Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Family Law in Israel with Guest Michal Fein
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:04): Welcome to, it's All Your Fault On True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and deal with the most challenging human relationships, those involving someone who may have a high conflict personality. I'm Megan Hunter, and I'm here with my co-host, bill Eddie. Speaker 2 (00:22): Hi, everybody. Speaker 1 (00:24): We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California, where we focus on training, consulting, and educational programs and methods all to do with high conflict. In this episode today, we are happy to introduce you to a good friend and colleague from Israel Mial fine, uh, to discuss a law that she wrote for Israel and was passed in 2014. It's a law that had significant impact on parents and children a law looked at, at by those in other countries with respect and probably with some longing. But first, a couple of notes. If you have a question about a high conflict situation, send it to podcast high conflict institute.com or through our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast, where you'll also find all the show notes and links. We're so grateful to our listeners, and I'm sure you'll enjoy this conversation today. Speaker 1 (01:26): So, I want to first, uh, introduce our very special guest who's joining us all the way from Israel Mial Fine. And I know I'm not saying it right, and I promise you listeners last name. Okay. . She'll, she'll help us with that later. Um, so she is a leading family and divorce lawyer in and a member of the Israeli Bar Association since 1999. She's a mediator and a practicing collaborative divorce lawyer. Um, which, uh, as our listeners know, those are two passions of ours. Um, and she's known for her legal creativity and problem solving approach, uh, to law and, and awareness for her client's wellbeing. So, uh, she's very much in alignment with what, what Bill and I do, and, and the, you know, the, the goals of the High Conflict Institute. She's a social activist dedicated to change the culture of divorce. She's a member of NGO organizations such as the Association for Peaceful Divorce and the International Academy of Collaborative Practitioners, known as I A C P. Uh, she drafted this, uh, bill that we're going to discuss today for, um, MK Marav, Mickey, probably another name I've butchered , um, , which, and led the legislation of the Family Dispute Settlement Law. And she was later appointed by the Israeli Ministry of Justice as a public representative. So this is what we'll be, be talking about today, and I just want to welcome you to our podcast, and I'd love for you to say a quick hello to our listeners and tell us a little about yourself. Speaker 3 (03:08): Thank you, Megan. Thank you, bill. Thank you for inviting me for your podcast. It's an honor. Well, I'm an Israeli , born and raised in Tel Aviv, sunny warm by the sea city with a very, uh, vibrant cultural life. You can say that it's a very happy place, uh, to be living in. Uh, so here I grew up, and here I raised my three children. I've got a big girl who is 19, a gorgeous, lovely young lady, and two boys age, 15 and a half, all teenagers in one house. It's a big one. Half family Speaker 1 (04:00): . Oh, did teenagers. Wow. A lot. . Speaker 3 (04:03): It's a lot. Not a, not a down moment, Speaker 1 (04:06): No. Speaker 3 (04:07): In our house. Speaker 1 (04:08): And you have this a lovely husband who is an artist and a very creative man and loves you very much. I've, I know this. Yes. Speaker 3 (04:15): . Yes. I'm blessed with us. Yes, Speaker 1 (04:17): Yes, indeed. Now, we, we know where you grew up already. We, we kind of go into our fun questions with all of our guests, and the first one is, where did you grow up? And obviously it's Israel, but the next one is, do you have a favorite book or movie? Are you a reader or a watcher, or both? Speaker 3 (04:34): Both . Both. I, I'm always reading something most of the time, a couple of books at the same time. Speaker 1 (04:44): Oh, you're one of those mm-hmm. Speaker 3 (04:45): . Yes. I'm one of those picking up one book and continuing with another. And again and again, I've got like a very big pile of books near my bedside. Uh, so I, I read all the time and all of our family is passionate about the movies. We all go together to most of the new newest movies that eh, come out. But I also was very passionate about giving my kids a film education, you can say that. So I show them all the classics and the musicals, which I, which I adore. So it's, they know most of the musicals by heart, I think. Speaker 1 (05:39): Wow. Speaker 3 (05:40): But what I love the most, uh, you can see that I, you will see very facet. I remember romantic . I like the Princess Ride. That's my favorite one. Yeah, I think I saw that many times. First time I saw that I was in the Army. So here in Israel, it's a mandatory service. So Speaker 1 (06:06): Is the movie Speaker 3 (06:07): Mandatory ? For me, it's Speaker 1 (06:11): . Oh, that's a