Co-resolution Journal: Conducting a Negotiation

[the following is based on an actual co-resolution case but, in order to maintain confidentiality, I will be incredibly vague and even misleading on the details that do not pertain to negotiation moves, actions, and arguments]

My co-resolver and I were conducting a change of custody from a parent to a non-parent.  The non-parent was a relative of the parent that was absent from the table and, apparently, from the child's life.  I was assisting the parent and my co-resolver was assisting the non-parent.

We started the process in a joint session and learned that the parties had agreed to the change in custody prior to coming to the table and needed little assistance in proposing a mutually-agreeable parenting time arrangement.  The parties were both putting effort into expressing the sense of cooperation between them; however, when money issues such as child support arose, they both became very quiet.  At this point my co-resolver called for a caucus.

I took my party, the parent, to a separate conference room, rehashed the progress that had been made thus far and asked her for reactions.  I then conveyed my sense of the situation--she, Parent was agreeable to Non-parent having custody, Non-parent was willing to take custody, but money was going to be an issue (based on the noticeable discomfort in both parties when the topic arose).  We then discussed Parent's thoughts on the subject, Parent's economic situation, and the amount of child support the absentee parent was ordered to pay, thereby building a base of knowledge for the two of us to collaboratively prepare boundaries, strategies, and arguments for the negotiation.  We decided that we would not throw around numbers (possibly ending up negotiating against ourselves), but go in to the next joint session open to hear what Non-parent had to say, respond with her concerns, and then caucus again if necessary.

At the outset of the next joint session, I politely and subtly deferred to the other side to initiate the discussion. The other co-resolver then identified issues that had remained unresolved: child support and tax exemption.  I suggested that we discuss tax exemption first--Non-parent made much more, so Parent was entirely willing to concede the tax exemption issue.  In caucus, we had decided that we would start with this concession to show good faith, engender appreciation from Non-parent, and avoid tit-for-tat trading.  Speaking for herself, Parent explained why she wanted Non-parent to have the tax exemption.  Non-parent quietly accepted and Non-parent's co-resolver expressed appreciation for the concession.

Deferring to the agenda, Non-parent's co-resolver raised the issue of child support and then began to talk about all of the child's expenses that their side had discussed in caucus.  I expressed the appreciation for Non-parent's undertaking these expenses that Parent had raised in caucus and then asked whether they were asking for reimbursement for expenses or a specific amount per month in support.  Non-parent expressed that she wanted a regular and fair amount but did not want to touch the back support Parent was receiving from the absentee parent, as that money was already owed to Parent.  Parent became emotional in a genuine catharsis, expressed that Parent would still have a different child at home even with the transfer in custody and that, as a result, Parent's overall expenses would not be reduced much (an argument we had discussed in caucus).

I then suggested a caucus and, when we got back into our conference room, Parent was willing to give a number.  Because the number Parent suggested was a bit more than the absentee parent paid in monthly child support, I suggested that we use that argument to show that it was fair.  When we returned, I structured our proposal to the other side, pointing out that Non-parent wanted a fair amount and that Parent was willing to pay slightly more than the Court had ordered the absentee parent to pay.  Non-parent immediately and placidly accepted.

The time elapsed from raising the money issues--including two caucuses, an emotional catharsis, and the resolution of two arguments--was fifteen to twenty minutes.  The other co-resolver mused that, under the less-involved assistance of a mediator, the case may not have been resolved.  Apparently, Non-parent was entirely uncomfortable with talking about money issues (though they were important) and wanted the co-resolver to do the majority of the talking for their side.

Because the parties were able to trust and relax around their respective co-resolvers and because the co-resolvers were able to insert professionalism, artfulness, good arguments, and wise guidance into the negotiation, this matter was resolved quickly, thoroughly, and to the full satisfaction of the parties.