Discernment counselling

1. Introduction

Version followed: the Discernment Counseling protocol of William J. Doherty and Steven M. Harris (University of Minnesota, Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project / Doherty Relationship Institute), as described in Doherty, Harris & Wilde (2016, JMFT) and in the Couples on the Brink Project's public pages for therapists and couples. The book Helping Couples on the Brink of Divorce (APA; 1st ed. 2017, paperback 2023; 2nd ed. 2026) is the full manual; only its publisher descriptions and tables of contents are drawn on, so chapter-level detail below is marked where it rests on chapter titles alone [uncertain].

Discernment counselling (DC) is a brief, structured consultation of one to five sessions for "mixed-agenda" couples: one partner is "leaning out" (considering or moving toward divorce) and the other is "leaning in" (wants to save the relationship, often through couples therapy) [source: DHW 2016; Hardy CSI]. It is explicitly not couples therapy and not individual therapy [source: PN]. The counsellor does not try to fix the marriage; the aim is for both partners to reach "clarity and confidence" about one of three paths: (1) keep the status quo for now, (2) move toward separation/divorce, or (3) commit to six months of couples therapy with divorce off the table [source: DHW 2016; UMN-T; Hardy CSI].

Core idea of change: ambivalent or divided couples do badly in change-oriented couples therapy, so "discernment comes before intervention" [source: Hardy CSI; UMN-T]. Most of the work happens in separate conversations with each partner, in which each builds a more complex story of the relationship and identifies their own contributions to the problems. Seeing one's own part increases hope (one can change oneself, not the spouse), lowers pressure on the leaning-out partner, and lets the couple choose a direction they both own [source: USU podcast; Hardy CSI; UMN-C]. DC was adapted by Doherty from an unpublished technique of Betty Carter and first tested from 2008 in a Minnesota family-court project [source: Hardy CSI].

2. Framework

Who it is for and how cases arrive [source: UMN-T; UMN-C]

A couple in which one partner is unsure about divorce and wants one more look before a permanent decision, and/or one partner wants to save the marriage while the other is moving toward divorce.
Typical referral routes: an individual therapy client who is considering divorce; an individual client whose spouse wants out (a straight couples-therapy referral would feel like pressure to the leaning-out spouse); a stuck couples-therapy case where one or both are ambivalent (DC as an outside consultation); lawyers, mediators, clergy and courts [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC appendix].
Not suitable when: one spouse has already made a final decision and wants the counsellor to get the other to accept it; there is danger of domestic violence; there is a court Order of Protection; one spouse is coercing the other to attend [source: UMN-C]. A couple in which neither partner is leaning out and both want to work on the relationship belongs in couples therapy, not DC [source: Stevenson 2018].

Format and dose

1 to 5 sessions maximum; each session ends with a fresh decision about whether to book the next one, a deliberately "low bar of commitment" [source: USU podcast; UMN-T; Stevenson 2018].
First session about 2 hours; later sessions about 1.5 hours (the couples page says 1.5 to 2) [source: UMN-T; UMN-C; Hardy CSI]. One video description gives a 3-hour first session [source: PN] [uncertain: likely a demonstration format].
Both partners attend every session; the work alternates between joint segments and separate conversations with each partner [source: UMN-C; Hardy CSI].

Phase 0: Pre-contact and intake. Goal: explain what DC is and is not, screen for contraindications, establish each partner's leaning, and agree the format. The manual has a chapter on communicating with clients before starting, and the Couples on the Brink Project publishes a basic DC intake and a phone intake form (contents not drawn on) [source: D&H TOC; UMN-T] [uncertain: contents]. Criterion for moving on: both partners willing to attend at least one session, no contraindication present [synthesis based on UMN-C].

Phase 1: First session (about 2 h). Sequence [source: PN; Hardy CSI]:

Joint opening (about 40 minutes in Doherty's description): the couple's story of the relationship, how they got to this point, and what they have already tried to repair it (more than half have had couples therapy before) [source: PN; USU podcast].
Separate conversation with each partner (together more than an hour), focused on that partner's agenda and their own contributions [source: PN].
At the end of each separate conversation, the counsellor helps the partner prepare a short summary of what they will share with their spouse [source: PN].
Joint close: partners share their summaries; the counsellor gives feedback; decision about returning [source: PN; Hardy CSI].

