The Great Literary Agent Race, Part 12.

So, if you read 'Part 1' of this series, you're just about caught up to me.

It turns out that Jane and her partner really liked my revisions, so -- heavy sigh of relief from me.

They have suggested that I wait until after the holidays to have them market the book. And they want to market it by featuring it in their January 2014 newsletter, which goes to  about 2,000 industry insiders. How cool is that?

In the interim, I received three assignments from them:

1. They asked me to do a conversational bio that didn't look like a c.v.  Yikes. The only other bio I have is the three-sentence deal that I used in my query letter, or the one paragraph thingy that has been used for introducing me at CLE lectures.

Another mental block that I had to overcome ... It took me a week or two, but I did it. It wasn't as bad as writing a synopsis!

2. Next, I needed to draft a sales-pitchy blurb. For some reason, that wasn't as awful as doing the bio, maybe because I know Jane will be editing it.  Blurb is now done.

3. My final mission is to read the whole book again and make sure it's as perfect as possible, without adding or changing scenes. I.e., without messing with it. This one's going to need another week for me to gain a little distance from it.

As to communication methods with my agent, well, right now I'm mostly using email. With my continued lunatic hours, it's the best way for me, and I'm sure I won't be interrupting her day with intrusive phone calls. Besides,  I'm a brand new client of a top tier agent, and I know she's got to be rocking and rolling with year-end deals. I'm not about to be a pain her ass, even though she's welcomed me to call  anytime. I see no need to bother her.

Come her January newsletter, though, I may be more antsy!

My best advice after this incredibly grueling journey?

1. Believe in yourself.
2. Believe in your book.
3. Be open to learning.
4. Be open to criticism, even though it sucks.
5. Finish. A bunch of times.
6. Edit, revise, until it's right, but it'll never be right until you can't do another damn thing to it.
7. Treat writing as a business because it is.
8. Research the hell out of everything.
9. Work your ass off.
10. Don't give up.

And that, dear readers, is the end of this series -- unless/until I have more to report...

Making It Stink Less For The Kids

I've been reading a bunch of blog posts about how screwed up kids get (i) when their parents are divorcing or divorced (e.g., kids feel pressured to take sides); or (ii) when their parents are - well, just a mess. 
http://afamilysheartbreak.com/  
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/20/octomom-nadya-suleman-broke-welfare-next-will-she-lose-custody-of-her-kids/).

So I'm thinking, okay, everything thinks divorce lawyers make it worse, by pushing people into being even more polarized. They only care about the money and don't care how screwed up the kids get. Right?  

Wrong. 

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (I'm admittedly biased since I'm a Fellow) has a some terrific cheap publications, and even a couple of free links on their web site which are amazing, all of which are instructive, informative, and designed to reduce friction and tension.  I've shared the links on a few blogs, and thought it only right to post them on my own: http://www.aaml.org/go/library/publications/

With all that collective knowledge (from the top 1600 divorce lawyers in the US) of exactly how rotten life can be for the kids who are in the midst of family upheaval, the AAML was able to create a Children's Bill of Rights.

Yes, it's that good.  Please judge for yourself.

http://www.aaml.org/sites/default/files/childrens%20bill%20of%20rights.pdf

When I Say I'm A Divorce Lawyer

Gloves off.

These are the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a divorce lawyer:

1. Shudders and disdain: Usually that's the response from my corporate brethren and sistern, you know, the tax lawyers, commercial litigators, mergers & acquisitions specialists, intellectual property gurus -- virtually all lawyers except personal injury and criminal lawyers. Because their rep (that of the PI and criminal bar) is as bad as ours, maybe worse. They get down and dirty, too, just like we do: Sex, drugs, violence...  : )

2. Pity: Usually from the corporate crew. Because they assume divorce lawyers are too stupid to go into the more high-falutin' areas of the law. Revealing I'm a Georgetown Law alum, and a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lawyer, usually shuts that one down fairly quickly. Along with asking the M&A lawyer if s/he knows what a QDRO is. See, most other specialities don't realize that matrimonial law requires a breadth of knowledge. In order to be any good at it, we need to know a lot about contracts, tax, real property, pensions, and estate law. As well as how to get down and dirty, of course. ; )

3. Requests for advice: Because everybody has either had a divorce, or post-divorce issues, or their brother or sister or cousin or best friend is in a pickle. And I'm, like, do I really want to give free advice on a case I know absolutely nothing about, second-guessing the lawyers in the trenches? On the other hand, can I stop myself from butting in and pontificating? Sigh.

