Subscribe to the show in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you find your favorite podcasts!
How to Split a Toaster – Cherie Morris

De-Escalating Conflict with Divorce Coach Cherie Morris

De-Escalating Conflict

By its very nature, divorce is ripe with conflict. It starts because of conflict, it’s full of conflict all the way through, and often – particularly in cases with children involved – there is still conflict on the other side. Is there an easier way to deal with it? How do you learn the fine art of control in this minefield of conflict?

Joining us on the Toaster today is divorce coach and parent coordinator Cherie Morris. She’s behind helping couples actively going through divorce learn to recognize signs of conflict so they can help de-escalate the situation and more easily resolve their problems. It’s a task for sure, but she’s game. And clearly, she knows her stuff.

The conversation starts with looking at areas that are most ripe for conflict – stuff and children. No surprise really. From there, we talk about the challenges of needing control and how to instead survive by being nice, looking at your needs as requests instead of demands, and setting your expectations low.

We look at dealing with the ex who’s a boat anchor and the need to pick your battles. And a big part is learning to free yourself from the need for context.

The big question is who’s bringing the high conflict to the divorce and relationship. How do you know if it’s you? And if it is you, what can you do about it?

It’s a fun and informative conversation with Cherie, so tune in and get ready to de-escalate.

Episode Transcript

Pete Wright: Welcome to How to Split a Toaster, a divorce podcast about saving your relationships from TruStory FM. Today, your toaster needs to dial it back.

Seth Nelson: Welcome to the show everyone. I’m Seth Nelson, and I’m here as always with my good friend, Pete Wright. As a divorce show, we talk a lot about conflict. That’s what a divorce is after all, dissolving conflict by dissolving the marriage that contains it. This week on the show we’re talking to Cherie Morris, a divorce coach and parent coordinator, about our own responsibility for deescalation. We’re going to learn what it means to deescalate yourself in conflict and how your own work can help resolve conflict in the divorce process. Cherie, welcome to the Toaster.

Cherie Morris: Thank you for having me. I love the name of your a podcast.

Seth Nelson: Thank you.

Pete Wright: Thank you, Cherie. You don’t have to leave ever.

Seth Nelson: I know. Before the show started, she said I had a sexy voice. Now she compliments the name of our show. Life is good.

Pete Wright: Life is good. We’re doing great. Look, I really like that conversation we’re going to have today, because we talk a lot about conflict. This is the nature of divorce. It’s the nature of what gets us in divorce. And so having this conversation, framing it at least in such a way that we’re talking about our personal responsibility to deescalate in the divorce process, I think that is a really powerful sort of nugget. If we can come away with some thoughts on how to deescalate ourselves and thereby help deescalate conflict in the divorce process, I’ll call this whole show a win. But to give us a start, Cherie, when you look at the overall arc of divorce, is there a part of the process that you would characterize as more ripe for conflict than others?

Cherie Morris: I find in my experience in working with individuals and couples in this space, it’s when we talk about our stuff and our kids that we get triggered.

Pete Wright: And stuff, you’re not talking about our inner emotional stuff. You’re talking about tables and stuff.

Cherie Morris: Good guess, Pete. You’re exactly right. When we talk about our material possessions and our children, who some people view as material possessions, we really get-

Seth Nelson: Wait a minute. They’re not?

Cherie Morris: We pay a lot for them, Seth. We absolutely do.

Seth Nelson: Yes, we do. I just did a standard of living case there arguing about alimony. It turns out that children had the highest standard of living in the household. Okay, I’m with you.

Cherie Morris: So I think when we talk about the things that are near and dear to our heart, that’s when the conflict really engages for us. And sometimes, Pete, it’s because we’re not addressing our emotional stuff, but instead we’re talking about the material stuff. And so that’s the highest arc I see in divorce.

Pete Wright: That’s really interesting. The whole idea that we’re using stuff essentially as a metaphor for our own emotional stuff, using our tables and chairs and plants as a way to disguise our feelings about our divorce. Is that a fair assessment?

