Divorce Settlement

1. Demographics (People Involved)
Wife
Ex-Husband
2 Children
Joni (age 11)
James (age 9)

2. Key Findings

Wife
New Job: 50+Hours/week; Yearly Salary $ 40,000
Resides Close to Parents, and Sister (unmarried)

Ex-Husband
New Position: 15 Years Tenure; Yearly Salary $ 65,000; Substantial Vacation and Leave time; Flexible Hours.
Resides an hour drive; Close to Parent.

Children: James & Joni
Active in Sports & Church

Currently Residing with the Mother
Emotional Distraught

3. Goals Joint Custody: Wife being the primary custodial parent Visitation: Every other full weekend Alternating holiday schedule (switching holidays from year to year as well) Six weeks during the summer and every other school break time Equal responsibility for transporting to/from Insurance & Child Support: Husband Provides Insurance and Pay a significant Child Support Payment

4. Objectives Deciding on the basis of will is costly:

Situation: Make sure to put the children’s needs first, not what you personally want. The case for using objective criteria:

Make a decision based on a principle, not pressure. There’s no way that someone can say you took advantage of them if your argument is based on facts instead of wants. “No one backed down; no one appeared weak - just reasonable.” (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton, 85).

Situation: Concession and Offer: Example; you can have the kids on Christmas if you pay me double the child support for the month. Developing objective criteria:
Principle negotiations = two questions. “How do you develop objective criteria, and how do you use them in negotiating?” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 86).
Situation: Involves: equal treatment, moral standards, what a court would decide, and maybe costs. Divorce specifically, both parents should decide on visitation rights together, instead of doing it separately, that way it seems more fair.

Negotiating with objective criteria:
The three basic points to remember:
Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied.
Never yield to pressure, only principle (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 89-91).

The circle chart four steps and asking direct questions
Step I: What's wrong? What are current symptoms? What are disliked facts contrasted with a preferred situation?
Step II: Diagnose the problem: Sort symptoms into categories. Suggest causes. Observe what is lacking. Note barriers to resolving the problem.
Step III: What are possible strategies or prescriptions? What are some theoretical cures? Generate broad ideas about what might be done.

Step IV: What might be done? What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem (Fisher, Ury, & Patten 69)?
Situation: Can be difficult to focus on facts and not emotions; can also be difficult to not be greedy and to put yourself in others shoes.
Know what we want but also put in perspective what the husband wants.
Important to ask what their preferences are and to identify shared interests (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 80).
Important for us to show interest in the father and what he thinks he needs on his side.
Threatening is not a good idea but it is important to be creative (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 80)

5. Formulation
Integrative or collaborative bargaining: Both parties have diverse and common interest and the negations will result in both parties coming to a mutual understanding, that would be fair to both the wife and the Ex-husband and both would gain.
Soft Positional Bargaining would be beneficial:
Make Concessions to cultivate the relationship
In order to maintain and build a good relationship and avoid confrontation for the sake of the children;
Make offers:
To achieve desire visitation and No relocating
Goal is agreement:
Quick Solution and Avoid lengthy Negotiations

Maintain Stability and Positive Relationship with Children
Ease Emotional Distraught and Stress
Avoid Legal Process and Courts
Separate the People from the Problem

Awareness and Perspective throughout the entire process:

Make a mutual commitment to work together – The Mom should be honest and open the negotiating by telling the father that she wants to work together in making decisions. Mother states, “This is a difficult situation for both of us. I think we should commit to sharing our feelings and work together towards a solution.”

“The process of working out an agreement may produce a psychological commitment to a mutually satisfactory outcome (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton,)”.

Don’t allow emotions to control the conflict- The Mom is prepared to allow the father to let off steam and work through any misunderstandings.

“People obtain psychological release through the simple process of recounting their grievances to an attentive audience (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton,)”.

Both parties are involved in the decision making – Make sure the father participates in the process of the decision making.