Phase 2: Middle sessions (sessions 2 to 5, about 1.5 h each). Brief joint check-in, then most of the time in separate conversations, then a brief joint segment where each shares what they gained [source: Hardy CSI]. One certified practitioner's timing: check-in 5–10 min, each individual 35–40 min, joint reconnection 5–10 min [source: Stevenson 2018]. Goal: deepen each partner's understanding of the divorce, repair and reconciliation stories and of their own part; coach the leaning-in partner's conduct; test whether problems look solvable [source: UMN-T; USU podcast].

Phase 3: Decision and transition. At any session the couple may settle on a path [source: UMN-T]:

Path 1, status quo / time out: stop and decide later; some couples return to DC later [source: UMN-C].
Path 2, separation/divorce: the counsellor connects the couple with lawyers and other divorce professionals for a constructive, collaborative divorce [source: UMN-T; Hardy CSI].
Path 3, reconciliation: six months of couples therapy with divorce off the table, then a decision point; the counsellor formulates a reconciliation work plan, makes ancillary referrals (e.g. alcohol assessment, couples retreat weekend, personal therapy) and either does the therapy or refers out if a better fit exists [source: UMN-T; UMN-C; USU podcast]. Any affair must end before the six-month effort begins [source: USU podcast].

Criteria for moving between phases: there is no fixed session-by-session schedule; the couple proceeds session by session until each partner has enough clarity and confidence to choose a path, or the five-session limit is reached [source: UMN-T; USU podcast]. Criterion of success is clarity and confidence, not reconciliation; divorce is not a failure of DC [source: UMN-C; USU podcast]. Where the five sessions end without a choice, the default is effectively Path 1 [synthesis].

Training and certification. The developers state that DC needs specific training because couples therapists' usual push to repair backfires with a reluctant partner [source: USU podcast]. Training and certification are offered by the Doherty Relationship Institute; a directory of certified counsellors is at discernmentcounselors.com [source: USU podcast; Lorman; Stevenson 2018]. The use of "Certified Discernment Counselor" implies a certification pathway, but its requirements (levels, hours, consultation) are not specified [uncertain]. The manual has chapters on learning DC and managing critical incidents [source: D&H TOC].

3. Guiding principles

Discernment before intervention. Do not start repairing the relationship while one partner is ambivalent; practically, no couples-therapy techniques, communication training or conflict resolution in DC sessions [source: Hardy CSI; UMN-T; Stevenson 2018].
Clarity and confidence is the goal, not saving the marriage. Count a well-understood divorce decision as a good outcome [source: UMN-C; Hardy CSI; USU podcast].
Separate conversations are the core method. Spend most of the time with each partner alone, because their agendas differ [source: DHW 2016; USU podcast; PN].
Work with each partner's agenda. With the leaning-out partner, the work is about the decision; with the leaning-in partner, about constructive efforts to save the marriage [source: UMN-T].
Respect the reasons for divorce while keeping the possibility of repair open. Validate the leaning-out partner's pain and reasons, and still hold open the reconciliation story [source: UMN-T; UMN-C].
Not neutral about the marriage, not on anyone's side. Doherty warns against therapists who seem indifferent to whether a marriage survives, yet the counsellor tries to understand both partners and never takes sides [source: USU podcast; UMN-C].
Self-responsibility over blaming. Steer each partner to their own contributions to problems and solutions, not to changing the other; this is useful even if the marriage ends [source: UMN-T; UMN-C].
Self-differentiation ("solid self"). Help each partner stay connected while keeping clear boundaries and knowing their own feelings and values [source: UMN-T; USU podcast].
Systemic view. Place each partner's complaints in the couple pattern both co-create, and consider how couples therapy might address it [source: Hardy CSI; USU podcast].
Low bar of commitment. Contract one session at a time, which relieves pressure on the leaning-out partner [source: USU podcast; Stevenson 2018].
Support plus challenge. Pair warmth with direct challenge to self-serving or one-sided narratives [source: UMN-T].
The couple goes through it together. Even though most talk is individual, both attend and joint segments link the work; it is not parallel individual therapy [source: Hardy CSI].
Divorce, if chosen, should be constructive. Plan for a collaborative, child-sensitive divorce and the right professionals [source: UMN-T; UMN-C].
No coercion. Do not proceed when one partner is coerced or when a decided partner wants help pressuring the other [source: UMN-C].