Cherie Morris: I think it’s not only fair, it’s the norm, because our culture teaches people to do that. Well, it’s a method to validate us. "Look at all the stuff I have to give her and I earned all that stuff. It’s mine. And so validate me by telling me I’m a good person, because I did materially well in this marriage," for example. And we can flip the pronouns there too.

Pete Wright: Sure. I think one of the things that I find so interesting about the work that you do and I think this is a good time to bring it up. You start talking about the his or hers, they, theirs, our arguments about stuff and kids. You work in divorce coaching with couples, to which I say, huh. Everything that I’ve been conditioned to believe about the divorce process by Seth is that everybody to their corners. How do you work with-

Seth Nelson: And then we come out swinging, Pete.

Pete Wright: And then we come out swinging, yes.

Seth Nelson: Okay. Let’s stop forgetting that important part.

Pete Wright: No, that’s really important. And so how do you do that?

Cherie Morris: Well, let me distinguish it maybe from mediation, for example, which we may all be more familiar with in divorce. You have somebody who’s a neutral who comes and says to you, "Here’s what the law is. Now I’m not going to give you individual counsel about the law, but I’m going to help you come together and write an agreement." What I do as a coach is different than that. I say, "I’m not here to help you agree. I’m here to help you deescalate and talk to each other better about what you might want to agree to." So I get to find people where they are and these are people who at the very least understand maybe they need to do better. Maybe they don’t know how to talk to each other about the stuff or their kids, but they understand that maybe it’s better for each of them and for their children if they do that. That doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of high conflict because maybe one person buys in and the other doesn’t, but I’m simply providing them a space to talk in the future more easily with each other. The hope is that I don’t always have to be there. I’m not in their relationship forever, but I really try to bring them to this space so that I give them some tips, some resources, how can I do that better with this person who’s likely to be, if we have children, in my life for the rest of my life.

Seth Nelson: All right. So I have a question. I think what you’re doing sounds amazing. I have concerns when people or couples are going to a third party to work on deescalating. Let’s talk about what you may want to agree to. So there’s two issues that just like red flags which I want to just get out on the table. One, how do you deal with the different power dynamics in that relationship? Because if I’m sending a client over or I’m recommending you, but they’re the one that is getting bullied or gaslit and all of that stuff, I feel like I’m sending them into the lion instead because I’m keeping them in this conversation where sometimes maybe it’s better just to have a little space. That’s one. Two, is I always get nervous when they’re talking about resolving stuff, because I can’t unring the bell. If someone comes to me and says, "We’ve got an agreement ready to wrap it up," I say, "That’s great. You’re hiring me to tell you what the law would do for you or may not do for you." And when I look at this agreement, it might not match. I’m okay if it doesn’t match. But my job is to tell you it doesn’t match. And right when I tell them it doesn’t match, they’re like, "Oh, well, I want to change it." And you can’t unring that bell on the other side. So does any of that happen to you? How do you deal with those issues?

Cherie Morris: I think those are great questions Seth and I’m so glad to be asked those questions by a family lawyer in particular, because I hear this on an individual basis all the time. And to address the first piece, I am not with this couple to create any agreements. I am there to help them talk about what they haven’t been able to talk about before. So often, as I’m sure you well know, when lawyers talk to each other, it may not be an effective communication between two human beings who need to deal with each other, for example, in a co-parenting relationship for a very long time. So it’s not a negotiation, it’s a conversation in which we are talking about how we’re going to be talking to each other in the future, whether it’s co-parenting issues. They can talk about a property issue for sure, but they’re learning how to talk to each other. So I am not recommending they do a particular thing. I am not saying you shouldn’t listen to your lawyer. I will not write anything down. I don’t do a memorandum of understanding. They are to return to you Seth and say, "Hey, look, we talked about how to talk about this." And if there is abuse, I flag that and add additional resources. If there is any sort of domestic violence that I have concerns about, I certainly do a screening for that. I certainly have seen situations in which one person as is often the case in marriage has tactics and techniques that we consider gaslighting, narcissistic, or otherwise. There’s certainly personality disordered people. But what I’m trying to do for them is help them, again, talk to each other so they can do better with and for each other without creating specific agreements. So it’s a question I hear a lot. You have in a way access to the couple that I don’t. You are going to get them to agreement on something that may not be to my client’s advantage. But in fact, all I’m trying to do with them instead of agreeing agreements are how do they understand each other, how are they heard better, how do they talk to each other better, which eventually Seth they’re going to have to do. And your client’s going to have to do with you too.

