Standards of Child Custody Dispute Essay

John and Tracy are the two primary parties involved in the child custody case. After the parents’ separation, the issue surrounds who will keep or retain children, Matt (four years) and Sarah (six years). John feels that Tracy’s ‘abnormal’ sexual orientation provides adequate grounds for him to get his children’s custody. The father wants the youngsters protected from the mother’s lesbian behavior. On the other hand, Tracy wants to remain with the children because she is the parent they know, having spent much of their time with her. The mother claims that the busy life of the husband and father makes him absent from the family mostly. The counterarguments lead to significant conflict; each of the parties has firm stands informed by underlying biases. Understanding and unraveling the disagreement requires substantial knowledge concerning the matter.

The Hocker and Wilmot conflict assessment paradigm provides a highly reliable tool for unraveling the present child custody disagreement. It leads conflict resolvers to comprehend basic elements concerning the particular clashes’ nature, orientation, interests, and goals (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014). Other critical elements revealed by the tool include the conflict’s involved power issues and the defense styles each of the conflicting parties adopted. Emotions involved in a disagreement, interactions, and patterns, attempted solutions, negotiations, and the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation are key aspects realizable through Hocker and Wilmot’s tool of conflict resolution.

Utilizing Hocker and Wilmot’s conflict resolution tool aids to understand that the issue at hand assumes the domestic wrangles’ nature. John and Tracy are former husbands and wives. The parties lived together in a heterogeneous relationship and got children together. The misunderstanding also features significant value orientation, where the conflicting parties now exhibit varying beliefs towards marriage. John and Tracy’s interests and goals are to get the children’s custody. John’s other goal is to protect his children from their ‘immoral’ mother, whereas Tracy’s purpose is to ensure that the children experience an ever-present affection.

Hocker and Wilmot’s model also helps to understand the various power issues involved in the case (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014). John is power-thirsty as a man and the head of the family. He (John) wonders why Tracy leaves him for a female partner. The aspect somewhat belittles John, who now feels like the female suitor of his former wife is superior to him. Balancing such a power issue is a major concern in resolving the matter because only then will the parties relate and view each other correctly.

Understanding John and Tracy’s ages and socioeconomic status would provide additional and necessary information towards resolving the present case. John is an employed fellow and uses his earnings to support his family, including catering for the ex-wife’s education. The fellow’s earnings may not be enough for the family’s needs. The matter leaves the wife dissatisfied, leading to the wish to go with another person with money. Such is explained partly by the fact that Tracy’s female professor has more money relative to John. One can also think that Tracy is materialistic, based on the sheer move to disregard her family of years to go with a fellow woman.

One should also appreciate the backgrounds, particularly touching on the family setting, of both John and Tracy to address their conflict more appropriately. Unraveling whether Tracy comes from a family or culture where lesbianism is accepted, for instance, stands to help the conflict resolvers know what to do concerning the matter. Nonetheless, finding that Tracy comes from a heterogeneous marriage necessitates the need for the conflict resolver to dig other issues that may have contributed to the young lady’s move. As such, the use of Hocker and Wilmot’s model helps in determining at least two conflict patterns in the present case. Such patterns are the ‘flipper vs. self-doubter’ and ‘threat-maker vs. underdog.’

Tracy is the flipper, according to the ‘flipper vs. self-doubter’ pattern. She adopts offense as a defense to the questions posed by John. The husband, Jonh, is a self-doubter after his wife leaves him for another woman. The point that John spends much of his time away from the children while searching for money proves him as a self-doubter who lacks the courage to love his family unconditionally. John also appears as a threat-maker, based on the second conflict pattern, when he uses the news regarding Tracy’s lesbian relationship to blackmail her into letting go of the young children. Tracy also appears as an underdog in the case when she reacts by looking for a defensive claim to counter John flimsily. The two conflict patterns are easy to understand from the conflict proceedings due to the characters’ open traits.

Reference

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2014). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.