4. Intervention inventory

The procedures below are those described in the sources. The manual's own step lists (Chapters 3–8) are not drawn on here; steps that go beyond what sources state are tagged [synthesis]. All example language is illustrative unless quoted with a source.

4.1 Pre-contact communication and intake screening

Purpose / when: before session 1, to establish that this is a mixed-agenda couple, screen out contraindications, and set expectations [source: D&H TOC ch. 3; UMN-T; UMN-C].
Steps: (1) In the first call, ask who is initiating and how each partner currently leans (in, out, unsure) [synthesis]. (2) Explain that DC is not couples therapy: up to five sessions, decided one at a time, aimed at a decision about direction [source: UMN-C; USU podcast]. (3) Screen for the published exclusions: danger of domestic violence, an Order of Protection, one partner coercing the other to attend, or a partner who has already decided and wants help getting the spouse to accept it [source: UMN-C]. (4) Ask whether lawyers have been contacted or proceedings started, since this is common and relevant to the process [source: Hardy CSI; DHW 2016]. (5) Use a structured intake; the Couples on the Brink Project publishes a basic DC intake and phone intake form [source: UMN-T] [uncertain: contents]. (6) If possible, speak to or hear directly from the leaning-out partner that they are coming voluntarily [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "This is not marriage counselling. It's a short process, up to five meetings, to help you both get clearer about where to go from here. Nobody signs up for more than one session at a time."
Watch for: the caller describing the spouse as "being made to come"; fear of the partner; a partner who says the decision is final and wants the counsellor to "make them understand". Any of these is a reason not to start DC [source: UMN-C].

4.2 Orientation and consent to the DC frame

Purpose / when: opening minutes of session 1; makes the unusual format safe and transparent.
Steps: (1) State the goal (clarity and confidence about one of three paths) and the three paths [source: UMN-T; DHW 2016]. (2) Explain the structure: joint time, then separate conversations with each, then joint time again [source: PN; Hardy CSI]. (3) Make clear the counsellor will not try to fix problems during DC [source: UMN-C; Stevenson 2018]. (4) Explain the confidentiality rules for separate conversations; at least one certified practitioner's informed-consent packet includes DC confidentiality expectations and a "no secrets" policy [source: Stevenson 2018] [uncertain: how the developers handle information from individual conversations]. (5) Confirm consent for one session only [source: USU podcast].
Example language (illustrative): "My job isn't to save your marriage or to end it. It's to help each of you see what has happened more fully, so that whatever you decide, you can both be confident in it."
Watch for: a leaning-in partner who hears "counselling" as "therapy has started"; restate the difference [synthesis].

4.3 Joint opening: the relationship story and the repair history

Purpose / when: the first part of session 1 (about 40 minutes in Doherty's description) [source: PN].
Steps: (1) Invite the couple to tell their marital story together: how they met, what was good, how the problems developed [source: Hardy CSI]. (2) Hear each partner's view of the marriage and where they now stand [source: PN]. (3) Ask what they have already tried to repair things, including previous couples therapy and what happened there [source: USU podcast]. (4) Keep the joint segment non-escalating: gather history, do not mediate conflicts [synthesis]. (5) Note each partner's leaning and how firm it is [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Tell me how you two got together, and then how things got to the point where you're thinking about divorce." / "What have you already tried to make things better?"
Watch for: blame duels; if they start, summarise both views and move to the separate conversations sooner [synthesis].

4.4 Exploring the three narratives

Purpose / when: throughout, mostly in separate conversations; makes each partner's account of the marriage more complex so the most compelling option can emerge [source: UMN-T].
Steps: (1) Divorce narrative: what has gone wrong; why divorce is being considered [source: UMN-T]. (2) Repair narrative: what each has done to fix things, what helped, what did not [source: UMN-T]. (3) Reconciliation narrative: what path might restore health to the relationship; what would have to change, and in whom [source: UMN-T]. (4) Reflect back a more complex version of the story that includes both partners' roles [source: UMN-T; USU podcast].
Example language (illustrative): "You've told me clearly why you've been thinking of leaving. Help me understand the times you two tried to turn it around." / "If this marriage were to get healthy, what would that path look like?"
Watch for: working: the story shifts from "things done to me" to a shared pattern, and the partner names a plausible route either way [source: USU podcast; UMN-T].