Pete Wright: That sounds to me an important separation of church and state sort of an issue. That when you’re talking about how people needing to learn how to talk with one another, we’re not talking about for the next year to 18 months the process of their divorce. We’re talking about the next five, 10, 15 years of their co-parenting relationship. Am I saying that accurately?

Cherie Morris: You are saying it accurately. And what I really am trying to do as a coach, as someone who has tools they can use, is help them deescalate this relationship, but maybe other relationships too. Because I often see people who have trouble not just in their marital relationship, but in other categories. If they are not talking nicely to their spouse or they’re gaslighting their spouse or they’re using bullying tactics, usually it bleeds over to other relationships they have. So they’re thinking of me as a coach for their divorce? Yes. But it’s really about how do I relate to people better so that I feel more satisfied with my life and for my relationship with my children, for example.

Seth Nelson: It sounds like a communication coach.

Cherie Morris: It’s in part communication coach, it’s part life coach. It’s definitely not legal advisor, but it’s someone who says, "If you need more resources, I can get you to someone who can give you that advice." Financial too it’s a really big piece of what I do.

Seth Nelson: What’s an example of this? What’s an example of how I can better communicate? I mean, Pete and I have been struggling a little bit on communication. People hear it every week.

Pete Wright: It’s why we have guests on the show because we’re actually essentially interviewing for our own support.

Cherie Morris: Well, it’s a great conceit. I think we all should engage in this method, but one of the things I really believe in, and I actually was just on a webinar in which Bill Eddy was interviewed and he is a pretty renowned mediator. So he is in the legal space and has a background as a psychologist, but I’m a big believer in his communication style. And one thing he said today that was really impactful and that I hope I lead the way for my clients is, "You can never change somebody else in the situation. All you can do is use tools that we have to engage in the relationship you have to have with them." So here’s what I’m going to tell you Pete and Seth how you can do better with each other. Bill Eddy has a technique he calls the BIFF method for communication between co-parents, if you have to deal with someone who’s high conflict. And BIFF stands for keep your communication brief, include only the information you need, use a friendly tone, and be firm in your boundaries. So really what you’re looking to do in a divorce situation is mostly stick to email even with a co-parent, because text can be incredibly escalating and invasive. Be concise, only provide that info that you have to. For example, "Please pick up the children at 6:00 PM." Leave out, "Karma asshole." It may be true, but you don’t have to say-

Seth Nelson: That’s no fun. See-

Pete Wright: We wouldn’t be communicating me and Seth if we had to leave that stuff out.

Seth Nelson: Cherie, I would leave out the, "Please pick up the children at 6:00 PM," part and I would just send, "Karma asshole."

Cherie Morris: I know the kind of client I need to send to you Seth. I like it. And then really being firm with our boundaries in our communications. Don’t ask for something you don’t want. Don’t over explain, just put in the communication what needs to be said and then do your work somewhere else. Don’t do the work that you have with your co-parent in the email that you’re going to send them because that will not be successful. They will validate every concern you have. They will make sure you feel it.

Seth Nelson: I could not agree with that method more. And I always try to express to my clients when you’re sending and all you can do is send requests, don’t ever think of them as demand. Don’t ever say, "The parenting plan says, my lawyer said." I mean, you’re just ratcheting it up. If you are asking them to do something, be nice about it. It’s not that complicated. If you want somebody to do something for you, you have a much higher likelihood of success if you’re nice about it.

Cherie Morris: And Seth I would argue that some people even if you are nice about it will never be nice back.

Seth Nelson: That’s right.

Cherie Morris: Still don’t need to find yourself on their level.

Seth Nelson: And set your expectations low. I know they’re never going to say, "Please." I know they’re always going to write what is perceived as demanding, because that’s their tone. That’s how they operate. They’re arrogant. They’re controlling. They’re this, they’re that. But it also counts, and correct me if I’m wrong Cherie, how you receive that information.