4. TMI: That's short for 'too much information.'  A whoosh of disclosures about the person's personal life comes flying at me. It's as if I were sitting next to a stranger on a plane who has to unload on somebody and that somebody is lucky me. It usually takes me a good fifteen minutes to extricate myself. I don't want to be rude, ya know? And the thing is, the person is usually not a stranger. So repeat encounters and additional disclosures are likely. I learned a long time ago: It comes with the territory.

5. Hostility: Okay, I saved this for last because it crosses age, gender, religion, race, occupation and socio-economics. And how can I respond when I'm barraged with what creeps divorce lawyers are?How we should be ejected from the planet, or banished to the swamps of Borneo without mosquito nets? I AGREE. Because if it weren't for the damn dabblers out there - the lawyers who toss 'divorce' on their list of practice areas (along with traffic tickets, wills, worker's comp, accidents, house closings, bankruptcy and criminal defense) on their website or on those paper placements in the local diner - the world would be a better place. My internist shouldn't attempt brain surgery. Not that divorce lawyers are the equivalent of neurosurgeons, but you get my drift. Dabblers make me soooo mad. Grrrr.

Being a divorce lawyer was my choice. No one forced me into it, and honestly? It has had more than its fair share of stressors and hassles.

But it has also been intensely gratifying. Like helping someone move on with his/her life to a far more positive place; getting kids to live with the parent who is providing them with a stable, safe home and learning, years later, that the kids are now successful and happy adults; unraveling the mess in someone's life efficiently and with a minimum of anger; cleaning up a post-divorce disaster so there's no room for future uncertainty; closing a deal that provides financial security and logical parenting arrangements in a nice, tight  agreement...

Granted, the good moments occur less frequently than the grueling ones, but when they do? Ain't nothin' like it.

Setting Husbands Up For Supervised Visitation

There are a lot of angry dads in America who have lost temporary or permanent custody of their kids, and claim it was a setup. That the chips were stacked against them. Their voices are sometimes so loud, it sounds like "What, me paranoid? Is that what everyone's saying about me?"

But a recent scam in California was revealed in the LA Times, and then in the ABA Journal, that shows some of the dads may be right. At least, in Modesto, California.

Several bottom-feeder divorce lawyers, who represented divorcing wives, apparently hired a very shady private detective to set up their clients' husbands to make it harder for the husbands to win custody. The shady detective hired sexy, Vegas-y type women to date the husbands (the husband in the photo I saw was a plumpy dumpy guy), go out for drinks, and - bam!- the husbands would get arrested for drunk driving immediately after leaving the bar or restaurant, courtesy of the detective's contacts with the local police.

In the Plumpy Dumpy case, Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy was able to use the drunk driving incident to get an order restricting her husband to supervised visitation.

Now, it's not clear to me whether Mr. Plumpy Dumpy actually was driving drunk. He was certainly thinking with the wrong body part when he pursued the gorgeous blonde, whom he mistook for having a genuine interest in him. He actually believed her when "she told him he had large, strong hands" and "described his kisses as 'yummy.'" Sorry, but that sounds like hooker-speak to me.

It's also not clear if the divorce lawyers, or just their over-eager paralegal staff, made these dastardly (what a great adjective) arrangements. And I don't know if they will be hauled in front of their local grievance committee.

But that begs the question: did Mr. Plumpy-Dumpy deserve to lose unsupervised access to his kids for this? It was a set-up, for crying out loud. Depressed, lonely middle-aged plumy-dumpy goes for young brassy blonde with hot turn-on words. Duh. Plumpy-Dumpy was an easy mark.

Maybe we should flip the question around: Did the kids deserve to lose access to one of their parents because their parent was lured to a bar by a woman who had been paid by their mom's lawyers (via the detective's bank), and picked up by cops who had been tipped off by their mom's lawyers?

Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy claims she didn't want her husband to get arrested. Her lawyers profess ignorance about the entire matter.

