The problem solving that goes on in Collaborative Divorce Law can involve groups of two, four, five, six or more participants. Issues of how the group works are very different from those that can drop up in the traditional one-to-one relationship (attorney-client).
One difference is a phenomenon that some mental health workers refer to as “triangulation”. The key element in triangulation is an alliance among two or more participants. The At one level, the unspoken idea is that a participant enlists another participant in order to establish an advantage in the process. If it were stated, the unstated invitation would be “If you help me, I will like you”. The word help could just as well be “protect”, “nurture” “agree with” etc. These unstated and unsolicited invitations can occur very early in the process, even when an initial appointment is being arranged or driving instructions are being given.
Here is a very concrete example of something that tends to crop up in group therapy. As the group is leaving the room, one participant hangs back and wants to ask a question or clarify something. A good response to this invitation is to redirect the participant back into the group, “why not save the question and bring it up in the group next time”. This tactic might extinguish the invitation or, in the case of a genuine question, the participant may ask the question during the next group meeting. The same would apply in responding to such invitations during the collaborative group session.
One of the prime reasons for managing this situation is that the triangle is designed to help the participant avoid having to express feelings directly to another participant in the group. Perhaps this tactic is necessary at the time but after one or two sessions, the issue must be dealt with otherwise the problem solving will be delayed and possibly destroyed. The participant will have ample time to speak with his lawyer in individuals.