I recently attended the New Zealand Family Law Conference.
As an outsider, I noticed a few things. First, I know nothing about New Zealand
trust law, but the presentation about Family Trusts was still interesting.
Second, and this really came as no surprise, family law is the same whether it
happens in New Zealand, the United States, or anywhere that allows divorce
fairly easily and especially in places that are, at their core, adversarial.
It came as no surprise, therefore, that the final
presentation of the conference was about dealing with difficult people,
specifically about recognizing and responding to people with diagnosable
personality disorders. It was humorous as the presenter showed video clips
depicting characters who fit each stereotypical diagnosis. But we all know that
dealing with people who have personality disorders is rarely funny and
sometimes downright frightening.
A few days after the conference I read an article called “Why
I Feel Bad for the Pepper-Spraying Policeman, Lt. John Pike.” For those of
you who do not know who Lt. John Pike is, he is a police officer at the
University of California Davis (or he might be a Davis City Police Officer) who
pepper-sprayed student Occupy protestors while
they were sitting down and already handcuffed. There is a photo in the
article. Since the incident, there have been cries for his termination, and
people have called for the UC Davis Chancellor to resign as well. As the
article says, he “has become the new face of evil among people following the
Occupy protests around the country.”
But the article presents a different scenario. Lt. John Pike
is a byproduct of a system that has gotten completely out of control. More
importantly, the article suggests that while being pepper sprayed is awful,
what happens to a normal guy like Lt. John Pike to turn him into someone capable
of nonchalantly pepper spraying restrained students is possibly much worse.
And no, I am not suggesting Lt. John Pike has a diagnosable
personality disorder. I am, however, suggesting that we look to the system as
part of the cause of the personality disordered clients we see in the family
law system. These people come to the system with certain propensities, have
been harmed by other systems all their lives, and then are asked to be rational
and non-emotional during one of the most difficult and emotionally intense
times of their lives. Do we really expect to get different results?
The system fails these people. Lawyers, who are often the
front line of the public’s interaction with the family law system, are never
trained to understand these people. Lawyers are part of a system that asks us
to rip emotion and humanity out of the case in order to focus on “relevant
facts.” While many, and probably most, family law professionals take up the
work is because they care deeply about people, the system ensures we take a
“healthy” distance from that caring.
And so we are left with a system attempting to get people
with personality disorders, often resulting from incomplete emotional
attachment as children, to emotionally detach and combining them with lawyers
forced to detach from the human side of the case to focus on the legal side. We
stir these groups together with a system that is overburdened and has no time
or resources to respond to the people involved.
What do we expect to happen?
We should be asking a different question. How can we learn
to respond to these issues? How can we create a system that is more responsive?
How can we have more interdisciplinary understanding? How can we provide the
space for clients to feel heard and understood? There is no question that
dealing with people with diagnosable personality disorders is difficult,
extremely difficult. But how much of how they act is a direct result of the
system in which we force them to operate?
What do you think we could do to improve it?
©
Rebecca Stahl 2011, all rights reserved.