Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 56:109–116, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-2556 print/1540-4811 online
DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2014.996048
A Model of Structured Separation in Couples
Therapy: Making Best Use of a Separation
Period
DAVID HALE
University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana, USA
Marital separation is a phenomenon experienced by many dur-
ing the course of their married lives. Some separations end with
reconciliation, and others end with divorce. The following is an
intervention model based on the experiences and successes of a
marriage and family therapist spanning 26 years. A rationale for
such a model is presented, as are steps to take to achieve empow-
erment and success while taking full advantage of the time spent
during a marital separation, regardless of the outcome of the
separation.
KEYWORDS couples therapy, divorce, intervention, reconcilia-
tion, separation
In the early 1990s, while in my PhD program, I had the opportunity of
establishing a supervision group called the B-team. We were three PhD and
one master’s degree students. We saw clients weekly for two years and when
we weren’t the therapist of record, we served as a team member. Initially, I
was the supervisor of the group, and it was in this capacity that I participated
in a therapeutic experience that would later become the foundation of this
intervention model for addressing couples going through a separation.
Separation is defined as a formal or informal agreement between part-
ners to remove themselves from their current marital situation. Separation can
take many forms. Separation can mean literally removing oneself from the
marriage by establishing a separate living situation. Not only can it involve a
physical detachment, but it can also involve an emotional detachment of the
partners. Some choose to remain in the same house but live as roommates
Address correspondence to David Hale, University of Louisiana at Monroe, 700 University
Ave., Monroe, LA 71209, USA. E-mail: dhale@[Link]
109
110 D. Hale
instead of spouses. Separation can be forced, as in “I’ve had enough and
I am leaving,” or it can be planned as in a military deployment. However it
comes to pass, my experience is that one partner is usually blindsided or at
minimum caught completely off guard.
In researching separation, I was shocked to find that no research existed
that actually addresses what one should do or how one should handle
oneself during the period of separation. Based on this lack of research
knowledge, I feel it necessary to present this intervention model that was
first developed in 1991 and honed over the years since then. The idea is
called, “I want you back, but now is not a good time.”
STEPS TO THE MODEL
Jack and Jill presented to therapy one evening and Jill explained their situa-
tion. She stated that one evening while taking Jack his dinner, she opened his
van door and caught Jack “red-handed” in the arms of another woman. Jack
worked late as a locksmith at a new mall that was being constructed in south
Florida. Jill stated that she was shocked, to say the least. That evening, when
Jack returned home, Jill announced that she wanted a separation, to think
about things, effective immediately. Because she was limited financially, and
because they had three young children, Jill said that she was staying at their
home and that she would move into one of the guest rooms. She said that
she wanted nothing to do with Jack and would decide what to do about
their marriage in time. They presented for therapy because Jill decided that
she wanted to save the marriage and hoped that therapy would help.
Step 1: Establish the Goal for Therapy
The first step of this procedure is to establish the goal for therapy (Fisch,
Weakland, & Segal, 1982; Haley, 1976). In a joint interview, Jack and Jill were
asked this question: Is this divorce therapy or marriage therapy? Although the
answer itself might not be important, the information gleaned from responses
instigated by asking this question can be extremely important. I say the
answer might not be important because it is often too early in the process
to get a feel for whether the partners believe the answer they give. For
example, Jill stated immediately that she wanted it to be marriage therapy.
Jack, on the other hand, stated that he couldn’t say right now. However, as
a result of his response, we chose to focus on Jill, because she wanted it to
be marriage therapy and we purposely ignored Jack until he decided what
kind of therapy he wanted it to be. Had Jack stated that he wanted it to
be marriage therapy as well, we would have followed the same strategy, it
is just that we would have approached him in the process differently. Until
he was ready to declare one way or the other, the team chose to focus on
A Model of Structured Separation in Couples Therapy 111
Jill and discuss with her what she wanted or needed to do to reconcile the
relationship. She noted that she wasn’t sure how to proceed because she
wasn’t sure of Jack’s position. In subsequent sessions, as she would discuss
what she was doing during the separation, it became obvious to the team
that she was certainly making the most of the separation.