great movie. Speaker 3 (06:14): Yeah, that's a great movie. But it's really hard to pick just one and another movie that I saw many, many, many times. Usually I don't see a movie more than once, but there, there, there's the movie of the, the Cohen Brothers about family lawyers, uh, intolerable cruel that I like to see and laugh about my own profession. Speaker 1 (06:40): Intolerable cruelty. Interesting. Yeah. That, does that translate to high conflict Speaker 3 (06:47): ? Speaker 1 (06:49): I'm not sure Speaker 3 (06:50): That that's, I think about the, uh, profession. Yeah. Okay. Interesting. Yes. And, and the question of the professional identity of a family lawyer, that the question that really, uh, entangles me and the movie has a special edge about it. So I can relate Speaker 1 (07:14): , huh? Bill, have you seen that movie? I Speaker 4 (07:16): Haven't. I'm not a movie person and I haven't seen that movie, but I've already put that on my list, so I definitely will. Speaker 1 (07:24): . Same here. Good. Thanks for the recommendation. Um, . All right. So the last fun question. If you could sit down for a conversation with one person from any point in history, who would it be? Speaker 3 (07:37): Wow, that's very, very big one. That's a very difficult question. I, I don't know if I, if I can really, uh, cultivate one person from all of the humanity, history, humanity of humanity, but I would really love to, to have, would've loved to sit down with Ruth Bather Greensburg. Mm. And have a good talk with her as a woman lawyer, as a feminist, as a social activist. She had a long, hard way, but she accomplished so much. So I think that will be a good, a good one. Speaker 1 (08:25): Yep. That would've been a very stimulating conversation and a long one, I'm sure. Speaker 3 (08:30): I'm sure also. Speaker 1 (08:32): That's good. That's great. Thank you for sharing that. That's, I, I just think it's very interesting. So let's kind of dive into the, you know, the, the good stuff, right? So, um, when we first met, uh, several years ago, you had already drafted this bill called the Family Dispute Settlement Law. But let's go back to the time before the law was drafted and passed. How did it come about? What led up to it? Speaker 3 (08:59): It took a long time to really write it in a way that it can pass. Okay. Uh, in the Israeli Parliament, which is [inaudible]. It started, uh, if I recall at, uh, 2005 when the first committee, one of the committees of the Justice Department in Israel has disrupted set of recommendations of how to, uh, increase mediation rates, uh, in family disputes. But it was written and was put in the drawer as, as they say, it couldn't be pushed, uh, any further than that. And I can tell you from my point of view that I, uh, returned to my studies as a, as a master's student at 2011. And I started to ask questions, many questions about the relationship between law and society. And, and particularly I wanted to know how can people can be encouraged to choose collaborative divorce, and how can we do that in Israel? Speaker 3 (10:21): It was a really problematic question that many of us, many of the lawyers that wanted to practice collaborative law in Israel were struggling with. Cause the main obligation of, uh, collaborative law is, uh, avoid going to court. And that wasn't possible for us as family lawyers and Israel. And to understand why it's not possible for a family lawyer, uh, in Israel to avoid, avoid going to court, you need to understand about the system a bit. Uh, Israel is a Jewish democracy, meaning we have a dual system, a religious one, and a civil one in particular in matters of, uh, marriage and divorce. Okay? It's very ancient system. And this ancient system, um, means for us that for a family lawyer in Israel, that we have a problem with not going to court. Because if you were to ask, um, a family lawyer in Israel at that time, uh, what do you recommend, uh, to a client at your first meeting? Speaker 3 (11:44): He or she would answer you with two words, seize your restriction. Okay. That means that first thing you have to do is submit a lawsuit to the jurisdictions that is better for your client. And as a family lawyer, you have an obligation to explain that, uh, to your client. And you have to explain, uh, a term. It's called concurrent jurisdiction. Okay. The term that, uh, explains the dual system of law here in Israel, because if you find yourself, uh, in the religious court or in a civil court, it's a big difference. And you could probably imagine why Speaker 1 (12:37): , right? I reme, I recall when I was in Israel hearing the term race to the courthouse. Right, Speaker 3 (12:43): Exactly. One, Speaker 1 (12:44): One gender is going toward, toward the, the religious court, and the other is going to the civil court. Speaker 3 (12:50): That's really the matter because the laws in religious, uh, court differ from the, those in the civil court. And the laws that apply to both court systems also differ given to the different, uh, judicial methods, legal, traditional, and worldviews. So the ba the main difference is, is