4.5 Separate conversation with the leaning-out partner

Purpose / when: every session; this partner's agenda is the decision itself [source: UMN-T].
Steps [source: Hardy CSI unless noted]: (1) Connect with their pain and assess how serious the problems are. (2) Explore their reasons for considering ending the marriage, respecting those reasons [source: Hardy CSI; UMN-T]. (3) Help them see their own role in the problems; this often increases hope because they find things they can change. (4) Put the issues in a systemic context, the pattern both co-create [source: Hardy CSI; USU podcast]. (5) Consider with them how couples therapy might address these issues. (6) Help them move from seeing themselves as passive recipient to active participant in the marriage [source: USU podcast]. (7) Ask whether they want more discernment work and what they will share in the joint segment [source: Hardy CSI].
Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like you've been lonely in this marriage for years. I don't doubt that. Can we also look at how you've handled that loneliness, and what part it has played?"
Watch for: a one-sided story focused on the spouse's limits with little insight into own contributions; in Doherty's case example, gaining that insight shifted the partner toward working on the marriage [source: USU podcast]. Do not push for reconciliation; push for a fuller account [source: UMN-T].

4.6 Separate conversation with the leaning-in partner

Purpose / when: every session; this partner's agenda is constructive efforts to save the marriage [source: UMN-T].
Steps [source: Hardy CSI unless noted]: (1) Clarify their wish to save the marriage and why. (2) Assess how well they understand the spouse's complaints and pain, and whether they will work on the legitimate issues. (3) Help them look at their own role without denial [source: USU podcast]. (4) Teach constructive coping and self-care while they are struggling. (5) Discourage behaviours that make things worse: pursuing, distancing, triangulating (e.g. recruiting in-laws or children), scolding, threats, begging and pleading [source: Hardy CSI; USU podcast]. (6) Help them prepare what to share: their wish for couples therapy, their understanding of the spouse's concerns, and what they want to work on in themselves [source: Hardy CSI].
Example language: Doherty's blunt feedback to a pursuing partner: "you're making yourself the least attractive spouse on the planet right now" [source: USU podcast]. Illustrative: "Begging is understandable, and it's pushing your wife further away. What would your best self do this week?"
Watch for: working: the partner stops pursuing, can name the spouse's complaints accurately, and owns specific changes; not working: pleading, monitoring, involving others, or seeing DC as a way to talk the spouse round [source: Hardy CSI; USU podcast].

4.7 Contributions work (self-responsibility)

Purpose / when: with both partners, in every individual conversation; the central lever of DC [source: DHW 2016; UMN-T; UMN-C].
Steps: (1) Ask each to describe their own part in the problems and in possible solutions, not the spouse's [source: UMN-T]. (2) Frame it as useful whatever the outcome, including in a future relationship [source: UMN-C]. (3) Link it to hope: you cannot change your spouse, you can change yourself [source: USU podcast]. (4) Help the partner turn insights into a concrete "what I would work on" list for possible couples therapy [source: Hardy CSI; D&H TOC description]. (5) Draw out the doubt behind leaving: people often leave believing the spouse must change while doubting their own ability to change [source: USU podcast].
Example language (illustrative): "If you were to go into couples therapy, what would you be working on in yourself, not in him?"
Watch for: contributions stated as concessions to win the argument; probe for a specific behaviour and its effect on the partner [synthesis].

4.8 "Solid self" (self-differentiation) coaching

Purpose / when: with either partner, especially when one is fused, pursuing or collapsing, or the other is walling off [source: UMN-T; USU podcast].
Steps: (1) Name the aim: staying connected to the partner while keeping clear boundaries and knowing one's own feelings and values [source: USU podcast]. (2) Help the leaning-in partner tolerate the spouse's position without pressuring or withdrawing [source: Hardy CSI]. (3) Help the leaning-out partner relate decently despite ambivalence [source: Hardy CSI]. (4) Help each move toward more neutral, healthier boundaries in the leaning-in/leaning-out cycle, which eases pressure on one and brings calmer acceptance to the other [source: Stevenson 2018]. (5) Tie gains back to the decision: how would a steadier self see the marriage? [source: UMN-T].
Example language (illustrative): "Can you stay warm with him this week without asking him for an answer?"
Watch for: working: fewer crisis confrontations between sessions, partners report the home is calmer [synthesis].

