Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Be Assertive, Not Aggressive: Winning in Family Court with Judge Bruce Cohen (ret.)

Transcript

Be Assertive, Not Aggressive: Winning in Family Court with Judge Bruce Cohen (ret.) · It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People

• Speaker 1 (00:05): Welcome to, it's All Your Fault On True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and handle challenging human interactions, especially those involving high conflict and maybe someone with high conflict personality. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my co-host, bill Eddie. Speaker 2 (00:24): Hi everybody. Speaker 1 (00:25): We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute where we focus on training, consulting, coaching, and lots of programs and methods for everyone when it has to do with high conflict. Now today we are very happy and fortunate to be joined by Judge Bruce Cohen, who is on our team now at HCI and has been here a couple of months, and so we're very, very grateful today. Bruce, thank you for being with us. Speaker 3 (00:55): Oh, I'm thrilled to be with you. Good to see you again. Good to see you. Speaker 1 (00:59): Yeah. So we're going to talk about assertiveness versus aggressiveness in high conflict situations and particularly today when it comes to family courts and probably custody litigation would be the most likely place we're going to see aggressiveness, but we may see it in other places as well. So we're going to talk about Bill, your book splitting, protecting Yourself while divorcing someone with borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. But before we get into that, I thought it would be great to ask each of you what aggressiveness an aggressive approach in a family court case looks like from the bench for you as a judge. Bruce, having been on the family court bench for 20 plus years at a family law attorney for more than 20 years, and then Bill from your perspective, from many perspectives actually as a social worker, as a lawyer representing litigants in high conflict cases and then as a mediator and of course as an expert in high conflict. So Bruce, judge Cohen, let's start with you. What's aggressiveness in family court look like from the bench? Speaker 3 (02:05): I think the first part is to recognize what aggressiveness and assertiveness have in common, and then we can better understand the differences in both situations, whether somebody is being aggressive or an aggressive style or an assertive style, it involves the expressing of thoughts, feelings, and needs. And the difference is that assertiveness expresses it in a direct and respectful manner where aggressiveness does the same thing, but it expresses it in a confrontational type of approach in one filled with blame. I'll give you an example that would distinguish the two. If somebody was being assertive in a family court, they might express, judge, I am overwhelmed because I feel like I am responsible for a disproportionate amount of the work that needs to be done in raising these children. In an aggressive style, it would be I'm overworked or overburdened because the other parent is failing in their responsibilities. Speaker 3 (03:25): They're both very direct styles and there's a place for being very direct and clear, but one is filled with blame and attacking and doesn't show respect not only for the other party's position, but respect for their own views because it's all about the blame and not about both the rights or entitlement of the person, but also their responsibilities. Now, all that may seem like just a stylistic difference. It's a profound difference when portrayed in the courtroom. One is filled with blame and the other is filled with, these are the needs that need to be addressed. Speaker 1 (04:04): So as a judge, does it impact you? Speaker 3 (04:08): Well, the blame game is very big in an adversarial process such as litigation, I'm entitled, and the other spouse or the other parent is responsible, that then starts to permeate into every aspect of that person's presentation, that very aggressive style. It comes across as very little accountability and it comes across as more of assignment of blame than it does about addressing future needs. So again, it's stylistic, but it comes across on many measures where an assertive style is we have these obligations as parents, we need to address these. Here's how I think we can address these needs of our children. It's a very different atmosphere that it creates and one that allows the judge to be more of a participant in the problem solving going forward than in assigning blame for how people got to where they are. Again, it comes across as stylistic, but it's impact far greater. Speaker 1 (05:20): Oh, definitely. So Bill, how about your perspective as an attorney, as a mediator and just your perspective in general? Speaker 2 (05:28): You think of the three approaches, aggressive, assertive, and passive. And when I wrote the book splitting, I basically throughout the book said, you need to use an assertive approach. And I talked about the aggressive approach being built around trying to destroy the other party versus the assertive approach is presenting information and the passive approach is allowing yourself to be harmed without responding. So the aggressive approach over the top, and I would agree with Judge Cohen that the blame is a key part of the aggressive approach and in many ways they make it about the person and with that they make it highly emotional Speaker 1 (06:22): Like she's so stupid or he's so stupid, or I'm smarter Speaker 2 (06:27): Close to that, maybe not quite use those terms, but they they're