Sol (00:02)
Welcome to Coparenting Beyond Conflict. I'm your host Sol, founder of the BestInterest app for Coparents. At BestInterest and on this podcast, my goal is to help you find peace in the storm. Today I am joined by Sam Imperati, an attorney, former judge, and now a mediator who's spent decades helping people navigate the intersection of logic and emotion. After seeing firsthand how litigation can leave even the winner feeling depleted.

Sam dedicated his career to finding a better way to resolve conflict. I'm excited for this conversation because Sam offers a practical way to stop treating every disagreement like a contest and start exploring solutions together. He shares his umbrella question with us, a framework for honoring both parents' needs while keeping the children's best interests your true north. If every conversation with your co parent becomes another debate about who is right,

well, this episode is for you. Let's dive in.

Sol (00:59)
Hi Sam, welcome to Coparenting Beyond Conflict. It's so good to have you here today with us.

Sam Imperati (01:03)
Hey, thanks Sol. It's just a pleasure to be here.

Sol (01:05)
Now, Sam, I'm really excited about this conversation. Before we begin, I'd love for you to invite us into a moment in your day or your week where you felt at peace.

Sam Imperati (01:15)
I feel at peace helping people navigate the intersection of logic and emotion. Most of my day is spent with people helping them resolve their conflicts. I find that they spin, because they're human. There's traffic on the logical street, there's traffic on the emotional street. And I'm at peace when I can help them sort out the direction through that intersection and go forward productively.

Sol (01:39)
And do I understand you have a a very interesting career that that you started off as an attorney and and a self-described pit bull?

Sam Imperati (01:47)
Yeah, I represented labor unions and their members when I was a baby trial attorney and I thought I was leaping tall buildings with a single bound and venging wrongs and riding in on my white horse, and many times I was. I was helping those who were disadvantaged take on those who were using them as chattel and enjoyed it immensely, but as my hair grayed,

I thought it'd look good in a black robe with a white shirt and a red tie. So I sat on the bench as a part-time judge for five years. And that's where I had my epiphany du jour that there had to be a better way to resolve conflict than the litigation system. So I became a full time mediator. That's what I've been doing for the past several decades.

Sol (02:32)
What was it about the experience of being a judge that gave you that insight that you'd prefer to be a mediator and be outside that system?

Sam Imperati (02:40)
I think it was several fold. The litigation process, the trial process is dramatized in courtroom TVs and movies, and there's this sense that there's gonna be this dramatic moment where the truth prevails and the jury stands up in unison and applauds you and scorns your opponent, or the judge does.

That just is not the the real world. It's time-consuming, it's expensive, it's emotionally draining. Sitting on the bench, I started to realize that the so-called winners didn't really feel satisfied with the outcome. Yes, they got their day in court and that can be very cathartic. And yes, they got a result confirming

at least most of their points of view. But at the end of the day, the process just left them empty, as though the wind had been sucked out of them. And they walked away with a putative of victory that wasn't very fulfilling in the long run. So I realized that there had to be a better way. That was sitting down

And working out using conflict resolution skills and oftentimes with the help of a trained mediator.

Sol (03:52)
Yeah, I hear that echoed so often that co-parents will approach divorce with this intention of getting their day in court and having their story heard. And yet time and again we hear that that it's never really the experience that you get. And at the end of the day you feel drained both emotionally and financially.

Sam Imperati (04:10)
And that has a negative effect on the ongoing relationship because when both sides feel victimized, they are always looking in the ongoing issues that come up to be revalidated and balance those proverbial sense of fairness and and justice scales. It becomes a self-perpetuating negative loop that perpetuates bad outcomes,

and bad processes. And who suffers? The kids. They get caught in the crossfire. When I went through my own personal divorce, and you're gonna love this story. I'm a lawyer, that's pretty obvious. My ex-wife in waiting, a lawyer. We each had a lawyer, and the mediator was a lawyer.

So we had five lawyers in a room. The transaction costs were through the roof. This seemed like a good opportunity to discuss who got the downstairs bathroom knickknacks and other issues of near biblical proportions. The reality is that it just doesn't work. You feel like that's what you need in the moment.