Cherie Morris: Oh, it sure does. And that’s where I talk about doing our own work. So in your relationship with Pete, for example, I am sure that you try not to internalize all of his communication.

Seth Nelson: Oh my God. If I internalized everything Pete said, I would just be a puddle on the floor.

Cherie Morris: And so what you do is you say, "Okay, Pete said this to me and I’m going to take what I can use and I’m going to let the rest go." Because if you don’t Seth, then what happens is we spend our life aligning with someone that we’ve had difficulty with and our energy is spent there. So even though we’re divorced, we’re not divorced at all. And I don’t suppose the two of you have been married, but I’m not sure of that. So if that in fact is the case, if we want to separate our spaces, then stop aligning with your former partner emotionally, even if it’s not you doing the bad stuff.

Pete Wright: According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, approximately 10% of children live with a parent with an alcohol use disorder.

Seth Nelson: This is an alarming statistic as a family law professional who deals with custody cases regularly.

Pete Wright: Finding the balance between the child safety and helping the child maintain a relationship with both parents is one of the hardest things to navigate. Add in the he said, she said phenomenon that happens with divorcing couples who often weaponize alcohol use against one another, and the situation is even more difficult.

Seth Nelson: All of this is why Soberlink has been one of the most important tools for my clients dealing with these issues. Soberlink’s remote alcohol monitoring tool has helped over 500,000 people prove their sobriety and provide peace of mind regarding the child’s safety. Soberlink helps keep the focus on the best interest of the child, which is really the most important part in a divorce case dealing with children. I’ve teamed up with Soberlink to create a parenting plan guide to help people going through divorce that involves alcohol in children.

Pete Wright: And you can download it today at And if you take a look and you think you’re ready to order Soberlink, just mention How to Split a Toaster for $50 off their device price.

Seth Nelson: Our thanks to Soberlink for sponsoring How to Split a Toaster.

Pete Wright: Okay. This leads us to this thing we hear about and I’ll speak about a family member who is recently divorced and already is talking about their former spouse as this boat anchor around their life. That they now have this relationship where they’re not married, that neither of them want to be married, but they have two kids and the kids are seven-years-old, there are many years ahead of them, and they feel like now they are in a relationship of deep dependence. And the more you talk about that relationship, the more it sounds like co-dependence. That I am not going to be successful without somehow satisfying the needs of this other person who I don’t really want or need to be in my life at all. It’s just angst, all angst. So in the context of better communication, how do you transform that relationship of the boat anchor former spouse into the no longer married but still very much a partner in this family former spouse?

Cherie Morris: I think it’s simple but not easy, as so many things in life. So simply put, we use these tools that I’ve suggested to communicate in a neutral way. We do our own work to understand what’s our attachment to this narrative. Why are we still enmeshed, if we are? We notice too that our children are part of this former partner. So we certainly want to be careful about not putting them in the middle of it and making them feel lesser because they are part of our co-parent. And so I think a lot of the work has nothing to do with the other person, but it has to do with us. So one of my suggestions to my clients is treat this person, and this may resonate with you Pete and Seth, as sort of that unpleasant business colleague. How do you create-

Seth Nelson: That’s how I view Pete, you got it.

Pete Wright: That’s it. Nailed it.

Seth Nelson: On the notes.

Pete Wright: Right here too.

Cherie Morris: And so you treat them as if you need to deal with them in a necessary capacity and you will, but you remove the hook. When you mention the anchor Pete, that’s a beautiful analogy because what I’m always trying to get my clients to do for themselves, not for their co-parent, is to unhook. You have to unhook yourself from that engagement.

Seth Nelson: Is part of unhooking also picking your battles?

Cherie Morris: Oh my, yes. Yes.

Seth Nelson: And I know we’ve talked about this before Pete on the show where people will call me up all the time and say, "I have to do all the driving. Why doesn’t he have to pick up the kids? I feel like I’m the one always putting the kids around." And I remind them, "Remember how much you were fighting for time with your kids." So if you view that as he’s just given away time and the price of that is you have the kids in the car and you got to drive. If you want to go to battle and say, "Look, the agreement says he’s got to pick him up at this time," we can go to battle on that. But he’s giving away something that you were fighting for before. So I think a lot of it is how we look at these situations that occur when you’re no longer living in the same household. And is it control? He gets to control me I have to pick up the kids or is it he’s given me free time with the kids and he just thinks he’s controlling me. How do you want to internalize it to make it work for you? Is that something you work with them on?