aiming for that. They want you to get that that's the case. Or they'll say, well, the boys told me that she's stupid. And so things like that indirect and it feels manipulative, but it's that blame versus information about a particular behavior or there may be a pattern of behavior. One thing I always encourage my clients to say, or if there's a declaration in different states called an affidavit or in California a declaration that says the person may or may not be doing this intentionally, but this is the impact on the child so that you're kind of giving, not making it, this is a bad parent, but this is a bad behavior. So that's the aggressive versus assertiveness. But I want to make sure I get in for the passive part because that is another part of these high conflict cases, the people that just are silent in the face of false allegations. Speaker 2 (07:36): And in the book, the splitting book, I have an example of a woman going through whose husband was physically abusive and of a man going through whose ex-wife is making false allegations of child abuse against him. I give examples at different moments in the case how people need to speak up and provide information, all the judge has to go by. One of the things I want to mention here is a lot of people have the belief that the judge is going to investigate the case and ask all those questions that need to be asked to understand what's really going on. It took me a year or two to realize in the United States civil court system, the judge resolves from the stories the judge hears. The judge doesn't investigate. But in some countries in Europe, and I think the Napoleonic code, I think France or something uses this where the judge actually is investigating a case and parents and custody disputes need to understand the burdens on them to get information to the court. Speaker 2 (08:54): And if they don't have a lawyer, they need to do that. And if they do have a lawyer, they need to help their lawyer do that. So the passive approach doesn't work well, the aggressive approach doesn't work well because in some ways if you're too loud and aggressive, it looks like you're the difficult person. I have people I want to just hammer the other side, they said a false thing about me. And I'll say, yeah, you hammer the other side and it's going to look like that thing is true about you. So I think of assertiveness as calmly and reasonably presenting information so the court can make decisions rather than coming across, you're trying to demolish the other side. So I would agree. Speaker 1 (09:42): So that would be whether it's information about the past or about the future, Speaker 2 (09:46): Often it's information about patterns of behavior that have happened in the past so that the request I'm making should happen, like parenting behavior, not showing up to pick up the child. A person asked for 50 50 schedule, but they had a 60 40 schedule and didn't fulfill their 40%, so why should we go now to 50%? And I've had that in several cases. People don't realize that their history is a part of making the decisions about the future. Speaker 1 (10:19): Bruce, was that your experience on the bench? Speaker 3 (10:21): Yeah, there's an interesting paradox that people who are difficult to deal with often learn a skillset of how to portray themselves different than they would in their day-to-day behavior. So they come into court and come across as the voice of reason, and in doing so know that it actually triggers the other person and the other person then comes across out of frustration or out of the wrong image that's being created. They decide they're going to reveal the truth about this manipulative person who is now coming across as if they are collaborative and cooperative in their approach. And then they, as Bill correctly pointed out to the one who's actually more reasonable. So the key to this whole thing is to recognize that one of the things the judge is looking for, particularly in a custody related issue is how receptive is a parent going to be to work cooperatively with the other parent in raising these children? Speaker 3 (11:32): Because maintaining relationships are critical. A cooperative work environment is working environment for the parents is generally consistent with a child's best interest, et cetera. So when you have one parent who is being aggressive and therefore attacking, blaming shirking, that doesn't play well in my assessment down the road in trying to see which parent is going to work more cooperatively, where an assertive style says the children need both of us to show up on time for parenting exchanges, that's a factual statement. It's clear it states the views rather than, and it's all his or her fault because they're never on time. So I think that recognizing what some of the factors a judge is looking at in assessing it is critical and that cooperative tone is there. So if you come across either as very aggressive or very passive, you're going against this notion of ever being amenable to working cooperatively. Speaker 1 (12:41): We all understand that there's a lot of cases that go past you, every family court judge, and it's very busy. And I suppose the time spent with each case is pretty limited. Does it take very long to ascertain what's going on or does it take maybe two or three hearings to really see what's happening? Speaker 3 (13:03): It really varies. There are some people that you can just tell are pushing the buttons of the other person, and it doesn't take long to realize that some of that is based on how measured the response is. So somebody who over responds to let's say passive aggressive behavior, if somebody who normally is very uncooperative but suddenly