Step 2: Encourage the Partner Most Able to Take Action to Act as
Though the Relationship Will End, and to Do What They Need to Do
to Improve Their Position in the Event the Relationship Does End in
Divorce
At one point in this early case, Jill hinted that there might come a time
when she could be on her own. Jill’s statement led to the development of
the second step of the model: Act as though the relationship will end and
do what you need to do to improve your position, in the event that the
relationship does end in divorce. Implementing Step 2 is itself a two-step
phase: (a) be separated, and (b) continue to move forward.
I have discovered that being separated is virtually impossible for the
separated couple, especially the one who feels they have the most to lose
by dissolving the relationship. Time and time again I have heard a wife
and/or husband explain that they had to contact their partner during the
week to find out information or to ask a question. They might have had to
run by the house to pick something up or drop something off. I encourage
both partners to remain separated during their time of separation. The logic
behind this involves the message being sent as well as the message being
received by the separated pair. Separation should be a time of respite as
well as a time to work on issues that probably have led to the separation
and maybe talk of divorce. Continued contact between the partners sends
a message of hope to the one that fears the worst and can therefore risk
creating a sense of false hope. A problem with not being separated is that
it blurs the line on whether “we are together” or “we are separated.” This
is not helpful for either partner. There remains the hope that reconciliation
is possible when that might not be the case at all. I understand that many
couples have their reasons to contact one another during their period of
separation, such as coordinating their children’s schedules and activities, or
important information coming in the mail.
The therapist encourages the couple to keep their contact to a minimum.
When talking or meeting, stay on point and discuss nothing else. Avoid
getting trapped into a conversation that leads to arguing and fighting. It is
important at this stage to send the message that “we are separated and we
need to stay this way for the time being” because separation should be a
time to “continue to move forward.”
Returning to Jack and Jill, the team was amazed at the things that Jill was
doing during the separation. Jill stated that because she was a stay-at-home
112 D. Hale
mom, she hadn’t worked in a while. She had always wanted to take some
college classes so she enrolled in classes at the local community college. One
of the classes was a dance class. She really enjoyed that class because the
class would meet occasionally during the week and dance. She was making
friends and enjoying the experience. She also decided to quit smoking during
this time. This revelation, in therapy, got a rise out of Jack. He asked Jill why
she quit now and not when he pleaded with her years ago. Apparently, Jill
felt that now was a good time. She also started losing weight and this pleased
her.
Step 3: Suggest Paradoxical Actions to do Something Different
The team discussed with Jill the importance of the steps she was taking.
We discussed how important it was that she continue to do those things that
she saw as improvements, because they could be valuable in the event that
Jack decided he wants to divorce. In our opinion, this step is the most valu-
able step and it is also the most difficult step. The difficulty with this step
is that many people don’t want to act as though the relationship might end.
As a society, we are inundated with rhetoric that tells us to “go after what
you want” and “it’s worth fighting for.” Asking someone to act as though
their relationship is over might make them think that is the same as “giv-
ing up.” Common sense says that if I act as though the relationship is over,
my partner might just decide to move on. However, with regard to relation-
ships, our experience is that more often than not common sense does not
work. This step promotes paradoxical actions, or actions that seem “illogical.”
Separation, for many, creates fear. That fear is heightened when a person is
encouraged to do something that suggests a continuation of the separation.
In Jill’s case, her actions suggested that she was moving on with her life
even though she stated that she wanted her marriage to continue. Jill’s action
suggested what would be developed into the third step in this model: The
therapist suggests paradoxical actions to do something different (Frusha, Ray,
& Hale, 1998; Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967; Watzlawick, Weakland,
& Fisch, 1974).
It certainly does not follow conventional logic or even seem to make
sense to suggest that someone do something that appears to lead them in
a direction they don’t want to go. The interesting thing for Jill was that the
more she did to “improve her position,” in the event that she would be on
her own, the more Jack took notice. Jill had stated in several early sessions
that she was “moving on.” In the seventh session, Jack came out and said
that he wanted the therapy to be marriage therapy. It caught Jill and the
team by surprise. It seems that the more Jill took control of her life, the more
attractive she became to Jack. We were never able to find out from Jack just
what it was that prompted him to want it to be marriage therapy because
they only attended one more session. The team speculated that Jack realized
A Model of Structured Separation in Couples Therapy 113
what he stood to lose and decided he didn’t want to lose Jill. Apparently, he
liked the “new” Jill.
