Personal Conflict Paper
Select a past personal conflict that has been resolved favorably or unfavorably.
Write a report, using the weekly readings as a guide, that covers the following information about the conflict:
Identify the dynamics that fed the conflict.
Objectively evaluate the conflict to identify the presenting and underlying causes.
Identify at least three Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) opportunities for resolution.
Support your conclusions using at least two academic sources.
Divorce settlement, more specifically alimony disbursement provides a perfect field for studying personal conflict management. Take for example a case reintroduced in a Massachusetts court for reconsideration, in 2009 in which Holly Chiancola, a 52-year-old woman from Gloucester, Massachusetts had lost earlier in a divorce settlement case asset that include: a second house, property in Costa Rica and compelled by the court to pay $96,000 yearly in alimony to her ex-husband. Her ex-husband for 19 years is a carpenter and on-and-off fashion model. The estranged husband is identified by Chiancola to have taken advantage of her, due to Chiancola’s pre-2008 financial crisis boom in which she had garnered profit working in the real estate sector as an agent. The divorce terms were ordered to effect by a judge in Massachusetts in 2006, but Chiancola sought to change the terms of settlement through a court in an appeal in 2009, after the financial crisis.
A variety of dynamics played an important role in fanning the conflict between Chiancola and her ex-husband. First and foremost, is a sense of self-serving fairness interpretation that Chiancola harbors. Rather than concluding what was fair from a position of neutrality, being the most affected party, Chiancola interpreted the case as unfair, since it was not beneficial to her. This is even more significant when viewed in the post-2008 financial crisis perspective. There is also an element of escalation commitment. This is in the sense that Chiancola’s ex-husband is portrayed to have irrationally escalated his commitment in the overuse of the course of action assigned by the court. He was to be paid a yearly alimony of $96,000 but the court did not consider the 2008 financial meltdown and burst in real estate bubble. As such, he ex was increasing Chiancola financial vulnerabilities by seeking to maintain a $96,000 yearly alimony even after the 2008 financial crisis, clearly stressing Chiancola mental, and physical well being. This point of view is subjective to her perspective on the case. Finally, Chiancola is angry about an unfair Massachusetts laws that encourages aggressive pursuit of the spousal support in the case that one spouse is determined to have done more wrong. Stating that he ex-husband “went for the jugular, believe me” metaphorically to indicate that he was hell-bent on finishing her in cold blood.
Chiancola is justified to seek redress through the courts as this is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. There is a large cloud of uncertainty surrounding divorce settlement. This is because human beings are subject to change, some without their control. As such, financial commitment can be subjective to changes that occur around their life, some forces they can control some they cannot. Research by Jackson (2012) identifies that alimony is the most commonly litigated item in family law as such, divorcing spouses need to have a more predictable outcome that in part examines the uncertainty of alimony awards overtime as of now, they are unfair, antiquated and unbalanced (p15). In this case, Chiancola suggests that the Massachusetts laws are in fact outdated not in favor of her well being. Secondly, her husband according to Chiancola is resentful and does not show regard for her well being.
In this case, the initial settlement was unbalanced in the sense that it was not considerate of the uncertainty she faced. The financial crisis was not her own doing and was as such out of her control. Secondly it was unfair to her since her view is that the laws are outdated. According to Jackson, most state laws allow for alimony to be paid for “”reasonable period of time” until the recipient be comes self-supporting, usually about five years” (Jackson, 2012, p15). Chiancola identifies that her ex-husband is indeed able to work and earn a living and maintains properties in Costa Rica and a home. May (2012) in Conflicting Theories of Alimony identifies that alimony’s original justification does not fit in the 21st century stating that awarding alimony was based on a 19th century law where men barred women from working as such, courts granted limited divorce so that the man had a legal duty continue supporting the woman’s lifeline after divorce (p406-407). This is also the reason why Chiancola supports the Massachusetts Alimony Reforms movement.
Litigation is a form of dispute resolution that sees the husband and wife face off in front of judge and jury or a judge alone. The judge and jury will be responsible for weighing the evidence and also dictate the ruling that are binding before the law. Re-litigation for such a couple will be useful but subject to future appeals by either partners (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006, p245). It is the most commonly used ADR. Arbitration is also a more useful ADR, where a third neutral party listens to the conversations and makes an appeal. Shonk (2020) identifies that neither party will have the chance to appeal the decision of the arbitrator, which in some cases can be confidential, but at the same time, they can negotiate to control aspects of the negotiation. Mediated ADR is the most promising. In this instance, a third party is recruited by the people in conflict who helps them through an elaborate program to arrive at a consensus. According to Clarke-Stewart and Brentano (2006) the mediation “program helped in families in which the risk of children being dragged into post-divorce conflict was high”(p245). This is because, there were multiple variation within the mediation procedure that were important in determining a workable and human outcome. In this case, the process can be short or stretched out into countless sessions for the benefit of the couple involved and directly seeks them to communicate and arrive at a suitable consensus that is considerate of the future outcomes.
Divorce harbors a subjective experience that need to be evaluated so as to give rise to a suitable outcome that is considerate of the partner’s feeling, the uncertainty presented in the future and likelihood of changed minds. This are all aspects that the process used, regardless should aim to achieve.
References
Clarke-Stewart, A., & Brentano, C. (2007). Divorce: The Future. In Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven: Yale UP.
Gomstyn, A. (2009, September 24). Role Reversal: Ex-Wives Angry Over Paying Alimony. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Business/role-reversal-wives-angry-paying-alimony/story?id=8662940
JACKSON, L. (2012). Alimony Arithmetic: More states are looking at formulas to regulate spousal support. ABA Journal, 98(15-16).
May, E. (2012). Should Moving In Mean Losing Out? Making A Case To Clarify The Legal Effect Of Cohabitation On Alimony. Duke Law Journal, 62(2), 403-443.
Shonk, K. (2020, April 16). What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work? Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/what-is-conflict-resolution-and-how-does-it-work/
Staff, P. (2020, April 2). What Are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation. Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/what-are-the-three-basic-types-of-dispute-resolution-what-to-know-about-mediation-arbitration-and-litigation/