But it's not gonna be sustaining and fulfilling, and it's certainly not in the best interest of the kids.

Sol (05:20)
When you mentioned about the the ongoing nature after the court battle, you now have this relationship that you have to maintain. You have to work together and make decisions. And if you're carrying some of that resentment, but even more something that I notice in co-parents that I work with is that they get into a mode of feeling like they need to collect evidence about everything. And that's hard to be a co-parent with that feeling.

Sam Imperati (05:45)
Everything gets documented, everything is looked at through the lenses of suspicion, everything is logged for a future battle. So there's not an exploration of what's in the best interest of the kids in moving forward. It's a process of documentation to have ammunition for what everyone perceives to be the next battle,

where I will again be vindicated as the better parent, the better person. The kids are watching this and observing this. They're very intuitive. They know when mommy and daddy are not on each other's holiday gift list, even when they're young, they sense it, they feel it in their soul. That's the relationship's most important asset, is the well-being of those kids.

Sol (06:30)
I'm sure some listeners are hearing this and self-reflecting and seeing themselves in this position. So what is your advice to them about how to build that relationship?

Sam Imperati (06:41)
I think it's to establish a true north, a principle that will guide you in all future interactions you're going to have with your co-parenting partner, not adversary, your co-parenting partner. My mantra was what is in the best interest of the children?

That became my true north. Every decision, even if it didn't directly relate to separating parenting time or issues related to that, is what would serve them the best. And if that becomes your true north, a lot of that

"I feel wronged" kind of reaction, or "they're manipulating me," or "they don't have the best interests of the kids in mind," kind of takes on a more balanced mindset. You can just truly focus is, maybe I'm upset, I feel hurt, I'm aggrieved, but indulging that, how will it impact the kiddos?

Sol (07:39)
Hm, yeah, that's a good point. This feeling of needing to have revenge can really get us in trouble when we hold on to the past.

Sam Imperati (07:46)
We're teaching our kids that vengefulness is something you should strive for. Really? Is that the message we want to... What about reconciliation? What about appreciating our inherent humanness? What about acknowledging the fact that we're humans and we're gonna make mistakes. What about appreciating that people can change,

and grow and learn from their mistakes? What is the message we are teaching our children? Now that I have grandchildren, that's carrying on to them, you can see the results when done well. They can be extremely positive, despite the difficult times that my kids went through being the product of a divorced family.

Sol (08:27)
I understand that you have a technique called the umbrella question. I'm super curious to learn more about how that works and how it can help.

Sam Imperati (08:35)
When you you look at and diagnose a conflict, it's like two overlapping icebergs. At the tip of the iceberg is my position and then my opponent's position. And then we exchange positions as though that's going to convince the other person to give us what we want.

So, because that exchange of positions doesn't work, we then come up with arguments to support our positions. And when I sat on the bench, I found something very curious. People in conflict present their arguments in increasing order of absurdity. So, what do I mean by that? I give you my position and my best argument to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong. You respond with your best argument.

I then give you my second best argument, and you see my second argument and raise me with your third best argument, and then I respond with my fourth best argument, and we're basically just exchanging arguments, and I have this feeling there's this little voice in our heads that's saying, "I can't let them have the last argument." And I realized sitting on the bench, I never instructed a jury as follows:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the evidentiary portion of the proceedings. You must now retire and deliberate to determine who had the last argument." But we argue as though that's what's gonna happen, right? And so below that, then comes our interests. What are motivating our positions? The umbrella question is designed to yes, understand the positions, but focus on

what is motivating them? And it is a fill-in-the-blank sentence structure. It goes like this: "How can we address..." And then I would fill in the needs, your needs, Sol, if you and I were in opposition, "while at the same time..." then I'd fill in what my needs are underlying values, needs, and interests, "thereby accomplishing..." and I would put in

what we have in common. And in your context, that would often be thereby assuring our children live their best and productive lives and have examples of conflict resolution and can go forth and be their best selves. So what happens is the normal debate is really: I'm right and you're wrong. Okay.

