This is a repost from an article I liked and wanted to share with you!
Empower yourself and put yourself in the driver’s seat to your own personal success. But what is self-empowerment?

It’s about giving you the power to take control of your own destiny and live your life how you want to live your life. And Self empowerment is a sort-after quality by employers, so it is a great asset for your career too.

Self empowerment is the net effect of the way you conduct yourself, the image you project to others and the way you improve yourself – and it’s all inter-related. How you feel about yourself determines the image that you project onto others, and the image you project to others determines how they react to you. Remember the law of attraction?

And until you understand how you and your actions appear to other people, you cannot understand why they think and respond to you the way that they do.

Sounds complicated I know, but here are some tips to help you empower yourself.

• Have confidence in yourself – a confident (but not arrogant) image of your self will naturally project a more powerful image than if you are uncertain and anxious about your image you’re your actions. And more importantly, self-confidence feels so good! 

  If your self-confidence has taken a battering for whatever reason, ask yourself “why” – is it a physical image issue? Or an ability issue? The important thing is to identify what is affecting your confidence and take steps to improving it.

• Take care of your health – eat well, exercise regularly and take the time to manage stress in a positive manner. If you feel good, you will feel more self-confident and you will project a glowing energy to others.

• Make a positive impression - People react more positively to people who obviously take good care of themselves, so dress well, keep neat and tidy and hold your posture. It’s also important to focus on what you say – avoid excessive apologising, and speak with a thinking mind, don’t think with a talking tongue!

• Be constructive – so many people are too critical, gossip or just complain too much. And humans being the way we are tend to slip into negative thought processes more easily than positive ones. So avoid the temptation to join the whinging mob – be positive and optimistic, provide constructive feedback on issues and participate in finding solutions to problems rather than just finding all the problems.

• Don’t expect others to change – if you are unhappy with something or someone, don’t expect them to change to suit you. You can explain your feelings and perhaps suggest a way where both parties can compromise – but don’t just expect everything to change to suit you. Be prepared to make a positive change yourself!

• Thrive on feedback – to empower yourself also means to develop yourself technically, behaviourally and emotionally. Seek feedback and respond to it by identifying how you can change to better empower yourself. Don’t take criticism personally – but rather as an opportunity to improve. Don’t fear failure – learn from it. And don’t just observe life – participate.

• Focus on results and outcomes – in other words, focus on your goals, ambitions and desires. It’s easy to get tied up in how you ‘feel’ – and it’s important, but to achieve, sometimes we need to put feelings and emotions to the side. 

  Focus on getting the job done, and once achieved you can look back on the experience and contemplate the emotional aspect of the journey.

If you take the above advice on how to empower yourself, I can assure you that you will feel more confidence in yourself and your abilities, and your peers will see you this way too – afterall, how you feel about yourself determines the image that you project onto others, and the image you project to others determines how they react to you.

So empower yourself for success!

Understanding emotional abuse
The aim of emotional abuse is to chip away at your feelings of self-worth and independence. If you’re the victim of emotional abuse, you may feel that there is no way out of the relationship or that without your abusive partner you have nothing.

Emotional abuse includes verbal abuse such as yelling, name-calling, blaming, and shaming. Isolation, intimidation, and controlling behavior also fall under emotional abuse. Additionally, abusers who use emotional or psychological abuse often throw in threats of physical violence or other repercussions if you don’t do what they want.

You may think that physical abuse is far worse than emotional abuse, since physical violence can send you to the hospital and leave you with scars. But, the scars of emotional abuse are very real, and they run deep. In fact, emotional abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse—sometimes even more so.

Economic or financial abuse: A subtle form of emotional abuse
Remember, an abuser’s goal is to control you, and he or she will frequently use money to do so. Economic or financial abuse includes:
Rigidly controlling your finances.
Withholding money or credit cards.
Making you account for every penny you spend.
Withholding basic necessities (food, clothes, medications, shelter).
Restricting you to an allowance.
Preventing you from working or choosing your own career.
Sabotaging your job (making you miss work, calling constantly).
Stealing from you or taking your money.

Violent and abusive behavior is the abuser’s choice
Despite what many people believe, domestic violence and abuse is not due to the abuser’s loss of control over his or her behavior. In fact, abusive behavior and violence is a deliberate choice made by the abuser in order to control you.

Abusers use a variety of tactics to manipulate you and exert their power:
Dominance – Abusive individuals need to feel in charge of the relationship. They will make decisions for you and the family, tell you what to do, and expect you to obey without question. Your abuser may treat you like a servant, child, or even as his or her possession.
Humiliation – An abuser will do everything he or she can to make you feel bad about yourself or defective in some way. After all, if you believe you’re worthless and that no one else will want you, you’re less likely to leave. Insults, name-calling, shaming, and public put-downs are all weapons of abuse designed to erode your self-esteem and make you feel powerless.
Isolation – In order to increase your dependence on him or her, an abusive partner will cut you off from the outside world. He or she may keep you from seeing family or friends, or even prevent you from going to work or school. You may have to ask permission to do anything, go anywhere, or see anyone.
Threats – Abusers commonly use threats to keep their partners from leaving or to scare them into dropping charges. Your abuser may threaten to hurt or kill you, your children, other family members, or even pets. He or she may also threaten to commit suicide, file false charges against you, or report you to child services.
Intimidation – Your abuser may use a variety of intimidation tactics designed to scare you into submission. Such tactics include making threatening looks or gestures, smashing things in front of you, destroying property, hurting your pets, or putting weapons on display. The clear message is that if you don’t obey, there will be violent consequences.
Denial and blame – Abusers are very good at making excuses for the inexcusable. They will blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, a bad day, and even on the victims of their abuse. Your abusive partner may minimize the abuse or deny that it occurred. He or she will commonly shift the responsibility on to you: Somehow, his or her violent and abusive behavior is your fault.
Abusers are able to control their behavior—they do it all the time.
Abusers pick and choose whom to abuse. They don’t insult, threaten, or assault everyone in their life who gives them grief. Usually, they save their abuse for the people closest to them, the ones they claim to love.
Abusers carefully choose when and where to abuse. They control themselves until no one else is around to see their abusive behavior. They may act like everything is fine in public, but lash out instantly as soon as you’re alone.
Abusers are able to stop their abusive behavior when it benefits them. Most abusers are not out of control. In fact, they’re able to immediately stop their abusive behavior when it’s to their advantage to do so (for example, when the police show up or their boss calls).
Violent abusers usually direct their blows where they won’t show. Rather than acting out in a mindless rage, many physically violent abusers carefully aim their kicks and punches where the bruises and marks won’t show.
The cycle of violence in domestic abuse
Domestic abuse falls into a common pattern, or cycle of violence:

Abuse – Your abusive partner lashes out with aggressive, belittling, or violent behavior. The abuse is a power play designed to show you “who is boss.”
Guilt – After abusing you, your partner feels guilt, but not over what he’s done. He’s more worried about the possibility of being caught and facing consequences for his abusive behavior.
Excuses – Your abuser rationalizes what he or she has done. The person may come up with a string of excuses or blame you for the abusive behavior—anything to avoid taking responsibility.
“Normal” behavior — The abuser does everything he can to regain control and keep the victim in the relationship. He may act as if nothing has happened, or he may turn on the charm. This peaceful honeymoon phase may give the victim hope that the abuser has really changed this time.
Fantasy and planning – Your abuser begins to fantasize about abusing you again. He spends a lot of time thinking about what you’ve done wrong and how he’ll make you pay. Then he makes a plan for turning the fantasy of abuse into reality.
Set-up – Your abuser sets you up and puts his plan in motion, creating a situation where he can justify abusing you.
Your abuser’s apologies and loving gestures in between the episodes of abuse can make it difficult to leave. He may make you believe that you are the only person who can help him, that things will be different this time, and that he truly loves you. However, the dangers of staying are very real.

The Full Cycle of Domestic Violence: An Example
A man abuses his partner. After he hits her, he experiences self-directed guilt. He says, “I’m sorry for hurting you.” What he does not say is, “Because I might get caught.” He then rationalizes his behavior by saying that his partner is having an affair with someone. He tells her “If you weren’t such a worthless whore I wouldn’t have to hit you.” He then acts contrite, reassuring her that he will not hurt her again. He then fantasizes and reflects on past abuse and how he will hurt her again. He plans on telling her to go to the store to get some groceries. What he withholds from her is that she has a certain amount of time to do the shopping. When she is held up in traffic and is a few minutes late, he feels completely justified in assaulting her because “you’re having an affair with the store clerk.” He has just set her up.
Source: Mid-Valley Women’s Crisis Service
Recognizing the warning signs of domestic violence and abuse
It’s impossible to know with certainty what goes on behind closed doors, but there are some telltale signs and symptoms of emotional abuse and domestic violence. If you witness any warning signs of abuse in a friend, family member, or co-worker, take them very seriously.

General warning signs of domestic abuse
People who are being abused may:

Seem afraid or anxious to please their partner.
Go along with everything their partner says and does.
Check in often with their partner to report where they are and what they’re doing.
Receive frequent, harassing phone calls from their partner.
Talk about their partner’s temper, jealousy, or possessiveness.
Warning signs of physical violence
People who are being physically abused may:

Have frequent injuries, with the excuse of “accidents.”
Frequently miss work, school, or social occasions, without explanation.
Dress in clothing designed to hide bruises or scars (e.g. wearing long sleeves in the summer or sunglasses indoors).
Warning signs of isolation
People who are being isolated by their abuser may:

Be restricted from seeing family and friends.
Rarely go out in public without their partner.
Have limited access to money, credit cards, or the car.
The psychological warning signs of abuse
People who are being abused may:

Have very low self-esteem, even if they used to be confident.
Show major personality changes (e.g. an outgoing person becomes withdrawn).
Be depressed, anxious, or suicidal.
Speak up if you suspect domestic violence or abuse
If you suspect that someone you know is being abused, speak up! If you’re hesitating—telling yourself that it’s none of your business, you might be wrong, or the person might not want to talk about it—keep in mind that expressing your concern will let the person know that you care and may even save his or her life.

Do’s and Don’ts
Do:
Ask if something is wrong.
Express concern.
Listen and validate.
Offer help.
Support his or her decisions.
Don’t:
Wait for him or her to come to you.
Judge or blame.
Pressure him or her.
Give advice.
Place conditions on your support.

Adapted from: NYS Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence
Talk to the person in private and let him or her know that you’re concerned. Point out the things you’ve noticed that make you worried. Tell the person that you’re there, whenever he or she feels ready to talk. Reassure the person that you’ll keep whatever is said between the two of you, and let him or her know that you’ll help in any way you can.

Remember, abusers are very good at controlling and manipulating their victims. People who have been emotionally abused or battered are depressed, drained, scared, ashamed, and confused. They need help to get out, yet they’ve often been isolated from their family and friends. By picking up on the warning signs and offering support, you can help them escape an abusive situation and begin healing.

This has to do with an open letter that Perry wrote this week in Newsweek magazine to one of the young victims of the recent Penn State child molestation scandal, which has shocked the country. Read it right here in it’s entirety:

I don’t know your name, but I know your face. I don’t know your journey, but I know where you are. I am your brother!

Boys Who Bully May Grow Up to Be Abusive Men

Study suggests but doesn’t prove link to adult domestic violence

June 6, 2011

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, June 6 (HealthDay News) — Though it’s not clear whether one type of violence directly leads to the other, a new study says that men who bully others during childhood are more likely to grow up and abuse their wives and girlfriends.

“It helps people think of bullying in somewhat of a different light,” said study co-author Jay G. Silverman, an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “There’s probably an important connection that we’re missing.”

The researchers surveyed 1,491 men aged 18 to 35 who visited three urban community health centers; 80 percent were black or Hispanic. More than 40 percent of the men said they’d bullied other kids as children, and 16 percent reported abusing the women in their lives in the past year.

Of those who’d recently abused women, 38 percent said they’d frequently bullied others when they were kids. By contrast, among men who had not been abusive in the past year, just 12 percent had been frequent bullies as kids.

Only 36 percent of those who’d recently abused women said they’d never bullied others, compared with 64 percent of the other men. However, the study does not prove an actual connection between bully and domestic violence but rather shows that a possible link.

Bullying and domestic violence might be linked by a feeling of “entitlement,” Silverman said: “the sense that because they are female and because you are male, you have a right to do that.”

Todd Herrenkohl, an associate professor at the University of Washington, said the findings are not surprising. “The evidence is rather clear that youth who bully are at risk for other forms of antisocial behavior, then and at later points in life,” he said.

Stephen T. Russell, director of the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth and Families at the University of Arizona, said the study provides more evidence that bullying isn’t “just a fact of growing.”

“On the contrary, it is a sign of the ways our culture creates such rigid boundaries of ‘normal’ masculinity — so rigid that being masculine is hard if not impossible to live up to — that many young men end up reacting to femininity and other forms of difference with violence,” Russell said. “Bullying prevention often focuses on behaviors or individuals. We need to focus on creating cultures of respect and tolerance for difference.”