So now, I wonder, who showed the worst judgment of all in this whole sordid mess?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dui-setup-20111017,0,7922829.story?page=1
ttp://www.abajournal.com/news/article/private_detective_accused_of_setting_up_divorcing_men_for_duis_with_help_of


Scams like this are yet another arrow in the quiver of lawyer haters.

The Smell Test

The decision and order are out. Your lawyer flips to the last page, the only one that really matters.

Who won the motion? How much will you be paying for support, and for how long? Is your company going to be drawn into your divorce case? Is the trial going to be delayed again? Who gets stuck with the tax penalties? Are you going to lose the house? Where are the kids going to live?

Pretty bizarre, leaving decisions that are so critical to your life in the hands of some stranger in black robes. Who the hell is that judge anyway? Is s/he so quick, so intuitive, so brilliantly analytical, to be uniquely qualified for such a demanding and important job? Umm, I'll punt on that one, at least here on HuffPo. (You can take a look at my blog for my thinking on this subject, if you're so inclined.)

No, I want to talk about what's behind judicial decisions: What makes the results practically inevitable in so many cases. Why you, or your spouse, may never have had a fighting chance from the get-go. How you were able to turn your case around from a total loser to a hands-down winner, or the other way around. And yes, this can be something that only you control.

Forget about gender bias arguments, claims of corruption in the legal system, or how the "old boy" network supposedly operates. Maybe those arguments have some merit. Maybe they're just paranoid. It doesn't matter. Because for the vast majority of cases, those issues aren't at the crux of court decisions. What is?

I call it The Smell Test.

Okay, the judge considers what your lawyer presents to the court. And what your spouse's lawyer says and writes about you which, chances are about a zillion to one, is extremely unflattering. Let's not forget the experts, either, who, in their inimitable wisdom, opine about your finances, your psyche, your motives, and your conduct. Never underestimate their power to sway the judge.

Or the witnesses, judges might consider them, at least to some degree - please, you need to put a lid on that family member who refuses to mind his/her own business, and get the human resources lady to turn over your pension stuff before she goes on her honeymoon. Witnesses for the other side? Not much you can do about them, so don't pester them. Bad idea.

Lord knows your spouse will be going after you hard, maybe s/he's out for blood. Maybe s/he will be so nutty, so unreasonable, so vile, that, assuming you're not equally horrible (justifying a "plague on both your houses" mentality by the judge), s/he will self-destruct.

But when all is said and done, even in this cacophony of information, it's up to you to make or break your own case. So what you say, what you do, how you look -- both in and out of court, right now, during the case -- that's just about all you can control, but cripes, it matters. It seriously matters. You can't change the past, and you can't change who you are. But you can control how you handle yourself in your greatest time of need. Of course, any hint of insincerity or opportunism, any contradiction of your true intentions -- well, most people (even judges!) aren't so utterly clueless that they won't detect you're trying to pull a fast one.

Whether it's because you remind the judge of a favorite cousin, or your spouse has the same first name as the judge's sworn childhood enemy, or you cuss out the judge's favorite court officer, one of you glares at the other lawyer across the courtroom at the preliminary conference...you name it. That first impression counts. But then there's the next court appearance, and the next, and the next. Plenty of time and ways to build on or demolish that first impression. Like the forensic evaluations. And your compliance with court rulings, Your cooperation with your spouse during the case. Your body language. The information filtering into court about your dealings with teachers, therapists, the cops, the kids.

Every case gives off a certain vibe. Every human being reacts to another with a visceral, gut feeling of sympathy or distaste. A judge who has the power to affect the rest of your life is no different. In fact, his/her antennae are overly sensitized - it makes decision-making that much easier. Yes, a good lawyer will help you to maximize and capitalize on the positives, and minimize the negatives. But you give off your own vibe.

Which of you is going to pass The Smell Test? Because, unless lofty Constitutional issues are involved that transcend personality, whoever passes it will find that the law has been pushed, pulled, shoved, squeezed, pressed, rolled and stuffed into the facts of your case. Yep, it all boils down to The Smell Test.

