As I sat there watching my ex-husband last week, fire off allegation after allegation in his oral submissions and play the "victim" card, I was struck by how litigation only seems to confound the problem, by providing litigants a platform to vent.
It was "venting" because none of his allegations were supported by any written evidence. He had failed to submit a response to my application for motion to vary (he claimed he had never received it); he had not submitted a case conference brief (although he did not deny he had recieved mine) and he had made zero effort to settle (although he had received several offers to settle from me).
But because this was a Case Conference and he was given an hour to speak his mind (uninterrupted); he walked out of the court room with a feeling that he had been "heard" and somehow been "validated" in his sense of reality.
My question is this, how useful is it to attend a case conference/or mediation with a party that is high conflict and has no mind to settle on anything?
It was "venting" because none of his allegations were supported by any written evidence. He had failed to submit a response to my application for motion to vary (he claimed he had never received it); he had not submitted a case conference brief (although he did not deny he had recieved mine) and he had made zero effort to settle (although he had received several offers to settle from me).
But because this was a Case Conference and he was given an hour to speak his mind (uninterrupted); he walked out of the court room with a feeling that he had been "heard" and somehow been "validated" in his sense of reality.
My question is this, how useful is it to attend a case conference/or mediation with a party that is high conflict and has no mind to settle on anything?
Comment