around the questions of the question of fault. Okay. So, uh, while in the civil, um, family court, there's no fault divorce approach. In most religious court, you know, we have a rabbinical court for the Jews, Sharia for the Muslim, a different one for Drews a different one for Catholic, but I will call them all together, uh, religious courts. Okay. Because in all religious courts, if the parties do not agree to end the marriage, the party that wants to end, it must prove that the other party is to blame for bringing the relationship to an end. In this situation, both parties, I'm anxious to seek to restrictions in the court that is most favorable to their individual position. Speaker 3 (14:08): Okay? So once a lawyer meets a new, a new client, he or she are obligated to tell them about the race to the court. Okay. So here's my dilemma. As a collaborative lawyer, I would like to encourage people not to go to court, but as a professional family lawyer, I know that I'm obligated to tell them to rush to court. So what do I do? I, that's called a dilemma, . Yeah. Yeah. I'm in a very, very tough spot. The race authority is a big issue, especially if you have a situation of betrayal, a case of homosexuality, things that are very difficult to handle in their religious court. Okay. These are, as one can say, offenses that may cause the guilty quality, a great deal of property, or in some cases, and even the custody of the kids. So it's a very big issue. Okay. Uh, on the other hand, in civil court, we argue for no false divorce. Speaker 3 (15:38): And these so-called defenses such as sexual orientation carry no economic, uh, consequences. Okay. So the race through authorities is a big issue, and the race, uh, has developed due to our Supreme Court, uh, ruling that meant that the first, uh, court to which a lawsuit is submitted will be the court to decide on the concurrent issues. Okay? The family court cannot give you a divorce. Okay? The divorce itself is a religious matter in Israel, the marriage is a religious matter, and the divorce is a religious matter. But the matters surround the divorce, all the things around it. The civil court, the family court can decide. So the race means that anyone who is even beginning to consider the possibility of divorce should be aware of this and be advised by a family lawyer, which, uh, court system is better under the specific circumstances. And then, okay, there's even matters of, uh, um, inherent and of property that, that different between the court. And sometimes, yeah, the rabbinical court gives a decision that's not consistent with this civil, uh, laws, and one needs to go to the Supreme Court in order to change that ruling. So it's, it's a very complicated, uh, uh, situation. And, um, due to that, to be a collaborative lawyer in Israel 10 years ago was something that we struggle, eh, how can we do that and not be negligent? Okay. We had a big question of a professional responsibility. What will we do? We have, like escalating, Tesla says it's a cognitive, uh, dissonance. Mm. Cognitive dissonance. Speaker 4 (18:07): Yeah. Right? Speaker 3 (18:09): Because you know that going to court is going to be very harmful for the fa for the entire family, especially for the children. But you have, on the other hand, the law that forces you as a professional, as a responsible professional to explain to your client about the race to the authorities. Speaker 4 (18:35): Yeah. Can I jump in and ask how did your law fit into all of that? The law you proposed? How did it fit into all of that, and did it get much resistance? Yeah. Speaker 3 (18:51): Okay. Let's, let's start from the beginning. What the law that I was part of change is the legal default. Before it was implemented, we had, we still have, okay. The race authorities. So if we look at, it's, if, uh, as a default role, the default is to submit a lawsuit as soon as possible, because the race of the authorities, what the new law did was to change that. Because according to it, you do not submit a lawsuit. You don't start a family dispute, not in the family court, and not in the rabbinical court, not in a religious court. You don't start it with submitting a lawsuit. You start with different way, and that's the, and the, and what you do is you submit a motion to settle, which is a form with only your name, your ID number, your phone number, your address, and your spouse and your children. The same family name, first name, date of birth, phone number, address, phone number, email max. You don't get to tell the story at that piece of paper. It's a very short piece of paper. You don't have any place to put any details beside that initial personal information. Speaker 4 (20:42): Good. Speaker 3 (20:44): Yeah. Yeah. And that's not the only thing he does. After one submit a, a motion to settle, there is a period of timeout, 60 to 75 days in which no one can submit a lawsuit. Okay. So we have a mandatory timeout that forces people to negotiate. Okay. But there's another thing, , during this period of time, the 60, the 60 or 75 days, the parties will sit down with the social worker of