From my May 11, 2011 article in the Huffington Post-Divorce
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/the-crux-of-divorce-decis_b_860368.html

Girl Lawyer and Fathers' Rights Advocate

When I was in my 20's, my father used to call me a "girl-lawyer" just to see if he could get a rise out of me, which, of course, he did. By the time I was in my 30's, cranking out the hours at BigLaw, the ranks of women lawyers had swelled so much no one paid much attention to gender - except for the proverbial "glass ceiling." And after I'd been a divorce lawyer for roughly a decade, I'd grown tired of being asked by men if it was "better" for them to hire a woman lawyer; I'd also grown accustomed to women who were clearly more comfortable confiding in a female lawyer, while others were happier to be represented by more testosterone than I'd ever have.

Then I found myself tossed onto a few websites, defining me as a fathers' rights advocate. I had some women calling me a woman-hater, and some men saying, yeah, Terri gets it, unlike all those feminist b****s.

Okay, let me set the record straight.

First, I suppose I am something of a feminist, if that's what you call a woman who firmly believes woman and men have the same rights to citizenship, educational and career opportunities, personal choices, etc. I hardly consider that an extreme position. I was raised on the notion that girls could do anything boys did, and I focused on getting a kick-ass education so that I could, in fact, do whatever I wanted. (Being a divorce lawyer wasn't my childhood dream, though, in all honesty...) As a teenager, my views were shaped, reinforced and supported at my all-girls' high school, where I'm pleased to say Sen. Gillibrand (class of '84) is returning to give the commencement address this weekend.

Second, I have, in fact, won many bitter custody battles for male clients, where the kids ended up living with their fathers. Translation: I have represented men who were, I believe, deprived or about be to deprived of access to their kids, to the severe detriment of the kids. And in those cases, the judge agreed with our presentation of the evidence that the father provided the better living environment for the kids for a variety of reasons, usually centering around emotional/psychiatric issues.

Third, I have negotiated many deals (lost count a long time ago) for male clients, where the terms included shared parenting (decision-making and access time) between both moms and dads. In those cases, both parties agreed that the kids would live fuller, happier and better lives, and receive the maximum emotional, educational and personal advantage by having significant access to both their parents.

Fourth, I've done the same thing for female clients over the years. I've also helped - dads, don't gasp - women to relocate with the kids, where courts have accepted the evidence presented that the kids would thrive in that new place with their mom. That the move was not being done to punish the dad, that the move was reasonable and necessary, that adjustments during weekends, vacations and summers could accommodate the need for parenting time with the dad, etc. etc.

Fifth, I loathe beyond words the abuse of legal process, the gamesmanship and the bull***t that preludes and accompanies most custody battles. It happens on both sides - men and women. The way people drag friends and family in to take sides against their spouse, the PR (formal, when it's a high-profile matter, and informal, where people notify their surrounding communities of their private issues). The way people, mostly women - sorry, that's been my experience, ladies - obtain bogus ex parte orders to throw their spouses out of the house and cut off all access to the kids. How child protective service agencies get contacted - again, mostly by the women, in my experience, to bust into homes and grill often-clueless kids about their parents' manner of showing affection. How one or both parents are so fixated on hating the other that they ignore the radioactive damage they're inflicting on their hapless, helpless kids.

So does all this make this "girl" (not so much now, at my age) lawyer a fathers' rights advocate? No. The concept of furthering the rights of one gender over another is an anathema to everything I believe in. I never saw any of my custody cases as a battle between the sexes. To me, it's been a battle between parents - my client (whom I believed in and advocated for as the better, more nurturing parent) and the opposing party - with the ultimate goal of doing the best thing for the kids rather than assuaging the ego of the father or the mother. And if my client - man or woman - was more interested in his/her ego than what was best for the kids, I wouldn't be representing him/her.

THIS Person is a Judge?

Most people don't expect to stand in front of someone in black robes, frowning at them from behind a high dias, issuing orders and judgments that will affect them for the rest of their lives. No, that's for criminals, they think, and criminals usually get what's coming to them. Normal people don't have judges intruding into their lives, pontificating on every move they've made in recent (and even in not-so-recent memory), determining whether to reward, punish or restrict them in the future. Right?

Okay, so you suspect I'm about to talk about divorces and custody wars, where judges become an integral part of a "normal person's" life for a few months, or a few years, and their decisions can wreck havoc on a family for decades.