The study was published online June 6 in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

In additional research on men and violence, a study published online June 6 in the Archives of General Psychiatry says that the brains of violent men appear to be different from those of other men: Those with a violent history had larger volumes of gray matter in some parts of the brain.

The study authors, led by Boris Schiffer of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, found that the volume was higher in men who had been aggressive throughout their lives and those who had more psychopathic tendencies.

More information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more on bullying.

Copyright © 2011 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Killing Her Softly: Intimate Abuse and the Violence of State Intervention

Linda G. Mills

In this commentary, Professor Mills argues that we need to reconsider the feminist position that mandatory interventions in domestic violence cases, including mandatory arrest, prosecution, and reporting, serve the best interests of all battered women. Reviewing the findings from relevant empirical studies, Professor Mills concludes that battered women are safest — and feel most respected — when they willingly partner with state actors to investigate and prosecute domestic violence crimes. Clinically speaking, a battered woman needs a healing response to the intimate abuse, one that nurtures her strengths and empowers her to act. Mandatory state interventions, even when sponsored by feminists, not only disregard these clinical concerns, but also are in danger of replicating the rejection, degradation, terrorization, social isolation, missocialization, exploitation, emotional unresponsiveness, and close confinement that are endemic to the abusive relationship. In an effort to alter these abusive dynamics and promote a more respectful relationship between state actors and battered women, Professor Mills proposes a Survivor-Centered Model that relies on clinical methods that engage the battered woman, foster her healing, and promote her safety.

Laura entered the emergency room with some trepidation. Her eye was bruised and her head was pounding. When she was finally seen, she told the doctor that Thomas, her husband, had pushed her. They had fought and she had accidentally fallen into a lamp. It had bruised her eye and she had a migraine. Thomas and Laura had been married for four years and he had never been violent before. Within moments, the doctor told Laura that under California’s mandatory reporting law, he would have to call the police.

Laura was horrified. “What about what I want to do?” she asked. “What about my rights?” Laura explained that she did not want Thomas arrested; he was a good man and a fine provider, and she was not worried that his behavior was or would become dangerous. The doctor had no choice — he would be held personally liable if he failed to report the abuse.

The doctor called the police. Laura warned Thomas by phone that the police were coming. Laura arrived home just as the police showed up. She tried to convince the officers not to arrest him — to no avail. The officers informed her that the Los Angeles Police Department has a mandatory arrest policy. If the officers have “probable cause” to suspect that domestic violence has occurred, they must arrest the suspect regardless of the woman’s objections or protestations.

Thomas spent three days in jail. Having been arrested on Friday night, he missed work on Monday and worries that he may be fired if he is convicted of a crime. He also awaits prosecution on a domestic violence charge.

Laura has spoken with the prosecutor and has begged her not to prosecute. She has explained that Thomas may lose his job and that their daughter, who suffers from multiple disabilities, relies on both parents for her care. Thomas’s employer-provided health insurance covers their daughter’s health care.

The prosecutor does not listen. She informs Laura that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office adheres to a no-drop prosecution policy. The prosecutor assigned to the case will proceed against Thomas regardless of Laura’s objections or her reluctance to testify. If she refuses to testify, the City Attorney’s office will subpoena her. And, to prove the case against Thomas, the prosecutor will use the statements Laura made to the emergency room doctor.

Emotional abuse has a way of creeping into every intimate relationship. Technically speaking, emotional abuse is “the nonphysical degradation of the self which lowers worth and interferes with human development and productivity.” It can be experienced in a wide variety of ways by the recipient or victim. Emotional abuse of children often interferes with their development. Emotional abuse can prevent adults from performing such daily functions as going to work or caring for children. Emotional abuse is not limited in origin to batterers. It is evident in intimate relationships and families, in the workplace, and even in public settings.

The argument that the state, or more specifically its representatives or policies, can be emotionally abusive has been a recurring theme in the jurisprudential literature. Punishment, third-world development, and welfare reform have all been analyzed from the perspective of state violence. Indeed, Robert Cover, in his famous essayViolence and the Word<, recognized that “[l]egal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death.” This reality remains apparent, if often unacknowledged, in contemporary legal discourse and action. Cover’s insight that “the relationship between legal interpretation and the infliction of pain remains operative even in the most routine of legal acts” suggests that the dynamic that underpins the law’s relation to its subjects can itself be abusive and that the state can inadvertently replicate the very violence it aims to eradicate.

Drawing on this observation and the extensive literature that accompanies it, this commentary exposes the myriad ways in which the state’s regulation of domestic violence in the United States has become tinged with emotional violence. I argue more specifically that such policies as mandatory arrest, prosecution, and reporting, which have become standard legal fare in the fight against domestic violence and which categorically ignore the battered woman’s perspective, can themselves be forms of abuse. Indeed, I argue that, ironically, the very state interventions designed to eradicate the intimate abuse in battered women’s lives all too often reproduce the emotional abuse of the battering relationship. In these instances, state policies have the inadvertent effect of rendering battered women less, rather than more, safe from violence. Proceeding on the assumption that battered women are as often survivors as they are victims, I argue that mandatory state interventions rob the battered woman of an important opportunity to acknowledge and reject patterns of abuse and to partner with state actors (law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and medical professionals) in imagining the possibility of a life without violence. Therefore, I propose an empowerment model that reverses the violent dynamic imposed on the battered woman by the batterer, a method that nurtures the survivor’s need for emotional support and helps heal the wounds inflicted by the abuser.

I begin, in Part I, with a description of the mandatory interventions that I believe do violence to battered women. In this section, I also present the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory interventions, relying in part on empirical support for my contention that state-imposed interventions may actually increase violence in the lives of some battered women. Similarly, I argue that mandatory interventions, as they are designed, discourage many survivors from forming partnerships with state officials to help control the violence they endure.

In Part II, I explore the strategies used by clinicians (social workers, therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists) when working with trauma victims and with survivors of domestic violence — strategies designed to empower and heal. I then contrast these healing-oriented approaches with the efforts of state actors who have contact with battered women in the criminal context. This comparison exposes the contagion of violence and reveals the ways in which helping professionals, if unreflective, can become submerged in a reactive dynamic with the battered woman that is counterproductive to her recovery and safety. This evidence supports my thesis that state actors’ abusive posture toward survivors comes dangerously close to mirroring the violence in the battering relationship. This dynamic is psychologically predictable when the unspoken or repressed feelings of public officials are exposed and explored in the context of the trauma literature. Close examination reveals a connection between the unexpressed rage, shame, and guilt of the professionals who work with victims of intimate abuse and their unwavering support for mandatory interventions that render victims helpless.