Step 4: I Want You Back, But Now Is Not a Good Time
In the years since that initial therapy with Jack and Jill, I have added a fourth
step to this model: I want you back, but now is not a good time. This step
was added to prevent couples from reconciling too soon and running the
risk of ending their marriage for good. The objective of this step is to make
certain that change is sustainable. For separated couples, I believe that rec-
onciling too soon is the greatest cause of divorce. Wilma came to see me
and announced that she and Fred were “finished.” On further questioning,
Wilma stated that Fred hadn’t changed one bit. Fred and Wilma had mutually
agreed to separate six months prior with the idea that the separation would
give them a break from each other and allow them to “work” on the issues
they felt were contributing to their marital discord. When pressed further,
Wilma stated that Fred began to woo her almost immediately. She stated that
it was a bit exciting and it made her feel “special” all over again. Shortly
thereafter, they began seeing each other on a more regular basis, while still
maintaining separate living spaces. After four months of separation, Wilma
agreed to move back in with Fred, saying, “Why not, we spend all our time
together anyway.” Two months later, Wilma was in my office saying that the
marriage was over. The most plausible reason this came to pass is that neither
partner took advantage of their separation by moving forward. I believe that
couples succumb to the belief that by being separated things will work them-
selves out. The bottom line is much work needs to happen, especially during
a period of separation, in hopes that reconciliation is possible. When either
one or both partners do nothing to improve their position, and they attempt
to reconcile, chances are strong that the same old problems will eventually
show up and this time, divorce is imminent. Because Fred starting wooing
Wilma immediately and Wilma went along with this willingly, it appears
that neither did much to change or improve their respective positions. When
they attempted to reconcile and the old behaviors surfaced again, Wilma was
prompted to say that Fred couldn’t change and it solidified her notion that
they needed to divorce. Eventually, Wilma and Fred did divorce. I wonder
what would have happened had they decided to really be separated and
take steps to move forward on separate paths before considering possible
reconciliation. In this step, I encourage those clients who are moving forward
to put off any advances by their partner at reconciliation as well as put off
any advances of their own at reconciliation until they are comfortably sure
that the “new” relationship can withstand the changes that have occurred
with one or both partners “moving forward.” Thus you have the response,
“I want you back (meaning I want to reconcile), but now is not a good time
(meaning I need more time to make sure that the changes are sustainable).”
114 D. Hale
DISCUSSION
On initial presentation of this intervention to clients who are separated or
contemplating separation, you can imagine their fear. Rarely do couples who
are separated or separating present for therapy together, as in the case of
Jack and Jill. As stated previously, the person who typically presents for
therapy is the one who feels they have the most to lose by the dissolution
of the relationship. Suggesting that clients maintain their separation or even
suggesting that clients consider separation can surprise the client. This sug-
gestion is made for two reasons. First, it is made to avoid the possible pitfall
of reconciling too soon, as briefly discussed, and second, to strategize with
the client just what needs to happen so they can continue to move forward.
A frequent, almost standard, response when this intervention is suggested
is, “Won’t my partner think I am giving up on the relationship if they don’t
see me making an effort to win them back?” I encourage clients to look at
their present situation. Apparently, things have gotten to the point that the
other partner has decided or agreed to leave the relationship, thereby sug-
gesting that the relationship is messed up presently and in need of serious
work. In other words, the relationship is headed for divorce court if noth-
ing changes. Separation might be just the thing to help possibly jump start
the stalled relationship. I often explain it by asking, “What do you have to
lose?” If the relationship is headed for divorce if nothing changes, and you
take some time to address issues and make changes, and the relationship
still ends in divorce, well, nothing has really changed except you have made
strides in improving your position and continued to move forward.
The ultimate goal of separation should not be reconciliation. It is impor-
tant that one not make the mistake of making reconciliation the goal of the
separation. By establishing reconciliation as a goal of separation, one could
act in ways that run counter to actions necessary to “win” someone back. For
most, reconciliation is a by-product of the separation and the work that was
accomplished during the time apart. For Jack and Jill, that is exactly what
transpired. Jill used the separation as a time to improve herself and do some
things that she had always wanted to do knowing that there was a chance
that her marriage would end and she would be single again. Fortunately for
Jill, she made some important changes in her life and she decided that she
wanted to share the new Jill with Jack.