shows up in court and is the total bastion of cooperation, if the normally cooperative parent overreacts that and says that's not who he or she normally is, he or she is normally impossible, this is the most cooperative they've ever come across. They may be telling exactly what the truth is, but how do you figure that out? And the more measured that is, judge, I appreciate that. Look how cooperative he just sounded just then. In fact, I wish that's the way he always behaved because if he always or she always behaved that way, we probably wouldn't be here. Speaker 3 (14:07): Now the normal behavior that you don't get to see is X, Y, Z. That's a measured response. It's direct, it's explaining it and it's expressing the experience I normally have, whereas, oh my God, he's lying to you, judge, this is such a fake, the very attacking approach, you don't know whether this is just an overreaction or whether it's the person who's normally cooperative is actually the problem person. So you have to be measured in the way you express the oppositional part. Again, it's style, but it's style that affects how the substance is received by the listener. And as a judge, I'm the listener, I'm the audience, and you want to make sure that I hear it as accurately as possible. Speaker 1 (14:55): So Bill, let's switch back to your book, the splitting book. The title itself, the subtitle includes the terms borderline and narcissist, and we know that this can cause a lot of mayhem, I guess, when people start throwing the terms around and thinking they can diagnose people. So let's talk about that in terms of assertiveness and aggressiveness and do you recommend using those terms in family court? And Speaker 2 (15:22): I don't recommend using those terms in family court, and I'm sure Judge Colum will agree with me because it's a judgmental term in many settings. I wrote the book because it's an informational term to understand what may be happening in somebody's case, but they shouldn't be presenting that to the court unless in the rare occasion there's been a psychological evaluation and a determination that someone has borderline personality disorder. And that's part of what the court wanted to know. And I've had cases where the judge said, I want this person assessed for borderline personality disorder. So in that case, that information of course can come out, but that's, I don't know, 2% of cases in most cases. I want to help people understand the dynamics they're dealing with. And if they have a co-parent who shows signs of one or the other, these personality disorders is what they should look at is the patterns of behavior to understand this is a set of behaviors that actually is familiar and maybe present in a few percent of people. Speaker 2 (16:40): So it's to help a client understand what they're going through, understand the potential rollercoaster of the case. But in terms of presenting information to the court, when I say the assertive approach, I say provide information and keep providing important information like say, picking up the child and that they rarely follow through with the existing court orders. That would be information rather than saying he's a jerk or she's a jerk and irresponsible. And to me, that's part of the aggressive approach to use labels like irresponsible rather than here's the behavior, here's the 17 days late and here's the six days missed altogether. That's the information. That's the assertive approach to me is you really a source of information, but you've got to produce your information otherwise you're taking a passive approach. So for example, with borderline personality, one of the common traits is wide mood swings and loss of emotional control or uncontrollable anger. Speaker 2 (17:55): And I may have a client saying, this happened and this happened that children were scared, she threw things against the wall or he hit the mother in front of the child. This is important information. So I say, talk about say the three or four most concerning patterns of behavior rather than, oh, she has a borderline personality disorder and should not ever be alone with the child. Which there's such a range, like a borderline personality. Some people have traits but not a disorder. Some it's very severe and others it isn't. And I've worked with clients who actually came in and were diagnosed with a personality disorder and there's a wide range of how responsive they are, and some people outgrow the disorder, so it doesn't really provide useful information to the court anyway, but it sounds judgmental. So what's important is provide information about these patterns of behavior that might not change unless there's strong court orders. That's what I encourage people to do. Speaker 1 (19:09): So Judge Cohen from the bench, all your years in that role, and I know all of them weren't on family court, but what was your experience with hearing from parents who blamed or accused the other of having a personality disorder, either borderline or narcissistic or high conflict personality, and what effect does that have on the judge or on the case? Speaker 3 (19:32): Well, that's a great question. The first part is all of us have aspects to our behaviors that could fit into a definition of a personality disorder. If you respond out of fear to something and overreact because it has evoked a sense of fear, is that something you see with a borderline personality? Yes. But you also see it in people that don't have a personality disorder. So what happens is somebody gains a little bit of knowledge about disorders, sees elements of that in someone else, and then diagnoses them. Oh, he's narcissistic because it's all about him. And that may be