In Part III, I build on this clinical analysis and on my critique of mandatory interventions and present a framework that includes eight subtypes of emotional abuse that are common to the battering relationship and to the dynamic between state actors and victims in domestic violence cases. The table and the accompanying text present in stark terms the parallels between the batterer’s and the state’s abuses and the specific ways in which state actors who carry out these policies promote an emotionally abusive dynamic with the battered woman. In this section, I reveal how state approaches that involve coercive and dismissive tactics may effectively revictimize the battered woman, first by reinforcing the batterer’s judgments of her, and then by silencing her still further by limiting how she can proceed.

In Part IV, I present an alternative method of state action called a Survivor-Centered Model of intervention in domestic violence cases that helps connect the battered woman to her resistance and fear through deliberate emotional and strategic programmatic support. This model rejects violent patterns of state intervention that reinforce destructive dynamics and help prevent the battered woman’s recovery.

In Part V, I conclude with a call for policies that would create a healthy dynamic in the relationships between state agents and battered women. Policies that support and empower victims of battering must respect their emotional, cultural, and financial challenges and must not reinforce the emotional oppression, initiated by batterers, that the state currently perpetuates.

Empirical research examining this issue is summarized below.

I.  RESEARCH

Abrams, R., & Greaney, J. (1989). Report of the gender bias study of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

A 1989 study by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that in cases involving custody and visitation litigation, “The interests of fathers are given more weight than the interests of mothers and children.” (pp. 62-63).

Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1996). Child custody evaluation practices: A 1996 survey of psychologists. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 565-586.

Research has found that many custody evaluators consider alienation of more significance than domestic violence in making custody recommendations. A survey of 201 psychologists from 39 states who conducted custody evaluations indicated that domestic violence was not considered by most to be a major factor in making custody determinations. Conversely, three-quarters of the custody evaluators recommended denying sole or joint custody to a parent who “alienates the child from the other parent by negatively interpreting the other parent’s behavior.”

Bemiller, Michelle. (2008). When Battered Mothers Lose Custody: A Qualitative Study of Abuse at Home and in the Courts. Journal of Child Custody, 5(3/4), 228-255.
Available here ($)

Abstract: The following study adds to research that examines child custody cases involving a history of interpersonal violence. This study contributes to past research by providing qualitative accounts of women’s experiences with intimate partner violence prior to custody loss, institutional abuse at the hands of the family court, and abuse experienced after custody loss. Data come from a convenience sample of 16 noncustodial mothers from northeastern Ohio. Findings support past research, which finds corruption, denial of due process, and gender bias in the family court system. Policy recommendations are made and future research directions suggested.

Bourke, D. (1995). Reconstructing the patriarchal nuclear family: Recent developments in child custody and access in Canada. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 10(1), 1-24.

Even if a woman is awarded custody by a court, a court will generally determine that it is in the “best interests of the child” for the ex-partner to be awarded access. According to the results of one study, in nearly every case, and eclipsing virtually all other factors, access of the non-custodial parent (usually the father) was considered paramount to the “best interests of the child”. This was irrespective of the quality or regularity of his parenting.

Chesler, P. (1991, 1986). Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

Phyllis Chesler interviewed 60 mothers involved in a custody dispute and found that fathers who contest custody are more likely than their wives to win (p. 65). In 82% of the disputed custody cases fathers achieved sole custody despite the fact that only 13% had been involved in child care activities prior to divorce (p. 79 tbl. 5). Moreover, 59% of fathers who won custody litigation had abused their wives, and 50% of fathers who obtained custody through private negotiations had abused their wives (p. 80 tbl. 6).

The Committee for Justice for Women and the Orange County, North Carolina, Women’s Coalition. (1991). Contested Custody Cases In Orange County, North Carolina, Trial Courts, 1983-1987: Gender Bias, The Family And The Law. Author.

The Committee for Justice for Women studied custody awards in Orange County, North Carolina over a five year period between 1983 and 1987. They reported that:

“…in all contested custody cases, 84% of the fathers in the study were granted sole or mandated joint custody. In all cases where sole custody was awarded, fathers were awarded custody in 79% of the cases. In 26% of the cases fathers were either proven or alleged to have physically and sexually abused their children.”

Depner et al. (1992). Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30. 185-206.

Among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated. . . [for an average of 30-42 months]“. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”

Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2007). Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29.

Theoretically, the law guides and controls child custody evaluations, but the prevailing custody standard (the ”best interests of the child” test) is a vague rule that directs judges to make decisions unique to individual cases according to what will be in children’s future (and undefined) best interests. Furthermore, state statutes typically offer only vague guidelines as to how judges (and evaluators) are to assess parents and the merits of their cases, and how they should ultimately decide what custody arrangements will be in a child’s best interests. In this vacuum, custody evaluators typically administer to parents and children an array of tests and assess them through less formal means including interviews and observation. Sadly, we find that (a) tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are completely inadequate on scientific grounds; (b) the claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs (e.g., ”parent alienation syndrome”) are equally hollow when subjected to scientific scrutiny; (c) evaluators should question the use even of well-established psychological measures (e.g., measures of intelligence, personality, psychopathology, and academic achievement) because of their often limited relevance to the questions before the court; and (d) little empirical data exist regarding other important and controversial issues (e.g., whether evaluators should solicit children’s wishes about custody; whether infants and toddlers are harmed or helped by overnight visits), suggesting a need for further scientific investigation.

Erickson, Nancy S. (2005, Spring). Use of the MMPI-2 in Child Custody Evaluations Involving Battered Women:  What Does Psychological Research Tell Us?  Family Law Quarterly vol 39, no. 1, p. 87-108.

Erickson notes:

The effects of domestic violence on survivors, who are primarily women, may be severe. Battered women’s advocates often note that, in custody cases, the batterer often “looks better” to the court than the victim does because he is confident and calm, whereas she is still suffering the effects of his abuse and therefore may appear hysterical, weepy, anger, or otherwise not “together.”

When a custody evaluation is conducted by a psychologist, the revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) is often used as part of the evaluation process. The MMPI-2, like other traditional psychological tests, was not designed to be used in custody evaluations and arguably should not be used for such purpose except “when specific problems or issues that these tests were designed to measure appear salient in the case.”

If it used, Erickson notes that “great care must be taken” as “a misinterpretation could result in placing custody of a child with a batterer, which could put the child at severe risk.”

Erickson reviews research on the use of MMPI evaluations with battered women and found that that the psychological stress that battered women suffer may result in MMPI scores that do not accurately evaluate their ability to parent.

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce,Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 1-25.

The authors examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely, 20% unlikely, and 7.4% uncertain. The temporal relationship between allegations and divorce were analyzed and results revealed that in cases where CSA was judged to be likely or uncertain, in 18% of these cases divorce followed discovery of sexual abuse, in 32% cases discovery of sexual abuse followed divorce, in 34% of cases sexual abuse followed divorce, and 16% of allegations were found to be unrelated to divorce. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.