4.9 Coaching the leaning-in partner's response to the spouse's complaints

Purpose / when: when the leaning-in partner is defensive, counter-attacking, or explaining away the spouse's grievances [source: USU podcast].
Steps [source: USU podcast]: (1) Coach them to listen and acknowledge rather than defend or attack. (2) Help them say they will take the complaint to heart. (3) Rehearse a short, non-defensive opening statement for the joint segment, e.g. Doherty's model line "I clearly have not been listening well enough to you." (4) Where fitting, help them voice their own fear and love without pressure (Doherty's example invitation: "I'm scared for our marriage because I love you").
Example language (illustrative): "When she says she's felt invisible, what's the one thing you could say that shows you actually heard it?"
Watch for: a script used as a tactic; it must be genuine and followed by changed behaviour [synthesis].

4.10 Opening the third option

Purpose / when: when either partner sees only two choices, staying miserable or divorcing [source: USU podcast].
Steps: (1) Name the false binary. (2) Describe Path 3 concretely: six months of serious couples therapy with divorce off the table, then a real decision point [source: USU podcast; UMN-T]. (3) Stress that this is not a lifetime vow but a chance to try therapy properly before a permanent decision [source: Hardy CSI]. (4) Contrast with half-hearted therapy under pressure, which DC aims to avoid [source: Hardy CSI].
Example language (illustrative): "There's a third option: not staying as things are, and not divorcing yet, but giving six months of all-out work a fair test."
Watch for: the leaning-out partner hearing this as pressure; keep all three paths equally legitimate [source: UMN-T].

4.11 Preparing the partner's summary

Purpose / when: at the end of each separate conversation, before the joint segment [source: PN; Hardy CSI].
Steps: (1) Ask what they learned about themselves and the marriage today [synthesis]. (2) Help them formulate a short summary for the spouse: for the leaning-out partner, what they are gaining and whether they want more discernment work; for the leaning-in partner, their wish, their understanding of the spouse's concerns and what they want to work on in themselves [source: Hardy CSI]. (3) Check that it is self-focused and non-blaming; the summaries shape how the partners communicate afterward [source: PN]. Doherty's description has the partner write the summary [source: PN] [uncertain: whether it is written down in the standard protocol].
Example language (illustrative): "When we go back in, what's the one or two things you'd like her to know from our conversation?"
Watch for: summaries that reopen the fight; help the partner rephrase before the joint segment [synthesis].

4.12 Joint close: sharing, counsellor feedback, return decision

Purpose / when: end of every session [source: PN; Hardy CSI].
Steps: (1) Each partner shares their summary while the other listens [source: PN; Hardy CSI]. (2) The counsellor gives feedback (session 1 ends with the counsellor's feedback) [source: PN]. (3) Ask whether they want another session or are ready to choose a path [source: USU podcast; UMN-T]. (4) Book only the next session [source: USU podcast].
Example language (illustrative): "What I'm hearing is that both of you see more of your own part than you did two hours ago. Do you want to come back for another session, or do you feel ready to choose a direction?"
Watch for: discussion of the summaries turning into a negotiation; keep it brief [synthesis].

4.13 Middle-session structure (check-in and reconnection)

Purpose / when: sessions 2 to 5 [source: Hardy CSI; D&H TOC ch. 5].
Steps: (1) Brief joint check-in about what happened since the last session [source: Hardy CSI; Stevenson 2018]. (2) Separate conversations with each, continuing 4.4–4.11 [source: Hardy CSI]. (3) Brief joint segment to share what each gained [source: Hardy CSI]. The chapter on middle sessions is not drawn on here [uncertain: any further standard content].
Watch for: between-session incidents (a discovered affair, a lawyer's letter, a blow-up); these may need to be the focus of the individual conversations [synthesis; cf. D&H TOC ch. 14 "critical incidents"].

4.14 Tracking shifting leanings

Purpose / when: whenever a partner wavers between agendas, or the two swap positions [source: Hardy CSI].
Steps: (1) Ask each partner, each session, where they now stand [synthesis]. (2) Adjust the work: a leaning-out partner who softens may need help considering Path 3; a leaning-in partner who begins to lean out gets the decision-focused work [source: Hardy CSI]. (3) Where neither partner is leaning in, use the approach in the manual's chapter for that scenario [source: D&H TOC] [uncertain: content].

