Communication Interaction Scenarios
Caveats:
- Communication in the law isn’t a series of discreet episodes, it’s an ongoing, interconnected process
- Most legal actors (personnel) probably aren’t exclusively “bad” or “good;” they probably have some communication behaviors that are relatively accommodating of neurodisability, and some that aren’t
- Neurodisability might not be a known factor!
- The examples of accommodating strategies shown here aren’t limited to neurodisability. They’re good for everybody!
Youth walking home from school approached by police office
Robin, 15, suffered a brain injury as a little child after being in a car accident. Although she has recovered well, she still struggles with some day-to-day tasks. Communication can be challenging in certain situations, especially casual social interactions; she sometimes doesn’t understand or says the wrong thing. Robin is currently staying with her aunt and uncle over her summer holiday. One night, she and her cousin decide to walk down to the corner convenience store to get some snacks. Robin decides to wait outside because florescent lights can be overwhelming and disorienting––common for persons with brain injuries. While she’s waiting by the door, a police officer approaches. “Isn’t it pretty late to be by yourself in front of a gas station?” the police officer asks. Robin thinks for a minute and then says simply, “No.” Without meaning to, Robin has come across as being rude and sullen.
“Bad” : The officer (incorrectly) interprets Robin’s behavior as evasive and impolite. “Don’t take that tone with me, kid,” the officer responds, sounding defensive and confrontational. “There’ve been a couple robberies here recently, and it’s my job to keep an eye out. Why don’t you show me some ID?” he asks, using potentially misleading question forms. These actions cause Robin to become anxious, scared and confused; the situation is escalated.
“Good” : The officer (correctly) recognizes that Robin’s behavior doesn’t merit escalation, even if it appears impolite and aloof, it isn’t violent, isn’t dangerous, and isn’t harmful. “Just wanted to make sure everything was ok,” the officer says, focusing on his own actions and intentions. Then he walks away. The officer has avoided escalating the communication context.
“Best: Consistent with UNICEF Reimagine Justice for Children Framework ” : (see:
https://www.unicef.org/documents/reimagine-justice-children
Robin isn’t approached by a police officer at all; Robin’s city had recently passed a transformative budget to shift funding away from the police force and into programs designed to target structural determinants of crime. The money that would have paid the officer went instead to a community initiative designed to improve the walkability of the street where the corner store is.
Routine lawyer meeting
Mackenzie, 16, grew up in an abusive household and was often hit by her father on the head and in the face; at times, her father picked her up and slammed her against the wall. In addition to these repeated hits to the head, Mackenzie was so badly injured at one point that she had to be hospitalized for a brain injury. Mackenzie’s mom, together with Mackenzie, was able to escape the abusive relationship. After a lengthy custody battle, Mackenzie’s mom won full custody, Mackenzie began the process of changing her surname to her mother’s. The two of them go to a legal clinic for help with the paperwork. As a result of her injuries, Mackenzie has some challenges with understanding conversations, which includes difficulty understanding instructions. Because of her history of abuse, her challenges are exacerbated in stressful situations, particularly those involving adult men. The clinic attorney has a difficult time explaining to Mackenzie that she doesn’t need to write her dad’s name on the form because, even though he is her biological father, he no longer has parental rights. Mackenzie incorrectly fills in the form twice.
“Bad” : The lawyer begins to lose patience. “Look, it’s not that hard,” the lawyer says, making assumptions about Mackenzie’s cognitive-communicative abilities and being unsympathetic. “Just do it exactly like I told you to.” The lawyer has adopted a vertical working orientation of non-collaborative authority over Mackenzie. In lay terms, this means a power dynamic has been created whereby the lawyer has authoritative power over her, rather than working collaboratively with her to support her. These actions cause Mackenzie to feel stressed and withdrawn; the situation is escalated.
“Good” : The lawyer (correctly) recognizes that persons (and especially children) with neurodisability can have difficulty following seemingly routine instructions and can have difficulty understanding nuanced information, particularly for novel contexts like a legal procedure. “Don’t worry, we have a hundred extra copies of this form,” says the lawyer, deemphasizing the mistake. “I know having to talk to a lawyer can be a stressful thing to do,” the lawyer goes on, showing empathy. “But please know that my job here is to help you as best as I can. Is it ok if we work on this new form together?” The lawyer has centered Mackenzie’s experiences and goals within the interaction and has adopted a horizontal working orientation to work collaboratively, i.e. as above, they are working collaboratively to support her.