the state, funded by the state, and will talk without lawyers, without any lawsuit at the background. And the social worker will try to facilitate a conversation and to see whether they can agree to continue to mediation, to collaborative process. So the motion to settle, once it's starting the procedure, it's completely different. Yeah. Then submitting a lawsuit, Speaker 4 (22:17): That sounds great, because I think here we've, we've, we're moving in that direction, but very slowly. So did you get a lot of resistance to this? Um, did it go through the legislature? Speaker 3 (22:30): Well, , Speaker 4 (22:33): How did it get approved? Speaker 3 (22:35): ? Well, it was a miracle. I think it was a miracle it got approved. I don't have a bad answer. Actually. M did an amazing parliament work, uh, and she managed, um, to negotiate a situation in which all, not, not not all, but most member of the Israeli parliament were, were, um, behind, uh, this bill, and they all were joined by the notion they, they have a chance to do something good for the people of Israel. Excellent. So it really was a remarkable point in our parliament history to see the coalition and opposition collaborative together in order to, uh, move on with this field. And, um, it became a lot Speaker 4 (23:42): Fantastic. Speaker 3 (23:43): We had a lot of, um, voices that were calling this revolution, so-called, they called it, they found it offensive to lawyers, first of all. Okay. Yeah. Because they saw that as, as unfortunately as like, like in a tech, on their professional identity saying that lawyers are doing bad things to their clients. But that wasn't my way of thinking. Okay. My way of thinking was that this is an opportunity for our, uh, profession as a lawyer, I'm talking as a family lawyer. It, it's a, it's an opportunity to evolve and to do better by our clients, so we can do more negotiations, do more agreements, um, put less time on submitting lawsuits and more time on negotiations. And that's what really happened eventually. Yeah. Speaker 4 (24:57): Say a little about it getting implemented, where their forms, where their procedures, and did the professionals really shift their approach? Speaker 3 (25:08): I'll start with the end . Okay. I think the, uh, lawyers as a profession are great in adapting to social changes. Mm. Uh, they're really excellent in that. And, uh, they did what they do best. They learned how to adapt and change the way they're handling the clients. Um, not all the way, but in the beginning of the proceedings, and it's very, at the beginning is very important. The simulation of the law took a lot of time. We started, implemented the law a year and a half after it, it was passed in the, which is the Israeli parliament. Uh, we had to, um, establish a new procedure with new, uh, forms and new regulations, uh, in order to, uh, make sure that we can take into account all kind of circumstances, uh, that can happen because we have the legal proceeding postpone period, the 60 or 75 days that one cannot submit a lawsuit. And we had to regulate the situation in which one can ask for assistance from the court in cases which are urgent. Okay. So we had to find out in many circumstances what to do in different, in many circumstances, what to do. And we had, um, uh, to regulate that. And we did that in order to the law to, uh, be implemented Speaker 1 (27:04): A few years ago. I had a, um, the enormous privilege of, of being in Israel, and I think it was the, the first time we met in person and, uh, that this law had been in implemented for a little over two years at that point. So, um, I, I had the really wonderful privilege of, of speaking to you and a, a group of family law stakeholders about the law and possible ch possible changes to it in the future. What impressed me at the time was, uh, not only the ability of the lawyers to adapt to this, but for I guess the judiciary and the, the legislative bodies to accept and give families an opportunity to meet with social workers and to learn some skills, um, bef during that timeout period, right. To, to learn how to negotiate a little bit better and other things like that. So at, at that time, you had some data from the government about the number of claims that were submitted to the court. What were you seeing at that two year mark and, um, now here, you know, several years later about the six year mark has stayed the same or changed? Speaker 3 (28:14): Well, we see at the data is the same. The first year of the implication of the law, we saw a sudden drop of 70% in the, uh, claims that were submitted, and we were shocked. And we said to one another, this cannot be true. And eventually it wasn't true . Okay. So Speaker 1 (28:39): 70%, 70 zero Speaker 3 (28:41): The first year? Yeah, the first year, first year was like a shock period. . Okay. And, and from the second year on the numbers, have the, the numbers settled. The numbers were the same from the second year on, and what we see is a drop least, uh, less dramatic, not 70%, but 45%. Okay. The numbers of claim filed in the second year of the law implementation. If