4.15 Transition to Path 3: reconciliation couples therapy

Purpose / when: both partners choose six months of couples therapy [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC ch. 6].
Steps: (1) Confirm the terms: six months, divorce off the table, then a decision point [source: UMN-T; USU podcast]. (2) Any affair must be ended before the six months start [source: USU podcast]. (3) Help each commit to what therapy will require; one practitioner has both sign an "Agreement to Pursue Reconciliation" [source: Stevenson 2018]. (4) Write a reconciliation work plan that carries forward each partner's own-contribution agenda [source: UMN-C; Hardy CSI]. (5) Make ancillary referrals as needed, e.g. alcohol assessment, a couples retreat weekend, personal therapy [source: UMN-T]. (6) Decide whether you will do the couples therapy or refer to a better-fitting therapist [source: UMN-T]. The developers do not prescribe a single couples-therapy model in the sources; DC has been integrated with EFT by others [source: Edwards 2023 abstract].
Example language (illustrative): "For six months, divorce is off the table. You've each told me what you'll work on. Let's write that down as our starting plan."
Watch for: a partner agreeing to placate the other; check each privately that the commitment is real [synthesis].

4.16 Transition to Path 2: separation or divorce

Purpose / when: one or both choose divorce [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC ch. 7].
Steps: (1) Help the couple connect with lawyers, mediators and other divorce professionals oriented to constructive, collaborative divorce [source: UMN-T; UMN-C; Hardy CSI]. (2) Help the leaning-in partner accept the spouse's decision [source: Stevenson 2018]. (3) Help the transition go peacefully, with referrals as needed [source: Stevenson 2018]. (4) Consolidate what each learned about their own contributions for co-parenting and future relationships [source: UMN-C].
Example language (illustrative): "You've come to this clearly. Now the task is to do it in a way you can both live with, especially for the kids."
Watch for: the leaning-in partner's grief, despair or risk; offer or refer to individual support [synthesis].

4.17 Transition to Path 1: status quo / time out

Purpose / when: neither is ready to choose [source: UMN-C; D&H TOC ch. 8].
Steps: (1) Name it as a legitimate choice for now [source: UMN-C]. (2) Agree how they will live in the meantime and when they will revisit [synthesis]. (3) Invite them to return to DC later if they wish [source: UMN-C].

4.18 Collaboration with referrers: lawyers, mediators, clergy, courts

Purpose / when: building referral routes and responding to ambivalence spotted in divorce proceedings [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC appendix; USU podcast].
Steps: (1) Inform lawyers and mediators that 30–40% of individuals in divorce proceedings may be ambivalent, per Doherty's research, and that a brief questionnaire exists to assess this [source: USU podcast] [uncertain: instrument details, items not reproduced]. (2) Encourage them to slow the process and refer when ambivalence appears [source: USU podcast]. (3) After Path 2, refer back to collaborative professionals [source: UMN-T].

4.19 Shifting from couples therapy to DC

Purpose / when: an ongoing couples therapy has stalled because one partner is ambivalent [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC ch. 12].
Steps: (1) Name the mixed agenda openly to the couple [synthesis]. (2) Offer DC as a time-limited consultation, either by changing frame yourself or by referring to an outside discernment counsellor [source: UMN-T; D&H TOC]. (3) Resume couples therapy only if they choose Path 3 [source: UMN-T]. The chapter itself is not drawn on here [uncertain: the authors' preferred handling of the switch].

5. Handling problems

The manual has chapters on affairs, "when the feelings are gone", "neither partner leaning in" and "critical incidents" [source: D&H TOC]; their contents are not drawn on here, so most responses below are synthesis consistent with the published principles, tagged accordingly.