Cherie Morris: I absolutely do. And one of the things I really look for is ways if people are still in the contemplation phase of divorce, for example, especially and still to this day, my female clients, what situation will you be in financially? Because they often feel more controlled in divorce if they have that hook in them, because they have to do more of the kid logistics if they’re dependent on spousal support. So what is the financial position of the parties relative to each other in divorce, if there’s an option to work on the marriage, for example, and not be put in that situation, if control is very important to you, let’s think about that at the front end. If you’re already in it, then you really do have to think about why are you so attached to that. And it could have more to do with something else. And let’s think through that and figure out a way forward.

Pete Wright: It makes me reflect just a little bit on the break of context that we have especially when you talk about picking your battles, that suddenly you’re no longer living with this person any more. And so you may or I’ll just say I would, if I start getting the calls to do more driving than I believe is my fair share or is starting to disrupt my life, I’ll begin to paint an internal narrative picture of what they’re doing when I’m driving. And it will probably involve my Tais and seeing other people while I’m trucking around the kids, because I no longer live with them and I don’t have what comes very naturally when you’re cohabitating, the gift of context. Because I see them coming and going. I know how busy they are. I know that work is crazy and now I don’t get that anymore.

Seth Nelson: And you paint this picture, which I must say is better than them driving the kids around with my ties, with the new girlfriend in the car. So you got to pick your battles.

Pete Wright: Picking a perfect point on the stories. Seth, thank you. But some of that is back to this point which is how do you go about helping people to reground themselves in what is fact and truth? And the truth is that what all you know is they’ve asked you to drive. They’ve not told you, "I need you to drive because of my Tai habit." How do you help ground people in this experience? And is that part of the process to help them understand the boat anchor thing, freeing themselves of the boat anchor?

Cherie Morris: I think it is and it isn’t because we often don’t want to know too much, because knowing too much becomes less neutral, less of the BIFF communication. So you could certainly ask the question, "Hey, you’ve asked me three times in the last four weeks to drive extra time. I’m curious. I would like some context," or you simply set a boundary, which is, "I won’t be able to do it. So you might have to get some additional help."

Seth Nelson: So I like that one better, here’s why. I hate it when they say stuff like, "This is what happened," because it comes back with, "I didn’t ask you three times in the last four weeks." And now you’re arguing over what happened, which isn’t the issue, it’s that you don’t want to do driving again.

Cherie Morris: Yes.

Pete Wright: Right. Which I think is, to pivot my point just a little bit, is more, "I don’t have the gift of context and therefore I need to free myself of the need to have the gift of context." And that goes back to this whole point of personal responsibility in deescalating, doesn’t it? That the more I tell my myself, "I need to know the stuff that’s going on on the other side," the more angsty I’m going to get. It does not end well.

Seth Nelson: Right. And I think what you do with that Pete is you’re a hundred percent correct, but it’s inward looking.

Pete Wright: Yeah.

Seth Nelson: You don’t care about the why, why is he asking me to drive? You care about whether you can do it or not. Does it work into your schedule or not? Are you willing to give up something that you had planned because you want to spend time with your kids, even if that happens to be driving, helping the other personnel? Those I think are all side shows if you’re helping them out, whatever the case may be. But when you set those boundaries that Cherie’s talking about to say, "I’m going to make this decision for myself." And now someone’s listening Cherie and says, "Well, this sounds nice and good." But what happens when he just says, "Well, I’m not picking up the kids?"