we see that, if we look in the numbers, uh, at the, um, the year in 2018, there were about 25,000 claims. Okay. Uh, but the number, uh, of claims in the, um, pre previously year before the implantation of the law were 40, uh, 46, 40 Speaker 1 (29:44): 6,000, Speaker 3 (29:46): 46 companies. So the drop was 5%. Wow. And it sustained this, it stayed the same. Okay. So we came to the conclusion that the new law that was passed in 2014 reduced litigation in family conflicts by more than 40%. That's huge. That was amazing. We didn't think that was even possible. And I'm happy, I'm very, very happy about it. Speaker 1 (30:18): . Yeah. We see the smile on your face, , our listeners don't, but I'm sure they can hear it in your voice. So when we say the claims, um, submitted to the court, decreased, then those folks were settling, um, their divorces out of court through mediation. Is that what the result was or the impact? Speaker 3 (30:40): We don't know that. Hmm. We need more research in order to say that there were, uh, three types of research done, uh, at the last six years about the implementation of the law. What we came to understand that reducing the incentive for litigation does not necessarily increase the use of ADR processes. We did see lawyers adapt quickly and marvelously, meaning that lawyers were now doing a lot of more negotiating before submitting lawsuit, before submitting a, a motion to settle, uh, we saw parties submitting a motion to settle and then going to mediation, we saw people going to mediation without submitting a, a motion to settle, uh, because they knew that will happen anyway. Okay. They will ha they will have to sit down and, and talk. But we don't have numbers. We don't have data that can actually tell us after our research that we have more settlements that we cannot say that in, in this, uh, point of time. Speaker 1 (32:10): Well, maybe some of the parties got back together and didn't divorce at all. , who knows? Speaker 3 (32:15): That's also, that's also one of the things that can happen in family matters. You know, we say that in Israel, we have Shabbat, okay, people go back to work and school on Sunday. So we have a a a Sunday conflict. You know, the people after the weekend goes to court and said, oh, I cannot bury him. I cannot stand her. I want a divorce. So that is not happening anymore because they have to submit emotion to settle. That's funny. And that has, that has a mediating impact immediately. Yep. You know, the, the timeout, I, I call it, I call it a timeout procedure because it really forces people to sit down and think before acting. You cannot run for it as you used to do before. Speaker 4 (33:24): Right. Let me ask, ask another question that, that actually we hadn't thought about before, and that is, what about domestic violence? In other words, what if there's an urgent need for a restraining order against someone who's been perpetrating domestic violence right from the start? Cuz once that person knows their, their spouse or partner is leaving them is when it escalates the most often. Speaker 3 (33:55): Yeah. I know Speaker 4 (33:56): That 60 to 75 day waiting period, is there a way to get a restraining order of protection before one Speaker 3 (34:04): One can get a protection order any time? Okay. The, this particular does not extend above the law that, uh, can give you a restraining order. Okay. In Israel, there is a, a family domestic violence law, and this law does not apply to it. The court is open for, uh, submitting a restraining order all the time. Speaker 4 (34:35): Okay. But not making divorce decisions, that's the difference that you're in law. Speaker 3 (34:39): That's the difference. Yeah. Speaker 4 (34:41): Great. Okay. Speaker 3 (34:42): But in that matter of family, uh, violence, domestic violence, we, we did see that submit an emotion to settle helps women in crisis because they have more time to regroup and rethink and get advised about what they want to do when they have the restraining order intact. Speaker 4 (35:16): So the combination helped. Speaker 3 (35:18): Yeah. Mm. Speaker 4 (35:19): Yeah. Speaker 3 (35:20): You can have a restraining order or you can be in a, in the shelter. Okay. Many women go here to a shelter, and while the woman is in a shelter, she submits a motion to settle and it buys her time. Mm-hmm. Speaker 4 (35:38): . Interesting. Interesting. So Speaker 3 (35:41): We initially, we initially thought that these women will need to, um, shorten the period of the, of the timeout. And we regulated a rule that enables them to do that. Mm-hmm. . But we found that they, they don't want to do that. They want time to regroup. So that was an interesting outcome. Fascinating. Speaker 4 (36:10): Yeah. So, so let me ask just about mediation. You know, that that's, that was my primary career, uh, even though I became a lawyer and was also a therapist. But does this, did this significantly increase the use of mediation and I guess with that lawyers becoming mediators because that's what we've seen in the United States? Speaker 3 (36:34): Well, I can tell you that that's what