Domestic violence, fear or an Order of Protection. DC is not suitable [source: UMN-C]. Screen at intake and again privately in the first separate conversations; if violence or fear emerges mid-process, stop the joint format, safety-plan with the at-risk partner individually, and refer to specialist DV services; do not move to Path 3 [synthesis].
Coerced attendance. Not suitable [source: UMN-C]. In the separate conversation ask directly whether they chose to come; if not, end DC without exposing the partner who disclosed [synthesis].
One partner has already decided and wants the counsellor to make the spouse accept it. Not suitable for DC [source: UMN-C]. Say so, and offer the leaning-in partner individual support and the couple referral to constructive divorce professionals [synthesis, building on UMN-T].
Ongoing affair. Path 3 requires the affair to end before the six months begin [source: USU podcast]. In DC, explore it in the separate conversation as part of the leaning-out partner's decision; do not start reconciliation work while it continues [synthesis]. How the authors handle a secret affair disclosed only to the counsellor is not specified [uncertain]; set out your secrets policy in the consent (some practitioners use a "no secrets" policy [source: Stevenson 2018]) before the first separate conversation [synthesis].
"The feelings are gone." A named common scenario [source: D&H TOC]. Work the three narratives with the partner, separate loss of feeling from the patterns that produced it, and ask what Path 3 might change; do not promise feelings will return [synthesis].
Neither partner leaning in. A named scenario [source: D&H TOC]. Do decision-focused work with both; check whether either wants to test Path 3 before ending [synthesis].
Leaning-in partner pursuing, begging, monitoring or recruiting family. Name the pattern and its effect plainly and coach best-self conduct and self-care [source: Hardy CSI; USU podcast] (4.6, 4.9).
Leaning-out partner stuck in a one-sided story. Gently challenge it with contributions questions and the systemic pattern; support plus challenge [source: UMN-T; USU podcast] (4.5, 4.7).
A partner wants the counsellor to start fixing things now. Explain that DC does not intervene in the relationship; that work starts only if both choose Path 3 [source: Stevenson 2018; UMN-T]. Brief coping and conduct coaching for the leaning-in partner is in scope [source: Hardy CSI].
Perceived side-taking (rupture). Usually arises because separate conversations differ in tone. Acknowledge it in the joint segment, restate that you work with each partner's own agenda, and equalise time [synthesis, based on the principle of understanding both partners: UMN-C].
Overwhelm, despair, suicidal statements or crisis in either partner (often after hearing a divorce decision). Conduct a standard risk assessment in the separate conversation, involve crisis services or individual treatment as needed, and pause DC if the person cannot engage safely [synthesis].
Non-attendance or one partner dropping out. Each session is a fresh choice, so absence is information; offer one more session or end DC and offer individual referrals [synthesis; low-bar principle from USU podcast]. The couples page says the counsellor can still help when only one spouse is interested [source: UMN-C] [uncertain: what this help consists of].
Five sessions used, still no decision. Treat as Path 1 with a revisit date, or a later return to DC [source: UMN-C; synthesis].
Legal proceedings already running. Common (51% had contacted a lawyer before DC in the first 100 cases) [source: Hardy CSI]. Ask whether proceedings can be slowed while DC runs [synthesis; USU podcast on lawyers slowing the process].
Therapist pull to save the marriage, or to endorse the divorce. Both distort DC. Hold the stance of respecting the reasons for divorce while keeping repair possible, and judge success by clarity [source: UMN-T; UMN-C]. Seek consultation; the developers say couples therapists need specific DC training to resist the push to repair [source: USU podcast].
Source conflict to note. One video description says divorce is "off the table" during DC itself [source: PN], while the Couples on the Brink pages say divorce is off the table during the six-month Path 3 therapy [source: UMN-T]. This guide follows the latter [uncertain].

Sources

Sources:

Couples on the Brink Project: Discernment Counseling for therapists (University of Minnesota) [UMN-T]
Couples on the Brink Project: Discernment Counseling for couples (University of Minnesota) [UMN-C]
Doherty, Harris & Wilde (2016), Discernment Counseling for "Mixed-Agenda" Couples, JMFT 42(2):246–55, PubMed abstract [DHW 2016; abstract only]
Hardy, Clinical Science Insights: discernment counseling, The Family Institute at Northwestern University (PDF) [Hardy CSI; secondary summary of Doherty's protocol]
The Family Institute: Treating Couples Unsure About Continuing Their Marriage
Utah State University Extension, Stronger Marriage podcast episode 020 transcript: Discernment Counseling, interview with Bill Doherty [USU podcast]
Psychotherapy Networker: VIDEO: When One Partner Wants Out [PN; page text only, video not transcribed]
Stevenson (2018), Discernment Counseling handout, ethics CE presentation by a Certified Discernment Counselor (PDF) [Stevenson 2018; secondary]
Woodslane: Helping Couples on the Brink of Divorce (2023 paperback), description and contents [D&H TOC]
Woodslane: Helping Couples on the Brink of Divorce, 2nd ed. (2026), description and contents [D&H TOC]
Lorman: Counseling Couples on the Brink of Divorce, slide deck page (Doherty) [Lorman; description only]
Edwards (2023), The Integration of Discernment Counseling and Emotionally Focused Therapy, Contemporary Family Therapy 45:186–194 [Edwards 2023; abstract only]