true, but it also may not rise to that level. We all have a little bit of what could be self-confidence, could be confused with narcissism, self-promoting could be confused with it. Some people who are good salespeople are very good at self-promotion, but that doesn't make them narcissists, although they show features of that. Speaker 3 (20:42): So what's really important is not to come in with the label because if I say I have a case, I'm the parent against you, Megan, as the other parent, and I say to Bill as our judge, well, Megan has a narcissistic personality disorder because it's all about her. If heaven forbid the kids ever challenge her views on things, they'll be held to pay for that for the kids. I'm telling Bill my conclusions about you, but if I say, what worries me about Megan is we have kids that we've raised to be very independent in the thinking and we've encouraged them to challenge the status quo, but when they do that with their mother, there's dire consequences. She does not handle questioning her authority or them questioning her views on things she has to be told constantly. She's the best mother in the world. I've now not used the word narcissism in my second example, but I've done a good job at starting to paint the picture, the title, the label doesn't matter as much as the features do. Parents sometimes think if I throw out the word narcissist, I'll win the case. And it's quite the contrary. Tell me what you're seeing and it doesn't matter what we call it. These are the needs of the children need tores, the shortcomings and strengths of each parent. Speaker 1 (22:06): So the features I guess as you describe it, is I guess what we call the patterns, right? The patterns of behavior bill. Speaker 2 (22:16): Yeah. Yeah. I think that's what I encourage people to present. And it's exactly that kind of information. What happens, child does this, parent reacts, yells, throws something across the room, slaps the child, whatever. That's the information that I say the court wants to have. The main thing that I want to communicate if I believe someone has a personality disorder on the other side, of course, is that they're unlikely to change. To me, that's one of the most important things. And when I have opportunities to speak to judges and do teaching of judges, as I say, that's one of the things important to know, that the whole definition of a personality disorder is an enduring pattern of behavior. And yet the way to communicate that to the court is explain the pattern of behavior and how long it's been going. And so that's what I suggest. Speaker 2 (23:18): And I ask clients, I say, you tell me he hit you. How long has he been hitting you? Oh, well one woman, she came in after 26 years of marriage and I said, and she said, it's terrible marriage. I said, for how long? She said For 25 years. So it was like one good year and 25 years not well, what was the behavior? When did it start? What did it look like? What's the ongoing pattern? And in that case, there weren't minor children. But in cases where there are, let's say you've got a six year pattern of abusive behavior, then there's a good chance that's going to continue. And so you want strong court orders, but the way to ask for that is to say, this has been happening for the past six years and this year such and such happened and this year such and such happened. And then we had the police call that year and this and this. Now you get a real picture of that, it's not going to change. And I say to people, if they're representing themselves, if you've got a pattern like that point out to the court that it's unlikely this person will change because in six years you haven't seen it change, even though you've complained about it. Bill raises a great point there Speaker 3 (24:38): About how do you present that in the courtroom? Suppose for a minute that I'll play the role of mother for a moment. And she says, when we were seriously dating and became engaged, when I would be with him and his family, I noticed how much he overreacted to any input from his mom and overreacted in often a combative and explosive fashion. And I would question him about that, that wait a minute, all your mom did is make a suggestion and you flew off the handle. And he explained that there was a long history in their relationship and that I wasn't seeing the underlying history, and I accepted that until we got married. And I noticed a transference that when I would make suggestions, I got similar reactions. So I thought, well, maybe he's still playing those old tapes. I'm not his mother, I need to work with him. Speaker 3 (25:40): But after 20 years, I've just become the substitute for his mother. And the bottom line that I've come to realize is I saw it with his mom, I saw it with me and I've also seen it, his employment, anytime he gets criticized, there seems to be this pattern of overreaction and striking back. Now what I've done through merely telling a story is I have portrayed exactly what Bill said to be the definition of a certain type of behavior and an indication that it's not likely to change. I've given the patterns how it came up, but I haven't labeled it. And I will tell you as the judge, I'm going to be more influenced by that presentation than it would be if mom said he's got a borderline personality. When you challenge him, he will react explosively. That's Speaker 2 (26:33): The facts or features or patterns. Speaker 1 (26:36): And wouldn't you be so happy to have every case? Well, I guess if people were that cooperative, they probably wouldn't be in court asking you to make all the decisions for them, but it would be really nice if there was that kind of pattern or that