~ By: Jon Kramer, LCSW, Heidi Tuffias, Esq., M.A., and Anna Addleman, CPA, CDFA®

As consensual divorce professionals, we have observed a growing trend among amicable couples pursuing a consensual divorce resolution (CDR). These parties express clear intentions to dissolve their marriage; tell us how amicable they are and how smoothly their divorce process will proceed. However, as the process unfolds, it becomes apparent that while they are divorcing, they are not yet physically-financially-emotionally separated. These cases frequently involve couples who are cohabitating, sharing combined finances, co-parenting without having told the children they are separating and even maintaining social and sexual connections. Despite their best intentions, these cases linger—progress slows, decision-making including coparenting stalls, and often, the process unravels altogether. These “amicable” couples are tangled in the initial Kubler-Ross stages of grief beyond anything that anyone was prepared for or expecting. We have come to call these situations “unseparated cases”.

Separation Ambivalence

We describe the underlying dynamic of these unseparated cases as “separation ambivalence”—a term we define as the conscious and unconscious conflicted feelings people experience when facing a significant ending or transition, such as divorce. It represents the universal, psychological tension between wanting to move forward and holding on to the familiar/safe even if it is excruciating and miserable. Our concept draws some direction from Dr. William Doherty’s work on “marital ambivalence”, a term used in the context of discernment counseling when one or both spouses are unsure about the future of the marriage. While Doherty’s framework often applies to couples still contemplating whether to divorce, separation ambivalence describes a similar conflict that arises after the decision to divorce has been made—but before all of the emotional, physical and financial separation necessary to divorce has occurred. In addition, the separation ambivalence could be caused by either or both parties experiencing intolerable, long standing, emotional issues arising from past separation and abandonment traumas. Divorce triggers feelings in everyone surrounding other major separations from the past, and without professional help from an experienced mental health professional, some people are going to significantly struggle and obstruct any CDR process, consciously and unconsciously.

Divorce is a legal, financial, parental and emotional transition. Clients will experience powerful internal conflicts—between fear and freedom, comfort and change, grief and growth. The fear of loss can manifest in many forms: loss of identity, financial security, family routines, the wished-for family life, or as we often hear our clients tell us, “the lifestyle I am accustomed to.” For many, the uncertainty of life after divorce feels more threatening than the safety (including the discomfort) of the status quo or the chance of convincing the other to stay. This psychological tug-of-war, what we might call separation paralysis, can prevent genuine transformation and creates a formidable obstacle to the collaborative team. From a psychological perspective, attachment theory (John Bowlby, Allan Schore, Daniel Siegel, among others) helps explain this ambivalence. Long-term attachment bonds do not dissolve simply because a legal process begins. The continued proximity, shared routines, magnetic pull of the dysfunctional equilibrium (status quo) and financial interdependence all reinforce emotional attachment, making it harder for individuals and their family to embrace the next chapter of their lives.

How to identify Separation Ambivalence

In our collective experience, a CDR case cannot truly settle until both parties have achieved a significant amount of practical and emotional separation. Although the clients may focus attention on an aspect of the financial or parenting items in their case as the reason they cannot come to agreements, the underlying reason is they are not ready to truly separate and end the marriage. This can mean different things for different people. Generally true separation means the parties are: (1) no longer cohabitating on the same property or even the same block; (2) they have separate financial accounts, financial independence and privacy and have ceased commingling funds; (3) they spend time separately with the children; (4) they do not know the other’s whereabouts at all times; and (5) they do not spend a significant amount of their work or personal time together. In situations where any of these boundaries remain blurred, it is a red flag that the parties are not separated. Either the case will linger indefinitely or the separation is moving in a messy and uncomfortable way requiring the team to help the parties address the issue directly. It is vital that the professional team remains attentive to signs of separation ambivalence.

What to do about Separation Ambivalence

Everyone on the team will know something is off with this type of case when they are perplexed about why it is not moving forward. The mental health professional or child development specialist on the team is often best positioned to recognize and name this dynamic. Once separation ambivalence is identified, the team should discuss it openly with each other and then create a plan to discuss it with the parties. The team and the parties should consider refocusing all or parts of the process until substantial work has been done to alleviate the separation ambivalence. The mental health professional can normalize these conflicted feelings—reassuring clients and the professional team that ambivalence is not a sign of weakness but a natural part of major life transitions.

During this refocus, the team can assist in gradual transition planning—helping clients envision and implement the practical steps needed for independent living while providing emotional support through the adjustment and working on co-parenting skills. The team can put together a step-by-step list of the elements of a separation and take them one step at a time. The parties have likely already accomplished some of the steps. With the team’s help the parties can build on those. For example, the financial neutral can help with a plan to open separate bank accounts, deposit separate monies into each of these accounts so parties can begin to pay his or her own expenses, etc. Additionally, the team can direct the clients towards therapy to work on any entrenched issues relating to trauma and/or attachment they are experiencing that may be preventing separation.

The team can also work on itself. Sometimes, even well-intentioned “creative thinking” teamwork can inadvertently reinforce ambivalence. For example, when team members negotiate ongoing enmeshed financial, business or nesting because that’s what the parties want or “for the sake of fairness” or “for the children,” these actions may unintentionally perpetuate emotional and logistical enmeshment and the family’s suffering. It is important for the professional team to remain client centered, yet also objective and focused on the goals our clients articulated to us.

The goal is not to push clients prematurely toward action, but rather to raise awareness and then offer recommendations on the process forward. Otherwise, the focus of work will not address the core problem. We want to make sure the conversation is about what is real: the need to address that the parties are having a problem separating. If separation ambivalence is not correctly vetted than talking about important items like a Moore/Marsden or a house appraisal will probably prove fruitless.

Conclusion

“Separation ambivalence” offers a useful framework for understanding why some seemingly “easy”, amicable divorces stall or dramatically transition out of CDR processes. Divorce is not only a legal transition but a financial-psychological-relational one. The progress depends on the parties’ conscious and unconscious readiness to let go of the familiar and step into the unknown, and the professional team’s ability to make sure that the focus is on the actual problem and not the smoke screen. By identifying and addressing separation ambivalence, professional teams can guide clients through a more authentic, stable, and ultimately successful divorce process—one that honors their legal, financial and emotional realities, and does so towards respectful closure.

References

  • Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books.
  • Doherty, W. J. (2017). The Discernment Counseling Approach to Ambivalence About Divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.
  • Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
  • Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. Guilford Press.

The post “Separation Ambivalence”: When Divorce Has Begun, But Separation Has Not appeared first on Collaborative Practice of California.