Divorce, on the other hand, is also a by-product of separation. Like
reconciliation, it too is not the primary goal of separation. Many fear that
separation is the final step before divorce. In most cases, it doesn’t have to
be. I have seen this fear drive many people to do things they might not
typically do in an effort to “win” their partner back. Those atypical actions
could be the actions that steer the relationship toward divorce instead of
reconciliation. The primary goal of separation should include taking steps
to continue to move forward, in the event that divorce does occur, and
A Model of Structured Separation in Couples Therapy 115
to address those issues that preceded and contributed to the separation in
the first place. How one handles their separation will go a long way in
determining which by-product will be achieved.
Clients have asked me, “How do I spend my time while I am separated?
What should I do?” First, focus on yourself; be selfish. This intervention
model stresses that clients address those issues they can change about
themselves and avoid any and all efforts at trying to change their partner’s
behavior. This is another fallacy that couples who are struggling in their mar-
riage believe: “If only my partner would change the way they do that thing,
our relationship would be stronger.” What many don’t realize is that as they
change their behavior, those around them have to change their behavior to
accommodate the changes that they have made (Lederer & Jackson, 1968).
For example, as Jill made changes, Jack had to make changes to accommo-
date the changes Jill made. In essence, Jill was able to change Jack by making
changes to herself. It all started with Jill changing her behavior. It is important
to do those things that are considered forward movement. Do those things
that you have avoided or put on hold. Like Jill, sign up for classes, start a
workout program, visit friends, or do nothing.
Focusing on oneself leads clients into the second part of how to spend
their time during their separation: Prepare for life without your spouse. The
relationship has gotten to the point that a separation has occurred. Neither
reconciliation nor divorce is considered goals of the separation, but there is
a 50–50 chance that either could occur. It is important that one be prepared
for life as a single person again. If divorce occurs, you will be single again.
I have counseled many clients who have found themselves single again after
divorce and paralyzed by the idea that they do not know what to do or how
to proceed. The time spent separated provides a wonderful opportunity to
prepare for the single life. Hopefully, you will never need to experience
singlehood again; either way, you will be a stronger person. Jill’s actions
during her separation from Jack prepared her for a life of either reconciliation
or divorce. She noted that she was ready for either decision. In her case, the
team speculated that Jill’s newfound confidence, which would have served
her well in the event she divorced Jack, made her even more attractive to
Jack and she recognized this.
CONCERNS OF THE MODEL AND CONCLUSION
There are many questions raised by this intervention model. Also, the model
does not provide for every contingency. This introductory article has not
specifically addressed how this intervention works with the separated spouse
who has children; however, many of the couples with which this interven-
tion has been used have had children. I think it is important to present
this information because it has consistently been demonstrated to be useful
116 D. Hale
in practice, and more important, because of the dearth of information or
research available regarding separation and how to make the best use of
the period of separation in couples’ therapy. I have observed firsthand the
value of spouses who are separated using the time to address their issues
and not trying to change their partner’s behavior. I have also witnessed the
struggles that many separated spouses encounter when trying to “win” their
spouse back. This intervention model promotes doing those things that are
necessary to strengthen and empower a person who is separated or consid-
ering separation, whether the relationship is reconciled or ends in divorce.
One cannot go wrong trying to improve their position or continuing to move
forward, whether their relationship is in jeopardy or not.
Further research is certainly warranted. It would be interesting to see this
intervention model used in qualitative research to see what themes emerge
as beneficial or not beneficial. Currently, the findings are limited to my obser-
vations and the successes with perhaps two or three dozen couples that have
led to this article. It would also be interesting to see these ideas expanded on
and made available beyond professional circles to the general public, those
who are experiencing marital issues who would never seek therapy for those
issues. Maybe they could find something of interest in the ideas and try the
interventions themselves.
REFERENCES
Fisch, R., Weakland, J., & Segal, L. (1982). Tactics of change—Doing therapy briefly.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frusha, C., Ray, W., & Hale, D. (1998). The intentional use of implication. In W. Ray
& S. deShazer (Eds.), Evolving brief therapies (pp. 57–67). Iowa Coty, IA: Geist
& Russell.
Haley, J. (1976). Uncommon therapy. New York, NY: Norton.
Lederer, W., & Jackson, D. (1968). Mirages of marriage. New York, NY: Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J., & Jackson D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communica-
tion. New York, NY: Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974) Change—Principals of problem
formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: Norton.
Copyright of Journal of Divorce & Remarriage is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