Faller and DeVoe found that 40 concerned parents experienced negative sanctions associated with raising the issue of sexual abuse. These sanctions included being jailed, losing custody to the alleged offender, a relative, or foster case, limitation or loss of visitation, admonitions not to report alleged abuse again to the court, Protective Services or the police, and prohibitions against taking the child to a physician or therapist because of concerns about sexual abuse in the future. None of the parents experiencing these sanctions were ones who were judged to have made calculated false allegations. In fact, sanctioned cases tended to score higher on a composite scale of likelihood of sexual abuse, and were more likely to have medical evidence than cases without sanctions.

Goelman, D. M., Lehrman, F. L., & Valente, R. L. (Eds.). (1996). The impact of domestic violence on your legal practice:  A lawyer’s handbook. Washington D.C.: ABA Commission on Domestic Violence.

“Custody litigation frequently becomes a vehicle whereby batterers attempt to extend or maintain their control and authority over the abused parents after separation… Be aware that many perpetrators of domestic violence are facile manipulators, presenting themselves as caring, cooperative parents and casting the abused parent as a diminished, conflict-inciting, impulsive or over-protective parent.”

Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., Walters, M. G. (2005) “Allegations and
Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families.” Family Court Review, 43, 283–294.

Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect.Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.

This study shows that victims of domestic violence (DV) are greatly disadvantaged when states require mediation of child custody disputes. The investigators empirically evaluated outcomes and found that mediators failed to recognize and report DV in 56.9% of the DV cases. The court’s screening form failed to indicate DV in at least 14.7% of the violent cases. Mediation resulted in poor outcomes for DV victims in terms of protections, such as supervised visitation and protected child exchanges. As a result, the capacity of mediators to focus on the child’s best interest is called into question.

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991-1021.

This retrospective cohort study examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence (IPV) on child custody and visitation outcomes.

The investigators analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999. These included 324 cases with a history of domestic violence and 532 cases without such a history. The researchers estimate that at least 11.4% of Seattle divorce cases involving couples with dependent children involve a substantiated history of male-perpetrated domestic violence. The findings reveal a lack of identification of IPV even among cases with a documented, substantiated history, and a lack of strong protections being ordered even among cases in which a history of substantiated IPV is known to exist.

• In 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files.
• “The court was made aware of less than one fourth of those cases with a substantiated history of intimate partner violence.”

• Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.

Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Jordan, C. E., & Horvath, L. S. (2002). Child custody evaluations and domestic violence: Case comparisons. Violence & Victims, 17(6), 719-42.

This study is one of the first to examine characteristics of disputed custody cases and their custody evaluation reports differences between domestic violence and non-domestic violence cases. This study selected a 60% random sample of cases with custody evaluations in Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 (n = 82 cases). Out of the 82 cases, 56% (n = 46) met criteria for classification into the domestic violence group and 44% (n = 36) did not. In general, results indicated that although there were some important differences in court records between cases with and without domestic violence, there were only minor differences between custody evaluation reported process and recommendations for the two groups.

Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.

Sharon Lowenstein examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases fathers were granted unsupervised visitation.

Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody. In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother’s boyfriend, or one of mother’s relatives).

Meier, Joan. Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solutions, A.U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol. & the Law, 11:2 (2003), 657-731, p. 662, n. 19, and Appendix.

Joan Meier surveyed the 2001 case law and identified 38 appellate state court decisions concerning custody and domestic violence. She found that 36 of the 38 trial courts had awarded joint or sole custody to alleged and adjudicated batterers. Two-thirds of these decisions were reversed on appeal.These cases included a case in which the perpetrator had been repeatedly convicted of domestic assault (In re Custody of Zia, 736 N.E. 2d 449 [Mass. App. Ct. 2000]); in which a father was given sole custody of a16-month old despite his undisputed choking of the mother resulting in her hospitalization and his arrest (Kent v. Green, 701 So. 2d 4 [Ala. Civ. App. 1996]); in which the father had broken the mother’s collarbone (Couch v. Couch, 978 S.W.2d 505 [Mo. App. 1998]); had committed “occasional incidents of violence” Simmons v. Simmons, 649 So. 2d 799, 802 [La. App. Ct. 1995]); and had committed two admitted assaults (Hamilton v. Hamilton, 886 S.W.2d 711, 715 [Mo. App. 1994]) . More such instances can be found in the article.

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)

This study examined judicial responses to protective parents’ complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser. Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent. (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.

Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2005). From Madness to Mutiny — Why Mothers are Running from Family Court and What Can Be Done About It. (Northeastern University Press.

This scholarly book documents case after case where accusations of sexual abuse by a child resulted in forced contact with the alleged abuser, and sometimes complete termination of parental contact with a loving parent who seeks only to protect the child.

Morrill, A. C., Dai, J., Dunn, S., Sung, I., & Smith, K. (2005). Child custody and visitation decisions when the father has perpetrated violence against the mother. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1076-1107.

This research evaluated the effectiveness of statutes mandating a presumption against custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence (DV) and judicial education about DV. Across six states, the authors examined 393 custody and/or visitation orders where the father perpetrated DV against the mother and surveyed 60 judges who entered those orders. With the presumption, more orders gave legal and physical custody to the mother and imposed a structured schedule and restrictive conditions on fathers’ visits, except where there was also a “friendly parent” provision and a presumption for joint custody. Thus it appears that a presumption against custody to a perpetrator of DV is effective only when part of a consistent statutory scheme.

Polikoff, N. D. (1992). Why are mothers losing: A brief analysis of criteria used in child custody determinations. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 14, 175-184.

Finding that judges evidence a strong “paternal preference” in contested custody cases. When sole custody is awarded, it is awarded to the father in 50-63% of cases.

Rosen, L. N., & Etlin, M. (1996). The hostage child: Sex abuse allegations in custody disputes. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

This book challenges the presumption that allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during custody disputes are usually fabricated. Five cases are described in which children were not protected from their abuser during custody disputes, despite the existence of medical evidence of sexual abuse. In these cases, the allegations were not believed, and the children were returned to the parent who abused them.

Rosen, L. N., & O’Sullivan, C. S. (2005). Outcomes of custody and visitation petitions when fathers are restrained by protection orders: The case of the New York family courts. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1054-1075.