I feel, but I don't have the numbers to support that. I can say there's a big increase in demand for mediation courses, for collaborative training for professionals that I can say, I can also, uh, say that, uh, my, uh, mediator's friends have more work, but I don't have that in official numbers. Okay. That's, so Speaker 4 (37:09): That's okay, Speaker 3 (37:11): . That's okay. That's what I can say. I need to be responsible to my answers. And Speaker 4 (37:17): You are. Yeah. So my, my last question. So with the pandemic, over the last three years, have you seen, uh, conflict increase and divorce rates increase, uh, conflict in families and divorce rates, and I suppose domestic violence also, which we've seen here? Speaker 3 (37:39): Well, as I told you before, we see an increase in violence all over the country. Mm-hmm. in all matters of life. So something has changed after the pandemic. I think people, people lost their patience. And we do see that there's many children in, uh, emotional distress. Mm. I called it the mental health pandemic. That's after the pandemic. So we do see that, we see a lot of kids getting professional mental health, health, and I cannot say there's a change in, um, the rates of divorce. I cannot say there is an increase. The, the numbers are high in Israel anyway, e every third couple is getting a divorce. Mm. Speaker 1 (38:44): Wow. Speaker 3 (38:45): So it's high. Anyway, what we do see is an increase in cases. Speaker 1 (38:54): Mm. Speaker 3 (38:56): Uh, we do see that more children n uh, need more. Eh, help, we do see that. But there's no research or no official data that's only, um, the sense that I'm getting from my, in my professional environment and the volumes rate are high in Israel now in a way that hasn't been ever before. We see that there's a crisis and everybody's trying to deal with that, um, the best they can. Speaker 1 (39:41): Mm. Anxiety is high, tension is high from many very, from many sources, um, which, which filters down into families. So last question. What is your hope for the future of family law in Israel? Speaker 3 (39:56): Wow, that's, Speaker 1 (39:57): That's a big one. I keep asking you really big questions, really Speaker 3 (40:01): Big questions. Well, um, if we can change the system, be more democracy, unless a religious state, that will be better. I think for, for everyone, the dual system, especially in family matters, is very hard for everyone. Okay. I hope that, that someday people that want to go to the religious court can go to the religious court, but people that are not religious, that are secular, are not forced to get a divorce at the, eh, religious court, which is the situation today. But cause in Israel today, because we're a Jewish democracy, the religious has a very big part in our life. Sure. A marriage and divorce in Israel are a religious ceremonies. You cannot marry only in a civil way and you cannot get a divorce, only in the civil way, only in the religious way. So that's very difficult, uh, for many people here in Israel. And I hope the people of Israel can work it out, uh, in a peaceful way and can come about a new agreement about the way of life here in Israel, that it'll be more a democracy and less a religious one. Although I, although I wish it to stay a Jewish state, okay. Being Jewish without being so religious is possible. So I hope that will be the way for us. Speaker 1 (42:10): All right. Well, thank you so much Mihal for, for joining us and sharing all of these, uh, very interesting and, and probably challenging from, um, the perspective of an Israeli, uh, you know, these are tough things you've done, and, you know, we admire the work you and others have done there in Israel to make this impact on families. It's, it's, it's a big deal. And, um, I, I'm sure our listeners will understand that, especially those who are involved in, in family law and legislation and in the profession. So, um, wherever you are today listening to this, we hope it's been very, um, fascinating and, and, um, inspiring. So, uh, we're very, very grateful to you, our listeners for joining us. And thank you again, Mihal for, for joining us today. And I'm sure we'll have you back sometime . We'd love to, to do that. Speaker 3 (43:05): Thank you for having me. Speaker 1 (43:12): So next week, um, in our episode we'll talk about why connection is so important in high conflict interactions. In fact, it's critical. So send your questions to podcast high conflict institute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast and please tell all your friends about us and we'd be grateful if you'd leave us a review wherever you listen to our podcast. Until next time, keep learning and growing and give kindness to others and to yourself while we all strive toward the missing piece. It's All Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music, by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins and Ziv Moran. Find the show, show notes and transcripts@truestory.fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app Laos ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.