Youth appears in court
Tyler, 15, was raised by a single mother who struggled with substance use disorder. Tyler himself began using drugs in his early teens, eventually establishing rapport with a classmate-dealer; this relationship eventually soured, and Tyler suffered a head injury after being shoved to the ground by this classmate during an angry argument. After the injury, Tyler became more impulsive and struggled controlling both his emotions and his actions, which put strain on his household and his schooling. A few months later, Tyler was arrested for attempting to rob a liquor store on a dare. Because Tyler had no criminal record, the DA was willing to cut him a good deal––probation only––if he pleaded guilty. Tyler’s attorney encouraged him to take the deal, and Tyler appears as scheduled for his plea hearing with the local criminal judge. As part of the plea, the judge asks Tyler if he has anything he would like to say. “Fuck no, I got nothin’ to say,” Tyler immediately responds, legitimately not wanting to add anything and eager to bring the hearing to a close.
“Bad” : The judges takes offense at Tyler’s apparent lack of decorum and (incorrectly) interprets it as poor character and intentional/volutional misbehavior. “Young man, I’d think very carefully about my behavior if I were you,” the judge warns, appearing to make an implicit threat. “You don’t appear to grasp the seriousness of your situation,” he continues, assuming a lack of understanding or appreciation. “And I would have expected more remorse from someone who was truly sorry for his actions” (again assigning moral shortcomings). “I think we’d better give you an extra month of probation.” These actions cause Tyler to feel angry, cheated, and disempowered; the situation is escalated.
“Good” : The judge (correctly) understands that youth with neurodisability can have difficulty regulating and overseeing their own communication and behavior, especially in high-stress contexts like a courtroom appearance. “That’s fine,” says the judge, remaining neutral and overlooking the harmless, albeit inappropriate, language. “The most important thing is that you work with your attorney to follow your probation. As long as you do that, I’m satisfied.” The judge has focused on Tyler’s autonomy and minimized the communication pressure in the courtroom.
“Best: Consistent with UN Reimagine Justice Framework” : Tyler doesn’t appear in court at all. The jurisdiction has decided to follow best-practice recommendations from international organizations and diverts every single child (with and without neurodisability!) away from the traditional criminal legal system. Instead, Tyler’s case is assigned to an interdisciplinary group of social workers, therapists, legal workers, education professionals, and community members; this team works together to assess Tyler’s functional behavioural and communication limitations, identify appropriate therapeutic and rehabilitative measures, and integrate him back into his school.
Meeting with probation office (3 months out)
Dylan, 18, has been precariously unhoused for about a year after his father was made redundant. The stress was extremely hard on Dylan, and after a particularly rough day at school he got into a fistfight with another student, in which he suffered a major concussion. As a result of the injury, Dylan struggles with impulse control, committing information to longer-term memory, and translating information into behavior. Dylan and the other student were put on probation, and Dylan manages to stay out of trouble for the remainder of the school year, meeting with his probation officer every couple of weeks. Over the summer, however, Dylan’s laptop is stolen while he’s at the library; even though he has just a few weeks left until he moves to a nearby big city for college, Dylan decides that he’s had enough with his hometown he decides to move early. As a result, he inadvertently breaks his bail condition.
“Bad” : Dylan’s probation officer is shocked and (incorrectly) attributes Dylan’s actions to intentional behavior. “What on earth were you thinking?” she asks, demanding immediate self-reflection or introspection. “I know you were upset, but you’ve just made things a lot worse for you,” she goes on, emphasizing the negative consequences of Dylan’s behavior. This behavior causes Dylan to feel ashamed and worried; the situation is escalated.
“Good” : Dylan’s probation officer (correctly) understands the important distinction between “skill” and “will.” “It’s ok, Dylan, this sort of minor problem happens all the time. I know you didn’t do this on purpose, and I definitely know you’re not a bad person,” she says, reaffirming communal experiences and reaffirming Dylan’s character. “I can understand how someone in your position would do exactly what you did,” she goes on, validating Dylan’s lived experiences and empathizing with his actions. The probation officer has focused on Dylan’s autonomy and avoided adding additional stress.
Contact Us
Want to contact us personally? We would love to hear from you and welcome all messages.