A random sample of custody and visitation petitions filed in New York City Family Courts in 1995 was used to examine outcomes of mothers’ Order of Protection (OP) Petitions in relation to parents’ custody and visitation petitions. Fathers restrained by OPs were more likely to secure visitation orders (64%) than not. In contrast, 80.8% of fathers’ custody petitions were dismissed when they were restrained by OPs. Fathers’ custody petitions were most likely to be ordered when mothers’ OP petitions were withdrawn. Mothers were most likely to secure custody when their OP petitions were ordered or withdrawn. Courts rarely denied petitions. Those that did not result in court orders were either withdrawn by the petitioner or dismissed by the court (most likely because of failure of the petitioner to appear in court). This pattern has negative implications for battered women who may be vulnerable to pressure or threats from abusive ex-partners.

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23.
Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf

The researchers looked at mediations in which the parties could not reach a mutual agreement. They compared 200 mediations involving charges of DV with 200 non-DV mediations. Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue. Mothers alleging domestic violence only received primary physical custody 35% of the time.

Attorneys who represented mothers at these proceedings said that they often advised their clients not to tell the mediator about domestic abuse. After looking at the results of such mediations, the researchers determined that the attorneys’ advice may well be justified; women who informed custody mediators that they were victims of domestic violence often received less favorable custody awards.

Stahly, G. B. (1990, April). Battered women’s problems with child custody. In G. B. Stahly (Chair), New directions in domestic violence research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles. [Cited in Liss, M. B., & Stahly, G .B. (1993). Domestic violence and child custody. In M. Hansen, & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (175-187). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.]

Sociologist Geraldine Stahly, PhD., surveyed battered women’s shelters in order to gather information on extent of custodial problems encountered by women seeking shelter services. Of the more than 100,000 women reported on by the shelter staff, 34% reported the batterer threatened to kidnap their children; and 11% of batterers had actually kidnapped a child. In 23% of cases batterers had threatened legal custody action, and in 7% of the cases known to the shelter staff, such actions had already been filed.

In 24% of the cases, the battering man used court-ordered visitation as an occasion to continue verbal and emotional abuse of the woman, and in 10% of the cases, physical violence continued. Shelter staff reported numerous cases in which courts granted unsupervised visitation in spite of evidence of physical abuse of the child (12,401 reported cases) and child sexual abuse (6,970 reported cases).

Stahly, G. B., Krajewski, L., Loya, B. Uppal, K., Farris, W., Stuebner, N., Evans, K., German, G., & Frias, F. (n.d.). Family violence impacts child custody: A study of court records.

Researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, examined the relationship between custody disputes and allegations ofo family violence in 147 randomly selected family court files of divorce involving children. The cases examined occurred during 1998-2002 in four courts in three counties of Southern California. They found that violent fathers were less likely to seek sole custody than battered mothers. However, violent fathers were just as likely as nonviolent fathers to file for sole custody. Surprisingly, in the cases where violent fathers did pursue sole custody they were more likely to prevail than were non-violent fathers.

Stahly, G. B., Krajewski, L., Loya, B. Uppal, K., German, G., Farris, W., Hilson, N., & Valentine, J. (2004). Protective Mothers in Child Custody Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse. In Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System (a collection of essays), electronic download available at http://store.canow.org/products.php?prod_id=3

To better understand the problems that protective parents face in the legal system, researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, are performing an on-going national survey. To date, over 100 self-identified protective parents have completed the 101-item questionnaire. The study found that prior to divorce, 94% of the protective mothers surveyed were the primary caretaker and 87% had custody at the time of separation. However, as a result of reporting child abuse, only 27% were left with custody after court proceedings. 97% of the mothers reported that court personnel ignored or minimized reports of abuse and that they were punished for trying to protect their children. 45% of the mothers say they were labeled as having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Most protective parents lost custody in emergency ex parte proceedings (where they were not notified or present) and where no court reporter was present. 65% reported that they were threatened with sanctions if the “talked publicly” about the case.

The average cost of the court proceedings was over $80,000 and over a quarter of the protective parents reported being forced to file bankruptcy as a result of filing for custody of their children. 87% of the protective parents believe that their children are still being abused; however, 63% have stopped reporting the abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated. Eleven percent of the children were reported to have attempted suicide.

Stahly, G .B., Oursler, A., & Takano, J. (1988, April). Family violence and child custody: A survey of battered women’s fear and experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco. [Cited in Liss, M. B., & Stahly, G .B. (1993). Domestic violence and child custody. In M. Hansen, & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (175-187). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.]

In this pilot study of battered women’s experiences with child custody (n = 94), mothers reported that their batterer frequently used threats against the children in an attempt to keep the woman from leaving them. Twenty-five percent of battered women reported that their batterer threatened to hurt the children, 25% reported that he threatened to kidnap the children, and 35% reported that the batterer threatened to take the children away through a custody action.

Suchanek, J., & Stahly, G. B. (1991, April). The relationship between domestic violence and paternal custody in divorce. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Suchanek and Stahly examined 150 randomly selected files of marital dissolution from a Southern California district courthouse between 1980 and 1989. They found that dissolution cases in which violence toward the woman had been asserted (usually in support of a restraining order) were significantly more likely to include custody disputes. In fact, when there were allegations of violence perpetrated by the father, he was twice as likely to seek sole physical and legal custody of the children and just as likely to win. Thus, violence did not appear to make a difference in how courts determined custody. Fathers who were alleged to be violent were no less likely to win custody than fathers with no allegations of violence.

Sutherland, T.J. (2004). High-conflict divorce or stalking by way of family court? The empowerment of a wealthy abuser in family court litigation. Linda v. Lyle – A case study. Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 22(1&2) 4-16.http://www.mincava.umn.edu/reports/linda.asp

Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict. This article argues that some high-conflict divorces are actually the manifestation of stalking behaviors by wealthy domestic abusers. Provides a case analysis of Linda v. Lyle - Linda was married to Lyle for 22 years. He was a violent spousal and child abuser. Despite the fact that a volume of CPS reports had accumulated against Lyle, he obtained sole custody of their son. Linda was given visitation but Lyle frequently prevented her from seeing her child. To date, the case has litigated for approximately 6 years without respite. Lyle is quite wealthy and Linda, who was a homemaker, has been left homeless and is a pro per litigant facing two attorneys. The court blamed her for the protracted litigation because she attempted to reestablish a relationship with her child.

Waits, K. (1998). Battered women and their children: Lessons from one woman’s story. Houston Law Review, 35, 29-108.
http://www.omsys.com/fivers/Rkw18349#Rkw18349

Documents in detail the personal story of one battered woman’s experience in the family court system. Shows how a man who had abused both his wife and kids ended up with full custody of his young son and unsupervised visitation of his other children. The nonabusive mother (who had previously been the children’s primary caretaker) was given probationary custody of her daughter and other son. The judge threatened the mother saying “If you do one thing to disrupt visitation, I’ll take your daughter and give your ex-husband custody of her too.” The mother regained custody of her son only after her ex-husband’s new girlfriend reported him to the police for physically abusing the boy. Notes that many judges, psychologists and lawyers want to believe in a just world and thus allow themselves to be fooled by batterers.