But what I really want to talk about it...who the hell are these people? The judges who are making these life-changing decisions?

Lawyers get accused all the time of being "in bed" with judges - We are the largest contributors to their election campaigns, which we often run. We appear in front of the same judges over and over, year after year, so we don't want to offend them in one case and have them take it out on us in another. We generally run in the same social circles, or at least the same professional ones. Does any intelligent lawyer want to offend a judge given these circumstances? Of course not.

But that doesn't mean we have to like or even respect all of them. There are those judges - far too few - who were really solid lawyers before they "ascended" to the bench. Smart, intellectually nimble, savvy to the ways of the world, and, most of all, ready, willing and able to do justice- which is what judges are supposed to do, using the law to accomplish that goal. These judges actually wanted to become judges to facilitate justice, and they never, ever grow tired of it. They love the law, they don't burn out.

What about the rest of them? Well, in New York, as in many of other states, our State and local judges are elected. Most voters don't have the slightest clue of who the judicial candidates are come Election Day, other than their party affiliation, when they pull the lever.

Does being a female Democrat translate to being a liberal feminist judge? How about a black Republican male - conservative, law-and-order kind of guy? Nope. All that party affiliation usually means is that was the party where that particular judicial candidate had an opening - a friend willing to push for him/her, favors were owed, there was no one else willing to run on that ticket...You get the idea. Judges appointed by governors and other elected officials? Pretty much the same thing.

If we're lucky, the judge turns out to be intelligent, fair and open-minded. After that, we're looking at the many degrees of indifference, stupidity, dogmatism and rigidity that separate fair to mediocre to downright atrocious judges, not necessariy by bright lines, either.

And so we're stuck swallowing our bile as we call that collection of judicial disgraces "Your Honor." We hope they don't destroy our clients' lives too much, because most people lack the stomach or the money to endure an appeal of a horrific judicial decision. And we hope they will someday be on the receiving end of decisions as atrocious as the ones they're doling out, or be kicked off the bench for some crime or act of egregious misconduct before the next election cycle rolls around.

The Client From Hell

Of course I mean Charlie Sheen, Mr. Tiger's Blood, the Adonis-DNA guy who has evolved way beyond any of us mere mortals...

Who the hell would want to represent this guy? His publicist had the smarts to walk away - far far away. But he still has legal representation. You can always count on somebody willing to be treated like a servant, let the client call the shots, all for the sake of getting a higher profile and some decent legal fees.

I'll leave the corporate guy alone, since he's dealing with fancy things like CBS contracts, and focus on the hapless divorce lawyer: A Class of 1982 Florida law school grad (not an Academy Fellow, what a surprise). Does this lawyer honestly expect to get Charlie in and out of divorce court without getting fired, grievanced, sued, or blasted in the press? Does he expect not to get shafted on his fees? He's either completely spineless, or completely desperate. Or he's willing to tase his client.

In any event, it's a lose-lose for the lawyer. For everybody. Not "win-ningggg," sorry, Charlie.

Charlie just plain doesn't SHUT UP. He's ubiquitous, too. Never mind the content or the style of his presentation. Unless you want to think about how a court will respond to his benevolent public statements about the mother of his two young children. Stuff like,"She's a traitor," "She's banished," and "She's going to live under a bridge somewhere."

Great. How to show you're willing to foment a healthy relationship between the kids (poor things, doomed to be forever screwed up, I fear) and what you hope will be the noncustodial parent. (Not like she's any great shakes, but, geez, Charlie, SHUT UP if you want to WIN.) No one cares that you're being "grandiose," at least no one who's going to be deciding your matrimonial case.

Whew. If Charlie were as "evolved" as he thinks he is, he'd know to sit back and let his drug-addict wife lose the case all by her lonesome. It could be done. Sure, he'd have to show what a good guy he is, by not having a porn star and a weed model taking care of his kids while they're busy taking turns servicing him. Just for starters. And---

Cripes, I could go on and on about what he should do, what he shouldn't do, to position himself in his divorce and custody case but why bother? He's not reading this, he could give a damn anyway, since he's above it all.

