thank you. And with that, we wrap up this very important domestic violence series. First I'd like to thank judge Adam, Annette Burns and Bill Eddy who devoted a tremendous amount of time to interviewing our 16 experts. And without the you 16 experts, we wouldn't have had this series. So I just want to say a big thank you to all of those who participated in this video. Megan Hunter: It's an important one and will be very helpful to many. I know this has been packed with a lot of information, this series of two episodes. So go back and listen again anytime and just know we'll touch on this topic again in future episodes, down the road. You'll find the links to the DV video series and our guest bios and the 16 experts bios along with some other DV resources in the show notes. Megan Hunter: And in next week's episode, we'll focus entirely on your questions. The questions you've submitted, you asked and we'll answer. You won't want to miss it. Remember to rate and review and tell your friends and colleagues about us. It means a lot. Thanks for listening. And we hope our words impact your life in a positive way. Don't forget to enjoy every day as we work toward understanding humans. Most importantly, use our words to find the missing P-E-A-C-E peace. Megan Hunter: It's all your fault is a protection of TruStory FM. Engineering by Andy Nelson, music by [Wolf Samuels 00:47:02], [John Coggins 00:47:02], and [Ziv Moran 00:47:05]. Find the show, show notes and transcripts @trustory.fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.