Family Law feels as if it had gone to the other extreme: the psychology of justice occurs in such a degree that it appears that sentencing is a mortal sin and people think that the solution must be found in the combined therapy.
Many years ago, someone noticed that the law alone was not enough to understand and help the clients and they took a psychology course for lawyers, they got a degree in Social Psychology, a degree in psychodrama, they trained and practiced. They had training in psychology from different schools and their collection of psychology books is unusually nourished. They love psychology.
They are in favor of personal therapy, couples or family therapy, they think it is appropriate, they ask their clients if they had taken up some before making decisions in their lives (e.g. a divorce). Also, they suggest that the customers should have a parallel therapeutic space before starting to make certain judgments with great emotional charge.
We clarify all this so that you know that they are not "typical attorneys", who only read the Civil Code and fail in court.
They are all in favor of the court negotiation, mediation when possible, psychotherapy, interdisciplinary work and everything that can help them solve their problems.
But ... here comes the “but”. NOT ALL TRIALS IN WHICH THERE IS A CONFLICT IS NECESSARILY RESOLVED THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF THERAPY, but sometimes it is necessary to deliver a judgment to decide what people could not do, did not want to do or could do to solve their problems:
- Keep endless interviews, e.g. two brothers who hate each other to death, who have a very bad relationship
cannot have justice "fix" the link for them through the intervention of a social worker and a psychologist, if
the same brothers who say they DO NOT WANT to resume the relationship keep wasting every meeting
with their obligations. They go to the courts to find their justice, which means "giving each brother what he
deserves" AND THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE BOND and legacy.
- Start a bond between two people who have been separated for 15 years. Each of them now has their
individual life, their new partners, their grown children and only wants a judge to recognize that the
agreement on food has expired and needs to be changed according to the factual situation. Therefore, the
man should no longer continue to pay the amount agreed upon in other circumstances.
If this went through mediation and there was no deal, if you filed a complaint and there was no raid, it would be necessary to insist on "sending" the former partners to therapy in order to improve their communication and put an end to the litigation.
One of them says no, they've already done enough therapy, mediation, etc. Full stop. So, they continue the trial and MEET THE JUDGE. If the court orders compulsive therapy in such cases, you lose time although the recommendation may have the best intentions - no doubt.
You can find cases in which the trial is delayed for more than a year, the court "hoping that the parties agree" and it becomes clear that litigation ends, but without the two giving up on their positions and there being no desire to meet again or even to finish the trial.
In such cases, the lawyer usually turns into a "psycho-social counsel," even if part of the modernization and humanization of justice argues that judges should not forget that one of their main functions is to pass the sentence. They first try to settle things.
Perfect. But that's not necessarily done through therapy sessions for people who do not want to do it. Adult people litigate on economic issues even if they have or have had family ties.
Moreover, practitioners know much of the result which can be obtained with patients depends on their motivation.
Family lawyers share the fact that when relational therapies are taken "by order of the court" and not because the parties agree on them, they always fail and only constitute a further expansion of the sentence. Do not be afraid. This does not mean that psychotherapy is prehistoric. Family lawyers are aware of the fact that the current judges are much more open and have more tools to resolve conflicts without litigation.
What angers them is that they do not want to replace the sentence consisting of therapy with something else that would be more effective.
0 comments:
Post a Comment