Craig Condie, a Magistrate Judge working in Alaska, is bringing transformative ideas to his court system. Blending the \u201ctalking circle,\u201d a conflict resolution strategy used by Indigenous communities, with our \u201cscience and kindness\u201d approach to substance use, he is helping families find a path forward that keeps children safe while supporting the recovery of the parent. Read our interview below to learn what this looks like, how the ITC can provide a framework for mediation, and to see the moving ways this approach has helped families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n So can you describe for folks what it is you do?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n My position is as a Magistrate Judge for the State of Alaska Court System in Palmer. I also have a Master Appointment to Family Court and Probate Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can you describe the initiative that you\u2019re bringing to your system?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m using \u201ctalking circles\u201d to address deep concerns about children of parents who have substance abuse issues. The goal is to help the family, as well as extended family and any close friends, come up with a plan that ensures the child is physically and emotionally safe\u2014but also promote the parent\u2019s path of recovery and their relationship with the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For where we\u2019re applying the whole talking circle concept, it\u2019s usually concerned family members\u2014often grandparents, sometimes an aunt or uncle, occasionally an older sibling\u2014who have made a court filing and brought this to us. So the circle involves the parent, the concerned family member, sometimes partners, and then me and Jessica, our social worker at the Palmer court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the circle, we go around three times. The first time, we do a brief introduction, and people say their relationship to the child and what their main concerns are. The second time, everyone says what they have to say\u2014for this round, people can talk as long as they want, getting their perspective out there. And then the third time we go around, folks can share anything else they need to say after having heard what others said. Then we shift to forming a plan based on that increased understanding we\u2019ve hopefully accomplished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The goal is to help the family come up with a plan that ensures the child is physically and emotionally safe\u2014but also promote the parent\u2019s path of recovery and their relationship with the child.”<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n How have you implemented the talking circles so far?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I first heard about this from my colleague, Magistrate Judge Kim Sweet. She, prior to working for the state, had been Chief Judge with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe. And they had done talking circles in the context of the Tribal Courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After I talked to her and developed an idea of how I wanted to do this, when I saw a family that was an appropriate match for doing a talking circle, I offered it as an option. I\u2019ve done that on two different occasions, and they’ve agreed to do this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We did our first talking circle February of 2020. I\u2019m very pleased with how it worked out\u2014we came to an agreement. We had another one about a week later, I scheduled another one for April, then the world as we know it ended. So we’ve only done the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But now we’re hoping that we’ll be able to be more consistently in-person and expand this out. Jessica and I did the Invitation to Change training in March, and we’ve been very motivated since then. We’ve been plugging away to get this going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how does the talking circle fit into the Court process?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n So the families I\u2019ve done this with had filed for Family Court. We always want the talking circle to be an option at that point, and I always encourage people to try to mediate and work things out differently if they can. So we\u2019ll keep offering it in that context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I feel like there are a lot of families who could really benefit from this, where they might not file something\u2014and I think there’s also a real benefit in having the families really take this hard look at the circumstances and decide together, as a circle, whether a court filing is necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if they do decide to do a court filing, rather than it being a scary, stressful process, they can agree on what the terms are. And then the court can facilitate and make orders where necessary to keep that arrangement in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How did you come across the Invitation to Change Approach, and start incorporating it into this work?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When I first heard of the concept of the talking circles\u2014and I loved the concept, on its own\u2014but I had this idea of, hey, if we\u2019re approaching it with this different perspective already, maybe we could shift the whole narrative of how we approach this. We can do something to give parents a little more flexibility on finding their path to recovery\u2014once we\u2019ve ensured that the child\u2019s safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So I went to the bookstore and looked at the addiction recovery section, and there was Beyond Addiction. And I mean, it was like peanut butter and chocolate. The two ideas [ITC and the talking circle] just support and complement each other perfectly: they\u2019re both coming from a place of compassion, a respect for everyone\u2014there wasn\u2019t anything that seemed inconsistent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And so that gave me a lot of confidence that the talking circle idea would work, and also I just loved the way the Invitation to Change\u2014at that point I knew it as Beyond Addiction<\/em>\u2014supported what I saw the potential of talking circles to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The premise for this idea is that these families want to do the right thing, and they\u2019re capable if they\u2019re given the right tools.”<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n How would you summarize the ways that you\u2019re thinking about the Invitation to Change Approach and potentially bringing it into the talking circles?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n So there\u2019s really three ways the ITC supports this work. One is that it provides a research background that shows a compassionate approach can be effective. Second is that it identifies key concepts that can help a family understand the situation better. And then third, it provides guidance for the facilitator on what needs to be included in a successful plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the concepts that I really identified as being helpful\u2014the biggest one was ambivalence. The biggest problem we\u2019d face in this sort of situation was that people don\u2019t understand that you can truly love your child, and also just truly love using drugs or alcohol at the same time. And so introducing that concept right after a parent has really expressed that, in an honest and sincere and sometimes heartbreaking way, can shift someone\u2019s perspective in a huge way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then the concepts of One Size Doesn\u2019t Fit All, that Behaviors Make Sense, and thinking about how to change a learned behavior\u2014we can share that with the participants in the circle, and it can help them understand what\u2019s going on better and help us come up with a better plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think the extended family come into it confused and frustrated, and fearful for the child\u2019s safety, and they don\u2019t know how to talk about it. They don\u2019t even know how to have this conversation. And so the premise for this idea is that these families want to do the right thing, and they\u2019re capable if they\u2019re given the right tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m curious to hear more about how you balance the child welfare aspect and the compassionate approach to the parent who\u2019s struggling with substance use.