Walker, L. & Edwall, G. (1987). Domestic violence and determination of visitation and custody in divorce. In D. J. Sonkin (Ed.), Domestic violence on trial: Psychological and legal dimensions of family violence (pp. 127-152). New York: Springer.

Second case, I got the same “supervisor” as the first case and boy was it a different story. The supervisor when he saw my name on the report, stepped into the case, is doing the right thing, making sure all the “i’s” are dotted and “t’s” are crossed. Now why did it take me, having to make a “noise” with DCFS, to get them to do the right thing?  It should not have been an issue and they should have done the right thing from the get go.

There needs to be a law in place that DCFS MUST be trained experts in child abuse if they are going to work in the profession of protecting children.  They should be MANDATED to take classes that keep them abreast of the latest research in child abuse and stop focusing on “alienation” and focus on “protection” of children.  This is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

I am disgusted with the lack of concern shown to children in the Los Angeles DCFS system. It should not have to take someone like me to have to stand up and speak out for children when it is their job.

Advocates around the country have experienced with children’s protection services what I have experienced. I write this today because it is not the first time this has happened with me and DCFS (unfortunately) and I am sure it won’t be the last. But my suggestion is this – to those mom’s and dad’s out there who have had the same experience I have had with DCFS or Child Services – get media involved to expose those who fail to protect children and who are in their jobs for money more than for children’s safety. Expose via media the colluding that social workers have with attorneys and judges who are not about protecting children, but rather just getting rid of a case off their desks because they don’t want to be bothered.

Get disgusted like me and DO SOMETHING to make a difference for children who need protection from parents who are abusing them and others who hide their heads in the sand via the law.

Together, we can save a child from an abuser – one at a time.  One child will be able to say, “thank you” for making a difference for me.

4  Stress Styles of Communication

Take a look at each of the four communication styles described below. Think about how often you react that way when you are upset.

PLACATER:  Eager to please, Apologizing

Says: “Please don’t be mad…”, “It’s all my fault…”, “Yes, anything you say…”

Feels inside: “I’m nothing by myself.” “I don’t want to be ignored or rejected.” “I have to keep the other person happy.”

Believes: “I’ll blame myself before you can blame me.” “Perhaps you’ll feel sorry for me or guilty about yourself.”

THE BLAMER: Blamer, criticizing, accusing, finding fault

Says: “You never do right…”, “If it weren’t for you…”, “You are so stupid…”

Feels inside: “I’m all alone.” “Nobody really likes me.” “If you hadn’t done…I wouldn’t have to…”

Believes: Demolish the enemy before they demolish you. The best defense is a good offense.

THE COMPUTER: Computer like – rigid, insensitive, overly technical, hard

Says: “What, me? Upset?”, “Let’s be reasonable…”, “I am not an emotional person…”

 Feels inside: “I’m afraid of feelings, yours and mine.”

Believes: “You can’t get me if I don’t let you bother me.” Showing feelings is a weakness. “I’ll use big words and a cool manner to impress you. I’ll hide behind the facts.”

THE DISTRACTOR: Distractor, talkative, spacey, subject-changing, deflecting

Says: “Problem? What problem?” “Let’s talk about something else…”

 Feels inside: “I’m scared of what may happen.” “I don’t know what to do.” “I’m not lovable.”

 Believes: “If I ignore the problem, it will go away or get better. If I make things fun for you, you’ll accept me.”

 Now after talking about these four negative communication styles, rate how much you tend to use each style when you are upset with other people in the blanks that follow. Put “1” next to the style that you use most often and then rank the other styles in order of use down to “4” – the style you use the least often.

____Blamer

____Placater

____Computer

____Distractor

Now focus on the two styles you rated highest (#1 and #2) to answer these questions:

 #1. When was the last time I used this style? What kind of things did I say? How did the other person react?

#2. When was the last time I used this style? What kind of things did I say? How did the other person react?

It’s a good thing that we have a fifth, positive communication style that we can decide to follow instead of falling into one of the four negative styles.

 THE LEVELER: Responsible, helpful, understanding, empathetic, mutual, good communicator

Says: “This is how I feel…”, “This is what I think…”, “This is what bothers me…”, “This is what I’m asking of you…”

 Feels inside: “I accept myself.” “I respect the other person and their rights.” “I want the best for both of us.” “The relationship wins, not you or me, so we need to compromise…..”

 Believes: “I can talk about how things are for me without blaming another.” “I can like other people, and want them to like me, without feeling I have to please them all the time. “I can say what I think and what I feel without hiding behind a mask. I can face and discuss problems instead of avoiding them.”

 Good communication is part “good talking” (when you are sending a message), and part

“good listening” (when you are receiving a message).

 GOOD TALKING

What is good talking? It is:

1. Direct: to send a message that other people can be sure to “catch” – you need to say what you mean. Don’t go around “the barn” or don’t “curve” around the subject, only talking about it indirectly. Don’t drop hints. Don’t make people guess. Get to the point!!
2. Non-Confused: Good talking is clear and doesn’t confuse the listener. To make certain people understand what you are saying, you need to describe things well. Make sure you say what you mean and mean what you say.
3. Specific: Include all the important details when giving the information to the listener. Don’t be vague or general when talking. Include details that can help the other person know exactly what you are talking about.
4. Honest: For your message to do the most good, it needs to be honest and what you feel and think. Don’t talk about things that don’t match the facts. Relationships are built on honesty and not dishonesty.
5. Tactful: Don’t hurt someone unnecessarily. Being tactful means being polite. To talk well with someone, you have to think about their feelings and rights BEFORE you talk to them. You DO want to be direct, clear, specific, and honest with them. But you DON’T want to say things accidentally or on purpose to hurt someone unnecessarily.