It becomes binary. For me to win, you must lose. When you frame the dispute instead as an umbrella question, so for instance, Sol, how can we accommodate your desires to work sometimes in the evenings and on the weekends with my need

to have a predictable schedule so that the kids have a rhythm, thereby accomplishing our common desire to make our children's lives as balanced and productive as they can be? We change the debate into an exploration. And that's the key. If it's binary,

it's a debate for me to win, you must lose. If it's an exploration, we are sitting on the same side of the table and looking at what is really motivating my needs and your needs with a focus on that true north, the best interest of the kids.

Sol (11:57)
And is the idea then that the umbrella is in a way including everyone in the system?

Sam Imperati (12:04)
Yes.

So in the co-parenting situation includes parent A's needs, parent B's needs, with a focus on best interest of their children.

Sol (12:13)
Returning to the the umbrella question, which I could imagine a co-parent using, asking of their co-parent. And if they don't have a mediator and they're just wanting to try out a new technique, my co-parents saying "I don't want to ask it this way because

I'm worried about appearing weak or I'm worried about dropping my guard." What what do you say to someone like that?

Sam Imperati (12:32)
That's a legitimate concern. There are co-parenting situations where you are dealing with people on the other side who really don't have the best interest of their child. And it is really their own stuff that is prominent and their sole focus.

These techniques don't work in every circumstance, nor should they work, and nor should they be tried. Even though I'm a card carrying mediator, there are some cases that need to be adjudicated. That you need to go to someone in a black robe and looks at and calls you know what on you know what when it needs to be called upon. But the overwhelming majority of these cases can in fact work be worked out. And there is a certain power

in transparent vulnerability. And so what do I mean by that? If the concern is I don't want to seem weak or vulnerable by asking an umbrella question, I would suggest that, you know, I have thought that too, and I have negotiated on behalf of

parties, the overwhelming majority of my life, and then for myself. When I was involved in litigation. If the position you take is reasonable, fair, in the best interest of the child,

framing up the question in such a way that it is balanced is a strength because you protect yourself against the likely attack, if it's not, that you're only interested in yourself, you're not interested in me, what's in it for me? You can calmly say, Let me repeat the umbrella question. The the first part

Is a rephrasing or paraphrasing of what you told me were the things that were important to you. It also, yes, it also includes the things that are important to me and most importantly, what's in the best interest of our child. So by definition, it is fair, balanced, and reasonable. And sticking to that

True North is really empowering and powerful because you have strength in the credibility and balance of your approach.

Sol (14:46)
As a co-parent myself, I know how difficult communication can be. That's why I created Best Interest, the co-parenting app that uses advanced AI technology to automatically filter out all negativity, promoting positive communication and helping you create a healthier environment for your family. Try it now and get 10 off with code Beyond10. Link in the show notes.

Sol AI (15:08)
And

now, back to the show.

Sol (15:10)
We recently had Kerry McAvoy on the podcast and one of the things that she brought up was this feeling, especially when you're dealing in a in a high conflict co-parenting situation, of having almost like an internal echo of your co-parent that just resonates inside of you. From a conflict perspective, do you do you believe that that's true and

what is a good way to kind of get out of that echo?

Sam Imperati (15:32)
Well tell me a little bit more about what you mean by the co-parent echo. What does that sound like feel like?

Sol (15:38)
It's that you hear their voice in your head, and then it's always with you.

It governs and dictates your actions. So you might kind of anticipate that they're going to respond in a certain way before you give them the opportunity to respond.

Sam Imperati (15:52)
In my mind that raises the issue of being reactive versus proactive, and being prepared or not. The advantage of that

echo, or listening to that person is the ability to frankly write their portion of the umbrella question before you even enter the conversation. So instead of just going in and engaging in the debate, you can say, "I've been thinking about this issue, and it seems to me the issue is..." and you lead with an umbrella question. It has the benefit

of taking some wind out of their sails, especially if your opponent is engaged in what I like to call assholian behavior, you can you can minimize the amount of assholiness by simply putting it out there from the jump. To me it's a sign of power and confidence. "I know your position.

