The Revive the Bond blog has more to say about this, but here are a few factors that make Revive the Bond different:

Training: I have a PhD in Marriage and Family Therapy, where I spent nearly six years learning, training, and supervising (and being supervised in) couples therapy and complex systems work more generally. Couples therapy and coaching are significantly more complex than individual work; the training I received makes all the difference.

Specialization and expertise: Couples work is widely regarded as the most difficult type of clinical/coaching work, given the complexities, volatility, and potential for serious mistakes. I specialize exclusively in this hard work and devote all of my learning and growth in pursuit of excellence.

Leadership: This is a quality that I have never heard discussed in the therapeutic community, but I believe it is what sets me apart from the overwhelming majority of therapists and coaches. I trained for four years at West Point to be a leader, then spent five more years refining my leadership as an officer. I am gentle, tactful, and respectful of clients; but I also recognize the value of expertly leading couples through the difficult work of couples therapy. In the military, I learned that leaders are responsible for all that happens or fails to happen in their units. That is a very useful attitude for therapists.

Highly-customized treatments: Couples receive carefully tailored services based on a thorough assessment, rather than cookie-cutter, mass-produced services based on some model du jour or high volume approach. I carefully assess couples and use my deep knowledge of couples therapy/coaching and affair recovery to design impactful experiences of change. I often use emotionally focused couples therapy (EFT) but employ other models when appropriate.

Strong interpersonal skills: This quality might seem like a given among therapists/coaches, but it is not. My clients reliably say that I am easy to work with and confidence inspiring, especially during their most difficult moments. I have a calm demeanor and work hard to stay well ahead of the curve, anticipating and effectively working through challenges.

Driven by results: This quality speaks for itself.

These are just a few of the reasons to choose Revive the Bond for your most demanding and painful problems as a couple.

As a doctoral student I studied attachment theory in some depth. Humans seek secure, reliable, and comforting attachments to others. Failing to maintain such bonds can be very painful to most people.

Attachment theory has been heavily tested and validated across many decades. The drive for attachment has relevance throughout the lifespan (from the cradle to the grave, as John Bowlby put it). As a relationship-oriented therapist attachment theory has obvious value to me.

Thus, I often use emotionally focused couples therapy (EFT), a model based squarely on the idea that humans are attachment seeking creatures. Close bonds with a chosen other can be deeply comforting and nurturing. EFT seeks to strengthen these bonds by softening interactions and helping partners move toward greater vulnerability and connection. It is a gentle and respectful approach that is never scolding or even lecturing.

I also use other models when necessary. I might use discernment counseling to help couples who are unsure about whether to stay together. In the past I also delivered a great deal of affair recovery using either one of two different models. I am currently not focusing on affair recovery.

Throughout my career as a couples therapist and coach I have gravitated toward the most challenging cases I can find. I love a challenge, and couples therapy certainly qualifies as one.

In the past I further sub-specialized in affair recovery, but I am not currently accepting clients for that work.

I also have a passion for helping individual clients with anxiety disorders. I have led hundreds of therapy groups for anxiety disorders, and delivered many more hours of individual therapy. When I have room in my practice I accept individual clients for these kinds of treatments.

Finally, I have significant training in trauma assessment and treatment using Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapy. This evidence-based practice is highly effective for recovery from PTSD.

See the blog for more details on this, as the answer varies depending upon many factors. There are, however, some common elements:

Above all, I am unfailingly respectful, gentle, tactful, non-judgmental, and very strategic in how I intervene. Early in our work you will see that I take an active role in the room and work to establish safety and the structure that contains even the strongest emotions. I may at times be more directive at this stage, since emotional safety is paramount. Clients reliably tell me that they feel heard and respected; clients often say they appreciate not feeling targeted or that I am taking sides. As we move into the exploration stages I remain respectful and polite, but I begin to open the process more and begin having the two of you work more directly with each other (provided certain conditions are met). I monitor this progression very closely; we will never move faster than you feel ready or faster than is emotionally safe. I carefully consider everything I do or say in advance, and assiduously avoid mistakes, large and small. Other coaches/therapists may ramble, dispense cheap advice, share idiosyncratic opinions, confront clients, lose (or never find) focus in session/treatment, chase unimportant content, choose sides, blame, or alienate with harsh, ill-considered comments. I strenuously avoid these behaviors and work hard to keep the focus on your continual growth and healing, where it belongs. Between sessions I review notes and plan our next session(s). On occasion, couples request that we discuss some new/recent event or information; I am respectful of clients' desires and use good judgment to decide if and how to integrate such material. I keep clients informed of my thought processes on such matters. Sessions are often emotionally intense and hard work. (Those are good signs!) That said, I do not let sessions end before we have achieved a denouement (emotional or otherwise) for that day. I closely watch the clock and time my interventions in ways that ensure we have sufficient time to resolve and repair before concluding the session. No matter how difficult the work is, clients invariably say that they feel safe and understand the rationale for what we are doing.

