Most divorcing couples don’t need “better arguments.”
They need better structure for hard conversations.
Because if every conversation turns into a trial, you don’t get solutions.
You get:
- defensiveness,
- spiraling,
- and a slow-motion financial drain.
Here’s the goal: a conversation that produces a decision, not a victory speech.
Step 1: Choose the right goal
A hard conversation should aim for one of three outcomes:
- A decision (we agreed on X)
- A proposal exchange (you send 2 options, I send 2 options)
- A next step (we schedule mediation / we gather documents / we talk to a neutral expert)
If your goal is “make them finally understand,” you will suffer.
Step 2: Use a “soft start-up”
Research-based communication frameworks emphasize that how you start predicts how it goes. A “softened start-up” focuses on calm tone, “I” statements, and a specific ask.
Try:
- “I want to talk about the spring break schedule. Is now a good time, or would tonight at 7 work?”
- “I’m not looking for a fight. I’m trying to pick an option we can both live with.”
Avoid:
- “You always…”
- “Here’s what you’re going to do…”
- “You’re being insane.”
Step 3: Use the 12-minute structure (it’s magic)
Hard conversations go off the rails when they’re unbounded. Try this:
- 3 minutes: each person states what they want (no interruptions)
- 6 minutes: options only (not history)
- 3 minutes: pick one next step + confirm in writing
If things escalate: call a pause.
“I’m getting heated. I’m going to take 30 minutes and come back at 6:30.”
Step 4: The “no-winning” language swap
Winning language:
- “That’s not fair.”
- “You’re wrong.”
- “You can’t do that.”
Working language:
- “What would make that workable?”
- “What are you worried will happen if we do it that way?”
- “Here are two options I can live with.”
You’re not surrendering. You’re reducing friction so agreements can happen.
Step 5: Bring in neutrals earlier than you want to
Couples waste months fighting about things that a neutral professional can clarify in one meeting:
- a CDFA-style financial reality check,
- mortgage constraints,
- real estate timing,
- tax considerations.
When you replace opinions with facts, the temperature drops.
Why de-escalation saves money (realistically)
Research summaries often report mediation being significantly cheaper and faster than litigation, with many cases reaching an agreement.
Colorado court ADR materials also emphasize mediation as a “speedy and economic” approach and note that many cases are resolved fully or partially in mediation.
This is not “be nice.” This is: stop funding the conflict.
The Mediation Fit Check: When it works best (and when it doesn’t)
Mediation works best when:
- both parties can show up (even if tense),
- there’s basic willingness to exchange information,
- each person can say yes to some compromise,
- safety is stable (no intimidation),
- both want a durable agreement more than a dramatic win.
Colorado’s judicial branch makes mediation resources widely available, including the ability to request lower-cost mediation in some circumstances.
Mediation may not be appropriate when:
- there is coercive control or credible DV concerns,
- one party is afraid to speak freely,
- someone refuses transparency (assets, income, debts),
- someone is actively impairing the process (substance abuse, threats, harassment),
- a party needs immediate court protection/orders.
If you’re unsure, get legal advice from a licensed attorney and consult with a local DV resource about safety planning.
A script you can use this week
“I want to solve one thing today: ____.
I’m not trying to rehash the past or win an argument.
Can we take 12 minutes and see if we can pick a next step?”
If you want help facilitating these conversations, that’s what mediation is built for. If you’re wondering whether mediation is a fit for your situation, schedule a consult, and we’ll do a quick reality-based screening.
Educational info only, not legal advice.
0 Comments