Cherie Morris: Then guess what? You have to figure it out, because my other position here is we must be child centered. So we really aren’t thinking about your needs Pete, or even your former spouse’s needs. We’re thinking of the child’s needs. And if we do that as a good parent, then we pick up the kids or make an arrangement so that it can happen and then we get on with it. And that is really, really hard for some of us to do. And that’s part of the work, because we did decide to have these kids in whatever way we did. And we often pick up the slack for one parent in marriage. And if we would expect that we would not have to do that in divorce, I think it’s naive. So it does take a shift of focus and it’s hard work and it’s not glorious by the way. It’s not as if the kids are going to appreciate it, but it’s still the right thing to do. So helping my clients see that there’s no necessarily a payoff or a punishment for their former spouse is really the heart of the work.

Pete Wright: That’s interesting because the picture I’m painting in my own head is how hard that is to reframe when you’re in the middle of a divorce process, because divorce is inherently a self-centered act. You’re focused on you and your relationship and separating your stuff and your money and all this stuff. And I can totally see how there is this ideal of keeping your kids first and at the very front. But there has to be some inner work in there to remind yourself that this process, even though it’s about the dissolution of your marriage, is not ultimately going to be about you. It’ll be over very soon and then it’ll be about someone else.

Cherie Morris: And especially if it wasn’t your choice to create this separation and divorce. The wound is deep. Recently I had a couple’s client and I always meet with each of them for an hour separately first. And during that hour, she said, "But he’s the father of my child. How could I ever not want him to be okay? It’s really important for my daughter to know that he’s okay and that he’s stable." And I thought, "How beautifully said and not a sentiment often shared in these moments." To be fair, they’ve been separated for a period of time so she may have had time to process and understand and make that true for her. But in high conflict situations, if we are the person bringing the conflict and some of us are, we have to really dig deep to figure out what’s going on with us.

Seth Nelson: How do you know though? How do you know if you’re the one bringing the conflict? Because I’ve got people that I represent that they bring the conflict and they think it’s the other side that they’re just reacting.

Cherie Morris: I think there are signals. And probably because I was just talking to Bill Eddy today, he’s on my mind, but he has the experience of what a high conflict person does. And they’re often the people in situations that cannot be soothed no matter the circumstance, so they need a lot of attention to be calmed and deescalated. They’re often reactive rather than responsive. How do you get your client or how do we each recognize that in ourselves? Again, that’s the work of it. We have to understand our first families, where we come from. I am not a therapist, but I did a lot of reading and learning about this. So we understand that our patterns are based on how we grew and learned and how we were taught to manage these situations. So I think it asks a lot of people, but as a coach, I do it all the time. I call people on their stuff.

Seth Nelson: So what’s a quick checklist for someone to say, "Am I dealing with someone who’s had conflict or ooh, maybe it’s me?"

Cherie Morris: I think the first thing we need to do, are we reactive? What’s your response immediately upon getting a communication from your co-parent or your soon to be ex? Do you send three brief but full and rich emails or texts back to them commenting on different aspects of whatever it is they just requested? That’s a pretty good sign that you are the high conflict person. I have this rule of threes, three responses in short order often mean you’re a problem in the relationship. So do you over respond? Are you reactive? And how often are you going to your lawyer to say the other person is a problem? That’s a problem. So from my perspective, yes, there are personality disordered people. There are high conflict people, but often there can be two high conflict people in a relationship. So we need to own who we are. And if you start to examine what’s going on for you, I think that helps you recognize. And even restraining yourself from responding to communication for a period of time can help you recognize your own behavior and start to do better.

Pete Wright: You are obviously in this kind conversation bullish on the whole couple’s approach to divorce coaching. Is there any couple that is not a candidate for this kind of work, given what we’re talking about related to high conflict individuals?

Cherie Morris: I never like to give up on my clients if they want to come in as a couple, but I would say if I see any kind of abuse, the kind Seth asked early on about what if there are abusive tactics. And certainly when we’re talking about narcissism, it’s different than if we’re talking about domestic violence. I mean, both of those things can coexist for sure. But if there’s violence in the relationship, especially physical violence, then you’re not a candidate for coaching. Could I coach each individual to do better? Maybe, but obviously the person engaged in the violence needs to have that handled in short order. Other than that, because I am not mediating, I’m not coercing anyone into any agreement. And I think that was really Seth’s concern, that I would put someone who has less power in the relationship to agree to something. Since I’m not doing that, my hope is that in those situations where one person has had either more power or exerted more influence, I’m actually teaching them how to give space to the other person a little better. And for the person who hasn’t maybe used their voice as much to speak up a little more for themselves.