Treatment duration varies depending on the couple, the type and duration of problems, other work done, and so on. However, my overarching philosophy on this question is simple: as many hours as necessary but not one more. I am not somebody who believes in long-term, open-ended therapy. I push myself to get results.

The treatment model I most often use with couples in conflict typically requires a few hours of work to begin seeing real benefit, and around 15 hours of work to see enduring change in the relationship. Some couples achieve their goals in 10 sessions and some need 20 or more sessions. The longer I do this work the more value I see in a thorough assessment before we begin change-focused work. Expect to spend a few hours on this work at the beginning. It is an investment in the process and helps us understand (and stay focused on) the core problems in the relationship. During assessment I will meet with you both as a couple and individually.

Clients with trauma histories (particularly in their families of origin) can find that things like vulnerability and trust take more time to happen. I hesitate to put a number on this (because everybody is unique) but it is reasonable to expect therapy to take longer if trauma is present.

Yes. The structure of sessions varies but I always meet with both partners individually early in the assessment process. If at any point a client wants an individual hour with me we can do this. In this case, I will meet with the other partner individually for the same amount of time to maintain balance.

It is not uncommon for one or both partners to be ambivalent about staying in a troubled relationship, particularly if the emotional bond is heavily frayed or broken. In this case, I might suggest engaging in Discernment Counseling with me prior to agreeing to treatment. Discernment Counseling is not change-oriented, but is instead a structured, short-term method of helping both partners clarify what they want (e.g., Continue the status quo, separate, or engage in the work). This time-limited approach (rarely more than five hours, and often less) allows partners to make informed decisions about their future. Most couples who complete this work then decide to engage in couples coaching with me.

Therapists not trained and supervised extensively in working with couples and who are not committed to disciplined, principled work can "pick sides" or think about the relationship linearly rather than circularly. Clients become aware of this when they sense the therapist aligning with one person in the relationship. Sometimes this is overt and obvious; at other times, the therapist might not even be aware that he or she is taking sides. Either way can be harmful.

I do not take sides or lay blame. My obligations are to the relationship itself, which I am tasked to heal. Aligning with either partner fundamentally violates that bedrock value of couples work and again: I will not do that. I am also far too busy working on the relationship to take sides. The relationship is my client.

It is unethical (and potentially illegal) for therapists/coaches to guarantee a specific outcome. So there is no such guarantee. However, I have a long track record of successfully treating couples. In fact, I prefer working with challenging couples more than any other type of work. So while there isn't a guarantee of a given result, in my experience nearly every couple I treat improves dramatically and stays together.

Another important metric is drop out (or premature termination) for my work. My drop out rate over the past 15 years is nearly zero. That said, some marriages/relationships likely cannot be saved by anyone, and perhaps ought not to be (for instance, in cases of abuse, neglect, and/or violence). During consultation and assessment I give candid information on whether I can help your relationship. I sometimes decline to treat couples if I believe I cannot be of sufficient assistance. I do not, however, offer opinions on whether you should work to save the marriage. I only share whether my services will help or not.

Yes. Some individual or relational issues can interfere with treatment or present ethical challenges to such an extent that I will decline to treat a couple. For example, the presence of intimate partner violence (i.e., domestic violence) and/or significantly controlling power dynamics can rule out couples therapy, since our work requires that both partners take the risk of being vulnerable.

Certain personality-related traits or disorders can complicate treatment and slow results, depending on the severity of symptoms. Personality disorders such as borderline PD, narcissistic PD, antisocial PD, and others can interfere with couple therapy and are unlikely to change during relationship-focused therapy. I ask that clients be completely honest at the outset with me if they have ever been diagnosed with one of these disorders.

Similarly, active addictions, untreated psychosis, mania, delusional disorders, and significant suicidal or homicidal intent can be rule outs for treatment. I ask that all potential clients be as forthright as possible during assessments.

High levels of conflict and very strong emotions are not exclusionary unless there is violence or power/control issues. (Note: If I am working with you in my role as a coach (versus therapist) I do not diagnosis or claim to treat any mental disorder at all).

I do not accept any health insurance. In my experience there are many drawbacks to insurance, including the inability to engage in multi-session/multi-hour crisis work.

Many factors influence how long a couple will need to accomplish their goals. These overlap in complex ways that make predicting length of treatment difficult to predict. But there are some factors that reliably contribute to amount of treatment needed.

The degree of damage to the emotional bond in couples is a significant variable. Couples who are experiencing relatively less damaging conflict often heal faster than couples who engage in frequent or very intensive fights that do real damage to the bond.

Certain traits in one or both partners can also impact the work significantly. In my experience, a willingness to assume individual responsibility is predictive of more rapid healing (all else being equal). Some degree of defensiveness is almost invariably present (We are all human, after all!) and a major part of my work is to soften this by creating safety in our work. But in rare cases, when a person cannot accept responsibility for their contributions to the cycles of conflict the work slows or becomes almost impossible.