And the lunatic lawyer representing him? For God's sake, if you can't/won't shut the guy down, and control his conduct, well, brace yourself for the consequences. All of them. It won't be a pretty sight.

It's so frustrating, watching this case get lost so badly, by an uncontrollable client and a lawyer who can't/won't stem the bloodshed for whatever reason. On the other hand, what a relief I don't have to deal with this crap. What nitwit would, anyway?

Why Bother Being Politically Correct?

Is anyone really pc? I don't know anyone who doesn't let something truly off-color slip every once in awhile, including me.

But I have to say, when it comes to custody battles, I could truly care less which gender the prevailing parent is, as long as the kids have ended up in a good place (as best anyone can see from the facts, of course).

And this is coming from a person who went to all all-girls' school, where feminism was instilled in me as deeply as my love for classic rock and soul music. But the kind of feminism that teaches women to achieve their full potential, and not search for excuses to underperform because of their gender. To feel good about themselves, and comfortable in their own skin, and never accept anything less than equal treatment. To seek fairness for themselves, and for others. To strive for the truth, and not fool themselves with bland, meaningless euphemisms that accomplish nothing.

Not a bad way to live. Takes a lot of energy and will-power, though, which I often lack. Yet another reason to be glad someone invented chocolate, the supreme comforter of the hopelessly inadequate...

A Rant About Temporary Orders of Protection

My latest article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/the-lousiest-family-court_b_826342.html


Let's discuss the bad, no, let's make that the absolute worst, court order in family law cases where kids are involved: The temporary order of protection, more affectionately known as the TOP.

First, a disclaimer: Some TOPs have validity, and some actually work. There are people who seriously need to be protected from abusive or threatening individuals, and are at imminent risk of harm. The resulting TOP will work if the respondent has a lingering remnant of respect for the law, or fear of repercussion -- like arrest or imprisonment -- if s/he violates the order. (Many doubt that a simple piece of paper will dissuade a truly violent person from his/her intended harm.) And the TOP is better yet if the police are quick to enforce it. These are the meritorious orders. Who in their right mind can quarrel with them?

But bogus TOPs are more often the norm, and they hurt everyone.

In meritorious cases, family court judges can become so inured to requests for TOP's that at-risk people may be denied the protection they need, sometimes with horrific consequences. It happens, and not just in big cities, either.

What about the respondent in the completely bogus TOP case? S/he is usually cut off from the kids, suddenly and indefinitely -- with little or no physical, telephone, written or even electronic contact -- while the case gets adjourned ad nauseum, based on allegations s/he never even had a chance to contest in court prior to the issuance of the TOP.

And the kids in these cases? Usually they're confused by the abrupt disappearance of one parent. If they're lucky, they won't get poisoned too much by the petitioner or his/her friends and relatives. Chances are, they will. Therapists, come on and join the gang of total strangers (judges, law guardians, child protective services, forensic evaluators, etc. etc.) now intruding on this family.

Let's not forget the petitioner, who thinks s/he has just scored big-time in the impending custody battle. S/he may not have noticed the damage s/he has just caused his/her family - which no custody award in his/her favor will ever erase. And s/he runs the risk that a very patient respondent -- one who's prepared to ride the waves of mostly negative rulings for a while, and who's hired a good lawyer - will eventually expose the phony claims. If the respondent has a fair amount of facts in his/her favor, s/he may even prove it's the petitioner who's really harming the family. Boom. Custody unexpectedly awarded to the respondent.

And everyone will have nice hefty legal fees for their efforts.

There, now, wasn't that a productive exhibition of hostility?

 

Top Ten "Must Knows" for Divorced Dads

Very nicely put, Joel! If both sides of the equation (i.e., divorced moms as well as dads) paid more than lip service to your top ten list, I think we'd see far fewer claims of parental alienation and far greater numbers of happy kids and parents.



The crucial thread that runs throughout your post is that a non-custodial parent NEVER just 'visits' with his/her child - unless s/he's doing time in jail :
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Thriving, Years after the Custody Battle

Being a lawyer is often frustrating, almost always stressful. And divorce law?  Yikes. I didn't get this Quasimodo look from looking at The Rule Against Perpetuities (something dreadful we studied in law school) for all these years.