“If they are not involved in the process, they are unlikely to approve the product” (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton)
Acknowledge the emotions of both parties: Mom states, “I’m scared right now, and I’d be devastated if the kids didn’t live with me. How do you feel?”

“Making your feelings or theirs and explicit focus of discussion will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, it will also make the negotiations less reactive and more pro-active” (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton,).

Demonstrate that we understand: Ask the father his views and allow him to explain. If the mother responds with an understanding, this will draw the father in and make him feel as though he’s being heard.

Use descriptive language: Mother should state, “I understand your need to move close to your mother, and that you got a terrific job opportunity. However, I feel that moving the kids to an unfamiliar environment, when they are already distressed, may not be the best choice for them.”

At no cost do we place blame: If we allow our emotions to lead us into placing blame, the father will most likely become defensive and the mutual connection is lost.

“Blaming is an easy mode to fall into, particularly when you fell that the other side is indeed responsible. But even if blaming is justified, it is usually counterproductive” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton).

Put yourself in his shoes – Come prepared to listen and see things from the father’s perception and truly understand how he feels.
The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it: as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton,).

6. Plan

BATNA
Although we want to come to a shared/mutual decision, we are prepared to not over accommodate to the other party. If this happens, Mom could end up with a deal that she should’ve turned down.
Also, the use of a bottom line will be avoided. “A bottom line – by its very nature rigid – is almost certain to be too rigid (Fisher, Ury, &, Patton,)”. Mom is prepared to stand firm in trying to influence the Father to agree on joint custody, with her being the primary custodial parent. However, Mom is open to other alternatives involving child support, insurance coverage, visitation and transportation of the kids.

Know our BATNA:
(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
Primary goal: Joint custody with Mom having primary custody of the kids.
1. Joint custody with Mom having primary custody of the kids 2. Father pays standard child support based on income levels, and provides health insurance for kids 3. Visitation is every other weekend, alternating holidays, six weeks during summers and every other school break

Alternative 1: Joint custody with Mom having primary custody of the kids 2. Father pays less than set standards of child support, and provides health insurance for kids 3. Visitation is every other weekend, alternating holidays, six weeks during summers and every other school break.
Alternative 2: Joint custody with Mom having primary custody of the kids. 2. Father pays less than set standards of child support, and provides health insurance for kids 3. Visitation is every other weekend, alternating holidays, six weeks during summers and every other school break. Plus kids stay with Dad during summer in which Mom is traveling.
Alternative 3: Joint custody with Mom having primary custody of the kids 2. Father pays less than standard support, and Mom provides the health insurance. 3. Visitation is every other weekend, alternating holidays, six weeks during summers and every other school break. Plus kids stay with Dad during summer in which Mom is traveling since he has such a large amount of vacation time. There are many alternatives in which we can be prepared to negotiate while maintaining our interests in receiving primary custody. Which is the next best available alternative when the Father disagrees? If the father does not like proposed alternatives, we explain to the Father that these are in fact reasonable option for all parties. “If they think you lack a good alternative when in fact you have one, then you should almost certainly let them know” (Fisher, Ury,&, Patton,).

Consider the Father’s BATNA:
Primary goal: Joint custody with Dad having primary custody of the kids:

1. Joint custody with Dad having primary custody of the kids 2. Not concerned with support as he feels financially stable 3. Visitation is every other weekend, alternating holidays, six weeks during summers and every other school break.
We are prepared that while Dad says he doesn’t care about receiving support, he may care about having to pay it. This is where our prepared BATNA becomes an advantage.

7. Strategy

What If They Won't Play?

Negotiation Jujitsu:
Don't attach their position, look behind it: When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for interest behind it, seek out the principles that reflect, and think about ways to improve it.
Solution: If the father doesn't agree to the custody terms, we could ask what would be a better agreement. If changing who gets them first causes insecurity in the children is it worth changing. By arguing it causes great stress on the children. Since both parents are willing to work it through they should be able to come to a common ground.
Don't defend your ideas, invite criticisms and advice: A lot of time in negotiation is spent criticizing. Rather than resisting the other side's criticism, invite it. Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what's wrong with.
Solution: Speak with the father about what would be a better solution for the insurance, child support.

Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem: When the other side attacks you personally, as frequently happen resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead sit back and allow them to let off steam. Listen to them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem.
Solution: List to what the father has to say, until we know what the father is questioning it is hard to know if he will attack. Since both parents are willing to get along hopefully this won't happen.
Ask questions and pause: Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements. Questions offer them no target to strike at, no position to attack. Silence often creates the impression of a stalemate that the other side will feel impelled to break by answering your question or coming up with a new solution.
Solution: Question do you think it would be better to get the children's opinion on who should stay with for their 1st weekend or holiday?
The book states to call in a third party if their own efforts do not shift. I am assuming that a third party is already involved.

What If They Use Dirty Tricks?

Separate the people from the problem: Don't attack people personally for using a tactic you consider illegitimate. If they get defensive it may be more difficult for them to give up the tactic, and they may be left with a residue of anger that will fester and interfere with other issues.

Solution: If the father starts to get angry over the custody of the children along with insurance and child support. We can question why he thinks this should change. If something doesn't work then perhaps we should readdress these again when we have all cooled off.
Focus on the interests, not positions:
Solution: Go back to what the original proposal was for the children. Not what the parents want.
Invent options for mutual gain: Is it our mutual interest to have both of use this tactic?
Solution: Go back by asking the preferences of what the father wants and is it in the best interest of the children.
Insist on using objective criteria: Above all, be hard on principle.
Solution: Again it goes back to what is best for the children. As both parents are willing to communicate equally this shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Other common tricky tactics:
Deliberate deception: Disentangle the people from the problem. This doesn't mean calling him a liar, but to make the negotiation precede independent of trust.
Ambiguous authority: The other side may allow you to believe that they like you; they full authority to compromise when they don't.
Dubious intentions: Where issue is one of possible misrepresentation of their intention to comply with the agreement, it is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself.

Less than full disclosure is not the same as deception: Deliberate deception as to facts or one's intentions is quite different from not fully disclosing one's present thinking.
Solution: To go into the negotiation open-minded and knowing that he might try to misrepresent the issue at hand.

Psychological warfare:
Stressful situations: Deciding where the meeting should take place, if it is making either party feel stressed suggest a different location.
Solution: Find neutral ground perhaps at the attorney's office. Depending on how many meetings it could be best switch up and alternate from attorney office to the other.
Personal attacks: There are also ways for the other side to use verbal or nonverbal communication to make you feel uncomfortable.
Solution: If the father starts to bring up negatives about the mother, the mother should bring it up explicitly which should prevent a recurrence.
The good-guy/bad-guy routine: This type of routine is a form of psychological manipulation. If you recognize it, you won't be taken in.
Solution: When the good-guy makes his pitch, just ask him the same question you asked the bad-guy.
An example from the book: "I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, and I still want to know why you think that is fair."

Threats: Threats are one of the most abused tactics in negotiation. A threat seems easy to make much easier than an offer. Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to as there are other ways to communicate.
Solution: I don't see the husband making threats regarding his children, however it is he does you can tell him that you do not negotiate on threats, but the merit of the case.
Positional pressure tactics: Refusal to negotiate: First, recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy: an attempt to use their entry into negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance. Secondly talk about their refusal to negotiate and communicate either directly or through a third party.
Extreme demands/escalating demands: Negotiators will frequently start with extreme proposals or they may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes on another.
Solution: Bringing the tactic to their attention works well here. Ask for principled justification of his position until it looks ridiculous even to them. Depending on what demands he brings to the table we can take this approach once those have been identify.

8. References
Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to YES. New York: Penguin Books, 1983.