By: Referee Daniel J. Ferency, Oakland County
For most practicing lawyers, judges, and other judicial officers, the mode and method of questioning litigants and witnesses in court have been formed over many years and reduced to a set of rules that you often need a law degree to understand. While these rules undoubtedly advance the court’s truth-seeking function in an adversarial setting, speaking directly to litigants under other circumstances sometimes requires a different approach, especially when the court is attempting to garner compliance with its orders—something all judicial officers hope for. Such is the key takeaway from a recent four-day “Motivational Interviewing Training for Jurists,” hosted by the State Court Administrative Office Friend of the Court Bureau in March and April 2026 and facilitated by Meg Perrault, MA, LPC and Vanessa Reading, MA, LLP.
Plainly rooted in human psychology, motivational interviewing (“MI”) recognizes several truths about the litigants and their ability/inclination to change problematic behavior: they want to be and feel heard; they need to feel invited to the discussion, even just to communicate barriers to change without feeling judgment; and they want to feel some stake in or ownership of the solution. Many litigants already feel judged at the outset by the inherent power imbalances in court, especially in enforcement and sentencing hearings, with the learned judge sitting above them on the bench, wearing a black robe, and speaking with authority about something the litigant did wrong. MI, when used effectively, can break down those barriers and get to the heart of the matter to effectuate change.
Open-ended questions--a primary feature of MI--have always been a feature of direct examination, and are something I have used very often in legal and judicial practice. They are also at the heart of motivational interviewing. A not-so-common technique in the legal world is using reflections and/or summarizing, which eschews questioning entirely, instead repeating a litigants’ statements and sometimes guessing at the emotional underpinning. This can invite deeper thought from them and pull out their ambivalence about changes they need to make. In using reflections specifically, it is often astounding how using a statement (repeated from the litigant) with a pause (with no question or pointed commentary) will draw out more salient information than a cross-examination style inquiry.
In my experience, motivational interviewing has been an outstanding technique in child support enforcement proceedings. Especially for respondents with large arrears or outsized child support orders, feeling defeated is common, which is anathema to the process of securing consistent support payments. I had a recent show cause hearing involving two extremely antagonistic parties, and payor was “Mother,” who was on the verge of jail for civil contempt because she could not see a solution to paying support regularly. Most of my prior interactions with litigants involved directive statements in what felt like a firestorm of both parties yelling at each other and me. In truth, I did not ask many questions. In deploying the reflections technique post-training, we were able to find a solution together, Mother secured a part-time job schedule that fit her childcare needs, both parties admitted that the teenage child in common was in neither of their care (thus abating support by agreement once the Formula was explained), and Father even waived some support arrears for direct assistance Mother provided him! Without motivational interviewing techniques, I may have never gotten the parties to either share this critically relevant information or commit to real change.
My suggestion to any colleagues who are considering incorporating MI techniques into their work is that it can be quite effective in developing a thorough record or ensuring compliance with court orders. While some techniques have more limited utility for jurists in adversarial proceedings due to the neutral role of the court, you can deploy MI techniques in a limited fashion consistent with your role, and it works!