But every once in a while, something wonderful happens.  More than finding a case exactly on point, more than constructing a great argument or winning a motion.  Even better than getting a great, and I mean seriously GREAT, result in a case.

No, what I'm talking about is finding out over ten years later (!!) that the people you helped are not just doing okay, but actually thriving.  

I've been feeling pretty happy for the past two days, after running into the siblings of some kids (now young adults) whose lives were dramatically changed for the better after I got an award switching the primary custodial parent over to my client back in the 90's.  The kids had been an absolute mess (socially, educationally, emotionally, you name it) before the change in custody.  And during the case, I know everyone - parents, kids, lawyers - was going through hell.  After the custody order was issued, I knew the kids were a lot better, but still, you never know about those long-term effects....

So now I've discovered they're launching successful careers of their own - way to go, you guys! - with loving family support behind them.  

Yes, custody battles are horrific experiences. But sometimes, after the war is over, the changes made in the children's lives - and they're the ones who really matter, a hell of a lot more than the parental egos of the clients - can be so positive and wonderful that, in the end, it was worth it.

Blame It On The A-a-a-a-a-alcohol

Just thinking about a few examples of life in the loony-bin world of divorce and custody cases:

A father rants on the phone, oblivious to the probability he's being recorded. Telltale white powder rings a mother's nose as she hurls obscenities at strangers, while her kids cringe next to her.  A husband spends tens of thousands of dollars on hookers instead of on his family.  A wife runs off with a lover and expects her kids to welcome her back with open arms after a 30-month absence.  A lawyer doesn't look at the settlement proposal that  her adversary sent six months earlier.  A judge issues contempt orders, over and over and OVER again, for the exact same offense that happened one time last year.

Cripes. What are these people thinking???

Some folks say, blame the lawyers.  Others say, blame the adversarial process.  Still others say, blame the whole legal system.  There's plenty of blame to go around. Like blame solves anything, right?

I say, there comes a point when I've just gotta go with Jamie Foxx and T-Pain: Blame it on the vodka, the Henny, the blue top, and the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol.


I can't wait for tomorrow's headlines (sigh).

Are there winners in custody cases?

The usual answer is "no".

Kids get so twisted up inside - pressure from both parents, pressure from other family members, pressures they face outside of the custody case (medical, psychiatric, school/learning, social issues, sex, drugs, etc.).   They act out, they get sick, their existing problems get worse.  Tons of studies discuss how the stress impacts kids for the rest of their lives.

Parents?  They have their lives swabbed  all over a gigantic microscope slide.  Pretty unpleasant.  I mean, who doesn't have something negative in their past or present?  And on top of the emotional and financial stress, they get to have their heads shrunk repeatedly, not just by their therapists, but by forensic mental health professionals for use in court.  Yeah, not fun.

Whatever the results, everyone's too burned out and too broke to do much except collapse after their cases end.

But let's look at this from another angle.  The earlier, more traditional - now passe - view.  Maybe there are winners.  Not all the time, but sometimes.

Like in the documented child abuse and neglect cases, of course.   Saving those kids from years of torment, well, that's a win for sure.  No argument there.

Then there are the "shades of misery" cases, where, as a lawyer for the kids in one of my cases put it a long time ago, being with one parent was like living in black-and-white while being with the other was like living in technicolor.  I'd say the vast majority of cases fall in this compartment. Tough to prove, but when the facts are finally pointing clearly in one direction and the kids end up with the technicolor parent), isn't that a "win"?

Now we get to the noisy, celebrity-choked gray zone of parental alienation claims.  Experts pop up everywhere on this one, from the solid  mental health pros who've been studying (and testifying about) this stuff for years, to the pissed-off parents whose latest  rants are making the circuit on the Internet.   Who knows who's really the alienator?  Okay, sometimes the answer's kinda obvious.  Not as often as you might  think, though. Sometimes it boils down to: Who's kept the voice mails?  Who retrieved the deleted parts of the hard drive?  Who's got the most damaging text message records?

But assuming one's worse than the other - and someone usually is far worse (seriously, is any warring parent totally innocent?) - the facts will eventually be revealed.  Hopefully, during the case.  And then, isn't getting the kids away from the mega-toxic parent a good thing?  A "win"?