 Good talking is just half of what makes up good communication. Here is the other half of good communication called:

GOOD LISTENING

What is good listening? It is:

1. Active: Don’t WAIT in conversations but be active by DOING your best to hear, understand, and help the other person who is talking to fully express what they want you to know. Listen and understand the words and meaning of the speaker.
2. Attentive: Concentrate on what the other person is saying. DO make sure you get the whole message that they are sending. DON’T try to guess what they mean, ask clarification if you don’t understand. DON’T do something else while listening. For example, don’t plan on what you are going to say next, stay attentive or you might miss something important.
3. Open: Good listening means that we give the other person freedom to speak and give yourself freedom to learn something new by listening. To accomplish this you must have an open mind – one that doesn’t refuse to hear certain things or has a closed mind. AFTER the speaker is done, you can decide whether or not to agree or disagree with what is being said. But WHILE the speaker is talking, you need to agree to fully listen.
4. Respectful:  Good listeners DO NOT interrupt a speaker in the middle of their sentence. Start speaking ONLY after the other person finishes a sentence and pauses. This way, you make certain that you hear everything the other person wants to say, and that they don’t make the other person feel worthless or angry.
5. Careful: Being a good listener means you need to ask the speaker right away about everything you didn’t hear well, or that isn’t clear, or that you didn’t quite understand. Ask for clarification by stating, “I heard you say this…Did you mean….?” Say things empathetically: “I feel this way…..when you said…” or “I might feel the same way you do if…” or “I can understand your feelings on…but I want to be there for you. What do you need from me?”

Consider conversations you have with your friends, family and others. Ask yourself if sometimes you:

1. Wait for the other person to stop talking without really listening.
2. Think about what you are going to say next while the other person is still talking.
3. Say to yourself that you are not going to listen to “this” (whatever the topic), while the other person is still talking.
4. Interrupt the other person.
5. Fail to ask the other person to repeat, clarify or explain when you haven’t understood something.

GOOD TALKING + GOOD LISTENING = GOOD COMMUNICATION

Relationships break down when people stop sharing information. Family unity depends on the sharing of information with good talking and good listening taking place. No matter how much two people like or love each other, no matter how much how much they have in common or have invested in their relationship together, the relationship can break down and get into trouble because of a breakdown in communication.

Remember to show:

1. Appreciation: tell the other person something you like, or appreciate, about him/her. For example, “I love that I can trust you” or “Thanks for helping me clean the house” or “I love that you helped me with dinner” and so on.
2. Give New Information: tell the other person what has happened since you last spoke that morning to the person. You don’t have to cover everything, but do share things that are important or interesting so the other person knows and feels a part of your life.
3. Get New Information: talk about things you don’t understand. This is not complaining time but clarification time. You need to clarify and clear up by getting more information on what it is you didn’t understand or didn’t hear correctly. For example, “I didn’t understand what you meant when you said…” or “I was wondering what you meant when…”
4. Requests for change: If something the other person did is bothering you, say what it is and AT THE SAME TIME suggest something better that he/she can do instead. A request for change is much easier to make when you also offer a solution. Use “I” talk instead of “you” talk and be specific. DON’T attack the other person PERIOD. Instead say how you felt about something or a particular situation, and what you think would help. “I didn’t like it when you left me alone at the company party. I would feel better if you would stay closer to me the next time because I don’t know anyone there.” Be sure to IDENTIFY the specific BEHAVIOR that bothers you.
5. Share wishes, hopes and dreams: What we hope for in the future is important in our life. The other person may be able to help make it happen. But how can they help if she/he doesn’t even know what it is? The last step is to share this information and talk about things in the near future or far future that you would like for yourself and/or for the other person. Example: “I’m looking forward to our trip next weekend (or next month or next year).”

Do Positive People Live Longer?

David R. Hamilton, Ph.D.

Most people assume that positive thinking is just something that we do to help achieve our goals, or even to get through difficult times. But a host of exciting research has shown that attitude affects our health — so much so, in fact, that a positive attitude can add years to our lives.

Take the following study performed at Carnegie Mellon University, for instance. In the study, each of 193 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 55 was given nasal drops containing a cold or flu virus. Participants were also assessed for
their emotional style — whether they tended to experience positive emotions, like happiness, liveliness and calmness, or whether they tended to experience negative emotions, like anxiousness, hostility, and depressive tendencies. Each
person’s health was then monitored in quarantine.

As the volunteers developed symptoms of infection, all the tissues that they used were collected and weighed so that
mucous production could be compared in each individual across the group. The results were clear. Those who were
most positive actually produced less mucous. A positive attitude had a biological impact. Positive people were also found to have fewer overall symptoms. And not everyone got sick, but fewer people who had a positive emotional style got sick than those with a negative emotional style.

But it’s not just colds where attitude makes it mark. A 30-year study of 447 people at the Mayo Clinic found that optimists had around a 50 percent lower risk of early death than pessimists. The study’s conclusion? “[M]ind andbody are linked and attitude has an impact on the final outcome — death.”

This was further compounded by a Yale study that asked 660 elderly people whether they agreed that we become less useful as we age. Those who didn’t agree, and therefore had the most positive attitude about aging, lived an average of 7.5 years longer than those with the most negative attitudes, who did agree that we become less useful as we age.

It was also shown in a Dutch study that examined the attitudes and longevity of 999 people over the age of 65. The study reported a “protective relationship” between optimism and mortality. People with a positive attitude, quite simply, lived longer. They even had a 77 percent lower risk of heart disease than pessimists.

So why do positive people live longer? I imagine that it is because they get less stressed in day-to-day life. Whensomething doesn’t quite go to plan, a person with a positive attitude might just deal with it, typically refocus, or even look for another solution. But a person with a negative attitude will typically complain more, get angry or frustrated, and they will expend a lot of energy going over and over in their heads what has happened and how much it is a real inconvenience for them.

Inside the body, the difference between the two people is stress. This is something we all know about. But stress is only part of the equation that describes the physical impact of a negative attitude. Regular stress causes inflammation. Everybody has heard of inflammation. If you cut yourself, the wound becomes red and swollen. That’s inflammation, and it plays a key role in wound healing because it helps to draw blood and nutrients to the wound site to facilitate repair.

But inflammation also occurs on the inside of the body. You just don’t see it. It is a side effect of too much stress and/or poor lifestyle choices. It has a hand in most known diseases, most typically heart disease. It even speeds up aging, so much so that it has been called a “major ager,” which is a phenomenon that ages the body fast.

Thus, a negative attitude, because it causes stress and inflammation, can speed up aging. This is likely why positive
people live longer. Positive people don’t get stressed as much in day-to-day life, so they produce less inflammation. When stuff doesn’t go to plan, they just get over it and get on with life. Less stress means less inflammation, which in turn promotes a longer life. It’s a simple formula.

How do we turn our minds to more positive things? Counting blessings is a simple way. Make a list of five to ten things that you are grateful for that have happened in the last 24 hours, and do this every day for a month. Or challenge yourself to go three weeks without complaining, moaning, or criticizing. Or do you have a tendency to “make mountains out of molehills”? If so, try out the opposite just for a week. Try making molehills out of mountains.

These simple techniques don’t sound like much, but if they become a habit, they’ll be some of the best habits you’ve ever adopted, because they might just add years to your life.