I understand. And some of it may have merit. And you may actually be able to convince a judge to rule in your favor." Having that echo can be turned into a proactive positive thing by getting out ahead of it

and framing the umbrella question with that information in mind. It could also be paralyzing and self-defeating because you're not giving them a chance for redemption or possible . If you go in assuming they're going to be a jerk every time,

the overwhelming odds are they're gonna continue to be the jerk. So there's this theory in negotiation, I'm sure you've heard of it, it's called matching. So if they're aggressive, you be aggressive. If they collaborate, you collaborate. If you begin with collaboration and they respond with aggressivity, you respond accordingly.

And then you give them an opportunity to be collaborative and then reinforce them positively if they do. Well, that's all part of this dance we do when we're in a debate. I'm suggesting that we can always debate later. Try the exploration first with the umbrella question and the decision table kind of technique.

Sol (17:55)
I'm hearing that when you are working to build the umbrella question, what you're asking your clients to do is to get into empathy for your co-parent's position and and building that empathy, I would imagine, even if things end up in court, being able to communicate from that perspective shows the judge that you're reasonable, that you understand, you're not looking at things black and white.

But you're you're seeing the gray and you're seeing that there is a validity to that side, but here is your position still.

Sam Imperati (18:24)
And I think that's absolutely spot on, Sol. I always was amazed when sitting on the bench, you'd hear side A present it, and it was presented as though it is beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty that X is true. Okay, and there could be no view other than this. Then

the other side would come on and it would be the polar opposite of this. And they were both, from their perspective, describing the same circumstance. So when I was not in a good mood, I would be saying to myself, "Who's lying the least here?" Okay, that would be my assessment. And when I was hydrated and had a good breakfast

and kinder-spirited in the moment, I would want to understand what are motivating these different perspectives. All things other equal, which seldom they are, the person who was more reasonable in their approach garnered greater credibility to me than the person who was just in there using a flamethrower and wouldn't concede anything,

any point of view. It gave you a window into what was going on when they weren't in front of me in the courtroom. Just from a tactical perspective, that ongoing reasonableness is going to serve you well the overwhelming majority of the time. Not to mention, it's the better right thing to do, and it's the better way to model for your kids

how to resolve these very, very difficult circumstances.

Sol (19:59)
I could imagine that many judges sitting on the bench in family court share in that view of a situation. In a co-parenting relationship, the one that presents as more reasonable probably ends up being the one that is favored in these decisions because you're proving that's a proxy for how you co-parent. If you're more reasonable in the courtroom,

you're

gonna be more reasonable outside the courtroom too.

Sam Imperati (20:23)
I have no data to to support that assertion, but instinctively and intuitively and experientially, I would agree.

Sol (20:30)
Now, shifting gears here, I I understand that you have done some stand up or were a stand up comedian. Yeah.

Sam Imperati (20:37)
Yes,

I come from a a long line of patriarchs that fancy themselves as raconteurs and storytellers galore. And my mother's father was the stereotypical Irishman, he was a copper miner from the upper peninsula of Michigan.

And his name was, wait for it, John L. Sullivan. About as Irish as you can get. He was the emcee at all the local events and was always a big storyteller. He was a copper miner, and so he didn't have a lot of money. But he would always have a hundred dollar bill, and then he would take ten one dollar bills.

They put the hundred dollar bill over it in a money clip so it looked really thick and always be flashing his money clip to create this image and he didn't have a pot to piss in. My father was one of the funniest guys ever. They basically claimed that I inherited their the funny genes, and I I think I did just from

having been around them. So I entered a comedy competition and won. Now there's a caveat to that, the comedy competition was- wait for it- only among lawyers. So there needs to be an asterisk next to my name, 'stand-up comedy winner.' It was only amongst lawyers.

The stereotype is, lawyers are not funny, but really lawyers are hysterical and have great stories to tell, some of which are even true. So that's my comedy tragedy and joy and and journey. And I still like to tell a joke every now and then.

Sol (22:16)
You ever use humor on the bench?