Pete Wright: What do you think Seth? Are we on the road to recovery?

Seth Nelson: I just feel much better about the way that I internalize all those negative things you say about me.

Pete Wright: I am coming around to the fact that it’s possible. You do have a sexy voice.

Seth Nelson: Whenever I hop on court, by the way, or with a deposition and I have the headphones on and the mic, they’re like, "God, you look like you’re a radio host." And I always tell them, "It’s smooth divorce jazz with Seth Nelson."

Pete Wright: Yes. You have a voice for court, that I always say. This is I think really helpful. And I like that we ended on that or we sort of are wrapping up on this idea of high conflict. If you’re looking around the room for the high conflict individual and you can’t pick them out, it’s probably you. I appreciate that. I also, I really want to hammer home this idea of personal responsibility and deescalation. That whatever you can do to follow these steps, to go to our… And we should say if you want to hear more on these BIFF responses and high conflict individuals, that Bill Eddy’s partner, Megan Hunter, was a guest on our show some time ago. And is one of the more popular downloads on our show is the high conflict divorce. So this is obviously an important subject, an important topic for us to talk through. And we sure appreciate your approach to it here Cherie. Where would you like to send people to learn more about your work with folks and all of the other wonderful things you’re doing?

Cherie Morris: Well, thank you. Thanks for asking Pete. The best place to find good and no obligation resources is my website I have an advice column there. You can schedule a discovery session. We’ll spend about 30 minutes talking about your situation. And I think you’re going to offer anyone who wants it a one pager that will help people deescalate in these high conflict situations if they go to your show notes. And I would love to connect with them on that level and I’d love to answer any questions they have about it.

Seth Nelson: And Cherie, do you work with people just in the D.C. area? Are you doing stuff around the country, around the world via Zoom? How’s that working out?

Cherie Morris: The pandemic has been my friend and because I’m working as a coach, even though I am still a licensed attorney in D.C., I’m not practicing law. So absolutely I work worldwide, even have-

Seth Nelson: Did you hear what she just said?

Pete Wright: I did.

Seth Nelson: Did you see the look on my face?

Pete Wright: I did.

Seth Nelson: A licensed attorney not practicing law, just music to my ears.

Cherie Morris: Am I living your dream, Seth?

Seth Nelson: Oh, my dream’s on a hundred foot sailboat sailing around the world. And my fiance she loves sailing, sailing doesn’t like her. So when she hears this, she’s going to be like, "And who are you with on this trip?"

Cherie Morris: I love that. I love hearing that. And I will do everything to support your relationship with your fiance, Seth. So just let me know which case.

Seth Nelson: Which is code, don’t buy the boat.

Pete Wright: Don’t buy the boat, yeah.

Seth Nelson: Easy. Done.

Pete Wright: Yeah. Let’s move on to the next couple. Okay. Well that’s wonderful., we will put the link in the show notes to the download. What a handy thing to be able to offer. We sure appreciate that. And thank you so much Cherie for joining us, for teaching us and for allowing us to poke around at couple’s coaching for those engaging in divorce. On behalf of Cherie Morris and America’s favorite divorce attorney, licensed family law attorney and future boat owner, Seth Nelson, I’m Pete Wright. We’ll catch you next week right here on How to Split a Toaster, a divorce podcast about saving your relationships.

Speaker 4: Seth Nelson is an attorney with Nelson Koster Family Law and Mediation, with offices in Tampa, Florida. While we may be discussing family law topics, How to Split a Toaster is not intended to nor is it providing legal advice. Every situation is different. If you have specific questions regarding your situation, please seek your own legal counsel with an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Pete Wright is not an attorney or employee of Nelson Koster. Seth Nelson is licensed to practice law in Florida.

Seth Nelson is a Tampa based family lawyer known for devising creative solutions to difficult problems. In How to Split a Toaster, Nelson and co-host Pete Wright take on the challenge of divorce with a central objective — saving your most important relationships with your family, your former spouse, and yourself.
Scroll To Top