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because I imagine that is something that comes into tension, right? Because you want to respect the reality of someone\u2019s struggle with substance use, that it isn\u2019t linear \u2013 but without endangering a child, another person who you are trying to protect from this struggle.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where Jessica Clarkson has been invaluable, because she as the social worker has done this work for a number of years in child safety, especially for young children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most helpful insight she brought in is the importance of rhythms and routine. Especially if a child has been through some difficult experiences. We emphasize that any plan we come up with has to have that stability: the parents have to be able to provide rhythms and routine if the child is going to reside in their household.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the parents aren\u2019t at the point where they\u2019re really able to do that\u2014yet<\/em>\u2014maybe the kids need to be somewhere else. But we still need a certain rhythm and routine for the contact with the parents, and we need to make sure that it\u2019s safe, not stressful, and doesn\u2019t trigger the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For a \u201cgrownup\u201d to be ambivalent is difficult enough, but for a child to try and carry all those big feelings and their little mind can be absolutely overwhelming. We don\u2019t want parents to feel like we\u2019re saying, \u201cWe’re making you feel super guilty about this.\u201d But we also need them to understand what this is like for the child, even though that\u2019s uncomfortable. Because the successful plan is going to depend on us being realistic about how the child experiences it\u2014alongside with how it works for the parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “What I love about the Invitation to Change is that a lot of thought has gone into how somebody who isn\u2019t a therapist can explain these concepts in simple, plain language that anyone can understand.”<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n I would be curious to hear any details you can share about these cases, if you\u2019re able to!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ll need to keep that in somewhat general terms, because they’re confidential. But one of the cases really illustrated the potential this idea has.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was a parent who was very reluctant about engaging in a certain form of treatment. We had an honest conversation: we’re not going to force anyone to do anything, but are you going to be able to provide stability without getting this treatment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parent acknowledged: \u201cYou know what? Probably not. I really hate that type of treatment, but okay, I’ll do it.\u201d And they reported that they had started back up doing that kind of treatment shortly after the circle\u2014and that they still hated it, but they were doing it because it was necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And I just, that got me all choked up, even now thinking about it. I hope that eventually they love treatment or don’t have to do it too long\u2014it\u2019s terrible for people to suffer\u2014but the fact that they have the motivation to stick with it because they were that committed to the child, that was amazing to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the child\u2019s guardian, who brought the case to me, has now been much more supportive of the parent spending time with the child. And so the parent was seeing the child more, and I think that was helping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And now, thinking back on that, without the talking circle concept that case probably would have gone to trial. The parties involved would have been put under oath and shared all sorts of negative things about each other. We would have taken giant steps backwards from working together. And if we had decided that the child needed to be in a different home from the parent, I think it’s extremely unlikely that the parent would have stuck with treatment. And I also think it’s very unlikely that the guardian would have given them more time with the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And so I think we would have accomplished our main objective of these hearings, which was to keep the child safe, but it would have come at the cost of the parent\u2019s path to recovery and the parent’s relationship with the child. And instead we accomplished the safety for the child\u2014that’s the most important\u2014but we were also able to make some significant strides toward the parent\u2019s path to recovery and the improved relationship with the child. And that’s such a huge difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That’s really amazing. And it\u2019s also very tragic, because a lot of people might be experiencing this ambivalence: \u201cI want to change for my child, but I also can’t quite give up this substance use behavior that gives me comfort.\u201d But they might not have the language to say that.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It sounds like with your facilitation, you’re kind of giving people the language that allows them to express what’s really going on \u2013 especially in a tense situation where it’s even harder for people to hear each other without that explicit framework.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes. And one thing you learn as a lawyer and practicing\u2014more so as a judge\u2014is that people best understand information through stories. You can talk about philosophies and the principles and concepts all day long, but it\u2019s the story that’s going to stay with them. And so I think what makes the circle so effective is that people tell their story\u2014and they don’t have to label them appropriately. They just tell the story, and then as the facilitator, we can apply the appropriate labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And what I love about the Invitation to Change is that a lot of thought has gone into how somebody who isn’t a therapist can explain these concepts in simple, plain language that anyone can understand. And so by providing that explanation right after they\u2019ve heard the story, it lays the groundwork for that concept, and so they can really understand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s very powerful. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thank you. And I’m hoping that perhaps somebody might look at this and have ideas or be interested. And I’m sure Kim and I are not the only judges in the world trying to do this sort of thing, I’d love to hear about other courts or ideas working toward the same goals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Craig Condie, a Magistrate Judge working in Alaska, is bringing transformative ideas to his court system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":14672,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[21],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14664"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14664\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmcffc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\n\n\n