Sam Imperati (22:18)
I did, quite a bit of the time. One of my great war stories about that, it was a politically charged case and it basically involved a a ballot measure that was going to take on gay rights and the lawyer

from one side was a gay man and representing the interests of the gay community. The lawyer for the other side was representing a member of this very, very conservative group. And the trial began and one lawyer would say something, the other side would object, and they would just get into this huge argument. And I tried everything,

from just going 'time out' and using the timeout sign. Gentlemen, gentlemen were saying, hello, hello, I'm up here on the band, you know, hello, hello, hello. I I eventually after like the fourth time I literally got up from my seat, went over to the side of the dais.

Leaned up against the wall next to the jury and let them continue to argue until they realized I was no longer sitting in the bench. And all of a sudden they look over at me and I say, "No, continue, carry on. You apparently don't think you need me. Haven't given me a chance to interrupt your rule or ask a question or anything.

So the jury and I are just gonna sit here and wait until you guys figure out how I should rule on this objection and then I'll rule. So carry on. Yeah, and they kinda looked sheepishly and said, "objection withdrawn." And it went back to the bench.

Sol (23:51)
Well that story highlights that humor can be very disarming.

Sam Imperati (23:55)
Absolutely disarming. I think it's harder to be a jerk when you're smiling and the mood is lighter. Sometimes people get offended at humor in serious circumstances and it can be used self-indulgently and inappropriately. But when used appropriately, it dissipates that tension and creates

a sense that, we really do need to explore this. The world is gonna go on after this matter is resolved, one way or the other. :et's keep a focus. It allows people to reset that emotional button and realize that, we're gonna be fine. We'll survive this and move on.

Sol (24:30)
I don't consider myself a terribly funny person

and yet I also don't see how I could ever bring humor into a conflicted situation effectively. What would be a good start to approaching that?

Sam Imperati (24:46)
I have the advantage of being the neutral third party. I have the advantage of being the mediator and the two parties are going after each other. So that is a different dynamic. The parties are looking to me for neutrality and impartiality and fairness and managing the

less than positive dynamics and dialogue that's going on there. So I have more leeway. It's a more appropriate role here. When I am a party in conflict, I will look for an opportunity to lead with some form of self-deprecating humor.

If in the throes of the debate going back and forth, I say something that I realize I shouldn't have said or that my tone was inappropriate or something, I might say, "time out, I'm sorry, that was an assholian move on my part."

It allows people to realize that I am in fact human and I'm not taking myself serious. I'll lead with something self deprecating here in that particular approach.

Sol (25:48)
Now, Sam, it is time now for our lightning round.

So the way that this works is I'm going to read off a sentence and you'll fill in the blank and maybe we'll have a conversation or maybe we'll move on to the next one. So ready to go?

Sam Imperati (25:59)
Absolutely. Is it open book or or closed book exam?

Sol (26:04)
We'll see. We'll see. All right. The single biggest mistake co-parents make in a conflict conversation is...

Sam Imperati (26:11)
indulging their own ego.

Sol (26:14)
Yeah, what does that look like?

Sam Imperati (26:15)
I think it's the sense that parent A or parent B, or both parent A and B, believe that they have a monopoly on the truth as to the best interests of their child, and no reasonable person could have a different point of view. And once we indulge that arrogance, it begs the fight, it begs the debate.

And it precludes an exploration truly designed for a balanced long-term solution for the kid.

Sol (26:43)
Okay, next one. When someone tells me they just want their day in court, I think...

Sam Imperati (26:48)
That they have a strong misconception as to the reality of what that experience will look like. It has been romanticized by watching movies and TV series. And unfortunately, you know, there's no TV series called Ally McMediator or LA Mediation. There's Law and Order, SVU. I mean, there's no no things called

"Resolutions Are Us" going forward. And so they believe that everything is going to be a made-for-TV drama, and that is simply not the case. And they fail to recognize the time, money, and emotion that's going to go into an outcome that is not guaranteed for them.

Sol (27:29)
Now Sam, I'm feeling there's some opportunity here for you to create a House style mediation focused series. I think that there's some opportunity there.

Sam Imperati (27:38)
I really admired his intellect and while his style was somewhat caustic, it was, in fact, effective. I would hope to be a humorous House. Instead of House MD I'd be House J D for Juris Doctor.

Sol (27:54)
Love it. I I try, I try.

Sam Imperati (27:54)
See, you just told a joke. You just told a joke. Come on. You know, you succeeded.

