One Of The Reasons My Marriage Ended Was That We Were Low Conflict.
Question: One of the reasons my marriage ended was that we were 'low conflict'. It's hard to believe that a relationship might be worse off by not getting into fights but apparently it can, and it's not uncommon. When I heard that this can usually be worked out with the help of a therapist, I felt hurt and very angry because while my husband was seeing a therapist about our marriage, I was never consulted. It all happened behind my back, including his decision to leave. Much like the others who have written in, I feel betrayed that I was left out and then left. Surely this can't be right! Isn't it normal for a counsellor to see both the husband and the wife when there's a problem in their relationship? Sandy
Answer (1) Sandy, I can well understand your feelings of being excluded from the process (because you actually were!) We may never know whether or not the therapist counselling your ex-husband suggested you be present at any time, or whether your husband was resistant to this and simply wanted to talk things through and come to his own decisions. It's possible that your husband had already decided that the marriage was essentially over and that he had no wish to try and repair the relationship. Hence in his mind, your presence was not necessary. The "low conflict" you mention, sounds like a synonym for indifference and low level contact. Fighting with someone does denote some sort of interactivity but in general, it's a very ineffective way of resolving anything. I'm sure there's a lot more to your story than you've been able to tell us here. Perhaps you could see someone to explore it more fully.
Answer provided by David White, Psychotherapist
Answer (2) Dear Sandy, I hear the shock and hurt of rejection, betrayal and outrage in your question. Your husband's choice of therapist appears to go to the heart of the end of your relationship and also to the uses and abuses of therapy. I wonder if you feel, as others in your situation have told me, that a unilateral decision to end a committed relationship took control of their lives away and gave no chance to understand nor address the problems, which allegedly resulted in their decision to leave. That the opportunity to collaborate on a solution or to agree to the solution already taken, was stolen from them and with the knowledge of a therapist or related third party. Anticipating these situations, therapists try to charm, persuade, beg, cajole, threaten or actually withdraw services early in therapy in order to help the other partner or their children to come for assistance, sometimes it turns out, in dealing with the difficulties of the partner or parent in therapy. I have met a few therapists who believe their accountability begins and ends with each session. What happens outside their session is not their problem. Oh for the simple life, I think!
It is hard to guess from what you have said whether your partner told you about his seeing a therapist before or after he announced the marriage was over; whether his therapist was aware of the wider effects of their support; whether at any stage he invited you in to his sessions, and whether he was or is now open to reconciliation. So I will answer in general and hope some of this helps.
About 60% of divorces occur in low-conflict marriages that are good enough rather than ecstatic relationships, and that might be salvaged with professional help. You may like to read the research here for more information on this subject. Conflict avoidance is a predictor of divorce. One of the many ways a relationship avoids conflict is by compromise. Unfortunately, as the good Dr Livingston is fond of saying, 'The person who cares the most will always be the most prepared to compromise.' Put another way, any relationship is under the control of the person who cares the least. A more effective way to grow intimacy is through fierce conversations within the framework of fair fighting. This can resolve conflict, promote personal development and relationship growth. These two sites here and here are very useful. However, couples with conflicts that are difficult, long-lasting, and resolution-resistant are better advised to seek an experienced couples therapist, before trying fair fight rules.
Low conflict and/or low nurturance relationships may leave one member feeling deeply alone, isolated and unsatisfied in a relationship that once held great promise. Relationships do change, influenced by life circumstance; a realization that one was not into the other as they had thought they were; illness; kids arriving or leaving, and so on. One may go to therapy to work out an inner problem thinking that it may solve the intimacy issue; work out if they are going mad or if it's the situation or apparently like your husband, to seek help to resolve an unhappy relationship without their partner. It is not uncommon for one person in a committed relationship they describe as low in conflict, to outsource intimacy to a therapist or other third party, sometimes with the effect of alienating their partner or family. Occasionally, the partner who is used to getting their own way in a relationship, looks for outside support to leave a family without attempting repair to intimacy or sharing of responsibility - 'sounds too much like hard work', one person told me. Therapists are used to all sorts of hidden agendas that their experience and training will alert them to. Nevertheless, it remains the therapist's duty to illuminate and re-iterate the known risks to an ongoing relationship of a therapy that stimulates growth in awareness and self-knowledge.
In your situation your husband appears to have chosen a counsellor for whom it was okay to work with only one member of a couple and you are not privy to what was discussed or how the decision was reached. You ask, surely this can't be right? I expect my clients to be distressed; out of whack; not thinking clearly and not anticipating the risks of receiving effective help. Our duty includes a thorough assessment in initial interviews and a thorough explanation of the work we do, in order to obtain informed consent for the therapy process that may follow.
Over time, I expect my clients won't always notice or report how their changes affect significant others and so I encourage scanning their world for effects; reiterating the risks and renewing consent. 'If we proceed in this way, these are the known benefits and risks, is this okay with you and and how do you know it is okay with your non-attending partner? Silence is not consent.' Sometimes I so want to call their partner and check that they have really understood what we're about in therapy, but with sensitive health information under the federal government's Privacy Act, I have to be very cautious in even taking phone calls from non-attending partners. I have to check the person is who they say they are. Even disclosing that their attending partner is a client of mine would be in breach of the Act if I had not been given permission to do so! These regulatory limits affect how open we can be with our client's partner, family and other health practitioners who are involved, unless our client is about to commit a crime, an act of treason or suicide. Courts can and do subpoena our records in divorce cases, motor vehicle accidents, from various tribunals and other legal matters. In some cases what was recorded in case notes or committed to memory, may then open to cross examination. Until then, your husband's therapist is not accountable to you. But you can still ring or write to them.
Answer provided by Peter Fox, Clinical Psychologist
Answer (3)
Answer provided by Shushann Movsessian, Psychotherapist