information presented. Quick question as sort of a sideline judge is, do you see this equally in self-represented cases as you do in cases that have representation by an attorney or is there a difference? Speaker 3 (27:05): There probably is not a difference, but people are, this is going to be very generalized statement and may not be statistically accurate, but my visceral reaction to the question is people feel a little more empowered when they're represented by counsel. There's so many things that impact somebody not represented by counsel, including not understanding how the case progresses, when to answer things when not to, and that often causes an appearance of paralysis where somebody doesn't even know what to say or when to say it, but when they have counsel, when they're asked a question, they just unload. They feel they have the freedom to. So I don't know how much of that is just influenced by the intimidation of the process versus the personalities, but if you control for that, you have people of all makeups that represent themselves, people of all makeups who are represented by council. So there isn't going to be a self-selection among the population of people who are narcissistic tend to represent themselves. I don't believe that's the case. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But there are people who want their day in court and when they're represented by counsel, their marching orders to their lawyers are, I want to go in court and tell my story and then they feel unleashed when they do. Oh, Speaker 1 (28:36): Wonderful day for a judge. So Bill, you have a course on our website called Writing for court, and it's to help people kind of understand how to write for court if you have to go to court in a high conflict case. What are some of those tips that you have in there? Speaker 2 (28:56): And I'm really looking forward to hearing Judge Cohen's response. I wrote this and gave my webinar without checking with any judges if they agreed, so I'm going to keep my fingers crossed. Speaker 1 (29:09): Today's your day. Speaker 2 (29:12): Yeah, so I actually put into the course, it's a one hour PowerPoint slides with a demonstration example, 10 tips, and the first is right up front ask for what you want. And I actually was taught that by a judge years ago. I think in law school. One of the things they said is people tell their story, but they don't tell what they're asking for. And so the judge doesn't know what decision do I need to make? And so ask for what you want upfront right away. So if you're writing a declaration or affidavit, you want that on the first page, maybe the third sentence, Speaker 1 (29:52): A i A Judge Cohen nodding yes. Is that a thumbs up? Speaker 2 (29:55): Absolutely. Yeah, Speaker 3 (29:57): Absolutely. And I can comment further, but go ahead. Speaker 2 (29:59): Okay, so the second thing is introduce your whole document in a sentence or two. And so this document follows the theme, the message I say, which has three or four themes that show what your concerns are to support what you're asking for. So don't do four pages on the first, then four pages on the second and four pages on the third. Have a couple sentences that say what all your themes are. This is what I'm going to explain. This is why because of this, this, and this. Then go into your three theories of the case or concerns and with them have a bold so it stands out so the judge can see this is what the person's explaining here. And then the next page or next page has the next heading because the headings are often what you remember, Speaker 1 (31:00): Just like a book, Speaker 2 (31:01): Very much like a book. And I remember in court early on when I started learning to do this that the judge would say, well, isn't this a case of the father undermining the mother's parenting? That was the heading of a section and that the judge got it and got the examples of that. And by the way, everything could be the father, the mother, all of this stuff is not gender related. I'm really convinced after 30 years as a lawyer, so I talk about focusing on these themes using the headings, and then use evidence and information example on this date, such and such happened. Maybe you're asking for supervised contact because the other parent was physically abusive or was yelling and screaming and the child was really frightened and crying or not showing up or whatever it is. But if there's the parenting cases, custody or major contact issues are usually in court because there's a concern about one or both parents. Speaker 2 (32:15): And so if somebody like my client has a concern, the other parent is say, asking for 50 50 parenting time and they haven't handled their time well or they may be abusive in some form, and that's really not a good plan, then you need to explain what your concerns are. But rather like Judge Cohen was saying, rather than pointing fingers and blaming is saying, these are my concerns and this is why I'm asking for what I want. So evidence, information, and one thing I say is put your most extreme examples of your concerns upfront. So you might have a heading undermining dad's parenting or father's parenting, and you have the three strongest examples of when things were done. So that the strongest example first, the second strongest example second and the third strongest example. Third, not all 20 examples, but also so many family court declarations, affidavits, et cetera, tell the chronological story. And around page 10, there's a really important issue or event. Well, you want that upfront, don't wait because right then that's why I tell people, and I may be wrong on this and no implications here, but I say by page 