You did more than try, buddy. You succeeded.

Sol (28:03)
Ha ha ha.

Well I can tell

you that my humor has improved since I became a dad. I didn't understand

Sam Imperati (28:08)
Yes.

Sol (28:09)
dad jokes and now I got the dad joking down.

Sam Imperati (28:12)
Good. Congratulations.

Sol (28:13)
The moment a co parenting dispute is actually resolvable is when...

Sam Imperati (28:18)
Both parties suspend disbelief and commit to exploring versus debating.

Sol (28:25)
Yeah, that's really solid. Mm-hmm. What do you do about a situation? We alluded to it before, but when there is one party that seems to be willing to step over the line, to negotiate, and then the other side is just entrenched and and maybe dealing with a personality disorder or something.

Sam Imperati (28:40)
So I don't have answers to the personality disorder dynamic. That's way outside of my lane. I've been fortunate enough not to have been in situations where that was the presenting issue. And I feel great empathy for those people who are in that situation because I've heard horror stories.

At the risk of self-promoting the use of mediation, I believe that bringing in a neutral third party is a step that needs to be seriously considered. Because in my experience, people find it harder to be a jerk and indulge their inner demons when they are in front of a neutral third party.

They are trying to present as the more reasonable person, or they at a minimum moderate their jerk-like behavior in front of a third party. And that third party skilled at these various dynamics can help balance the opportunity for both parties to truly be heard, as opposed to dominated or lorded over with whatever power the

party has over the more passive.

Sol (29:49)
That's

a really good point. Yeah, that having that third party in the room can in a way keep a more high conflict person in a lane of of trying to be reasonable because that's the perception that they want to have. So that can actually result in better outcomes.

Sam Imperati (30:03)
And then the other advantage of that is the mediator can say to the parties with greater credibility, "you know, I understand that X feels right to you. And in my experience in this particular county, having done or observed or heard about hundreds, if not thousands, of disputes like this,

the more probable outcome is X, not Y. And that may seem fair or unfair depending on your perspective. I'm not predicting that's going to happen in your particular case, but it's a possibility that you should consider and weigh."

Sol (30:41)
If you imagine

that they have the ear of their attorney and then they hear that from a mediator, that's an opposing force that could potentially save you from ending up in court.

Sam Imperati (30:51)
Absolutely. Oftentimes a benefit of mediation is that when you have these high conflict personalities and they're lawyered up, the chances are excellent that their lawyers have reality therapy with them and they've just rejected their lawyers' advice. So oftentimes, as part of client management issues, all designed with the client's best interest,

the lawyer will say, we need to mediate this, and we're gonna hire a mediator whose reputation is stellar and is experienced and seasoned and is gonna have the personality fit that can attend to my high conflict clients needs in such a way that it creates the environment that they in fact will listen for the first time.

Some parties with that personality description expect their lawyer to be blind advocates, even when their position is untenable.

But when neutral third party, there isn't that expectation of blind advocacy, it's reality therapy is the value added and the credibility of experience, then it becomes something that can be internalized and acted upon, oftentimes for the very first time.

Sol (32:04)
Hmm. Sam, thank you so much for your time today. This has been a really engaging and enlightening episode. For those listeners that would like to reach out to you and learn more about your work, where can they find you?

Sam Imperati (32:17)
I have a website, my website is www.ICMresolutions.com. I'm the only known Sam Imperati so if you Google my name,

it'll take you to my website.

Sol (32:33)
Sam, thanks so much for joining us.

Sam Imperati (32:34)
and thanks for having me. You're a great interviewer and you're doing great work. Keep it up, buddy.

Sol (32:38)
Thank you so much.

Sol (32:41)
Thanks for joining us on the Coparenting Beyond Conflict podcast. To support our show, please subscribe or leave a rating. Links for all books and resources mentioned on today's podcast appear in our show notes or on CoparentingBeyondConflict.com. See you next time.

Sol (32:59)
The

commentary and opinions available on this podcast are for informational and entertainment purposes only, and not for the purpose of providing legal or psychological advice. You should contact a licensed attorney, coach, or therapist in your state to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.