Sessions 10 & 20: The Money Brain Meets the Coparenting Train: Avoiding the Wreck
We’ve all seen this scenario: A difficult marital separation teamed with significant disagreements about the parenting plan and looming custody litigation. Two trains speeding ahead toward collision. Through the collaborative efforts of attorneys, mediators, and mental health professionals, disaster is often averted. The parents agree on a parenting plan for their kids and begin to implement it. A collective sigh of relief can be heard from the entire professional team. But have we reached the final destination? The next whistle stop is addressing the parents’ property and support issues. Follow how the twists and turns of asset division destabilize the coparenting relationship. Presenters will map out the journey from conflict to compromise, with stops along the route to examine views through the lens of cognitive science, dispute resolution, and family law. Learn about the brain and how it responds to the fear of financial loss, as well as strategies family law professionals can use to keep agitated parents on track for a safe journey. Join this panel for a bumpy ride as we discuss money, kids, and conflict.

Question Title

* 1. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Question Title

* 2. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Identify the interplay between neurobiology, emotional regulation, and economic decision making and how that influences parent behavior during financial mediation.
2. Identify three strategies for managing the escalation of coparenting conflict when coparents are addressing their financial dissolution.
3. Identify the signs that parents have been triggered by the financial discussions and avoid letting them take expensive legal paths out the fear of being in a weaker position.

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Mindy Penzias Dirks, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 5. Please rate presenter: Michèle M. Bissada, Esq. (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 6. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 7. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 8. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 9. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 10. Additional Comments

T