10, the judge is ordering lunch in his mind it's 1130 and they're reading, Speaker 1 (33:56): Okay, judge Cohen, is this true? Speaker 2 (33:58): I skipped lunch. Oh, there you go. Okay. But anyway, put it up front. Put under each of your biggest concerning your most concerning heading, your second most, and then under that, the most concerning behaviors because when you find out, like say a domestic violence example, so you get to page 10 and find out that the father was strangling the mother in front of the children and then stopped. Well, strangulation is one of the biggest indicators of potential spousal murder. So yeah, so someone was slapped, someone was yelled at, and on page 10 they were strangled. It's like, I want to know that right away. I want you to present. That kind of information is really essential, and a lot of domestic violence victims, survivors don't know what's important and what's not important, and so that's what comes out. But I also want to say other cases like alienation cases where someone yelled in front of the kids, we don't need you anymore, go away. Speaker 2 (35:09): They don't need a father. A mother's good enough. That's all they need. This kind of stuff needs to be upfront. So that's what I'm saying, respond to false or misleading statements about yourself. Tell the story from your point of view of what's going on, and this is important is a lot of the more passive people will say, well, the judge will figure out that this isn't true. Well, no, the judge doesn't remember how long did you know this person before you found out they were lying to you? The judge has got like 20 minutes or half an hour, you had a year before you figured this out. So you've got to present your story. What is your story? And here's an interesting example and then I'll shut up. But an interesting example, and I had a case like this a little while ago where there was domestic violence from the father and the mother was accused of alienating the child. Speaker 2 (36:15): The child was afraid to go see dad. The information really persuaded me, this is a domestic violence case, but because of the allegation that it was parental alienation and that mom had done this and this and this, which weren't accurate, is the mom is defending herself. I didn't do that. I'm doing this. I didn't do that and never putting out the story that, but actually the girl has seen the father trying to strangle me. That's where the passive approach is harmful. Also, it doesn't get that important information out, so you can't just defend against what the other side's saying, you need to say what you see is really going on. Then the judge has two stories to figure out rather than one, because if you defend against alienation, in that case, the story that still is writing is that it's an alienation case and you got to say, no, it's not. That's not what's happening if that's not what's happening and with a strong conclusion of why what you want is important, and the thing about this is a pattern of behavior, so it's not going to stop on its own and then have a lawyer or someone else review it just to be safe. Speaker 1 (37:35): Well, that's a pretty good list Bill, judge Cohen, any thoughts on any of those points? Speaker 3 (37:40): First of all, I give you an a plus bill. If we think about a well-written or well-conceived mystery, if I were writing a novel that was a mystery novel, all of the evidence of what the solution to the mystery is within that novel, but it's presented in a way that keeps somebody guessing and then at the end it's revealed. If you left out those facts during the telling of the story, the ending becomes implausible. But if the facts were there but you just didn't know how they fit together, suddenly at the end you go, it's mind boggling. That's the solution. Well, a trial is not supposed to be a mystery. It's supposed to be persuasive and therefore for me to be guessing, as I'm hearing you present your case, which of this evidence is important For what reasons? I'm constantly weighing and balancing not understanding the context of these pieces of information. Speaker 3 (38:50): If you start off by telling the solution to the mystery, which you would never do if writing a mystery novel, but you should do in a trial over custody, I should get X for this reason. Then as you present the facts, I understand why those facts are important because I know where you're going with them. And so it's so critical to start off with what you want and why are you entitled to that? If I know that, then everything I read or hear after that either fits or doesn't fit into the narrative you are trying to get me to accept as the truth. The other part to it is to be able to say, a lot of times people say, I won't dignify that with an answer, which is not quite a passive response. If you claim that I'm just an habitual liar and a passive approach would be not to even address it or it might be to say I won't even dignify that with an answer. Speaker 3 (40:01): Okay? That is one way we deal with things in some settings, but now as the judge, I'm wondering, are you a liar? So if you say, you know what? I hate to even dignify that with an answer, but I can tell you that there's a pattern or behavior that anytime he gets caught in somebody seeing things different than him, his default move is to call them wrong or a liar or ignorant. I can give you an example, and then you come with your strongest example in the history of your existence in dealing with that person and say, this is an example. One time a teacher did this and this what he claimed the teacher had done that is similar. And then you say, I have numerous other examples, but I think that illustrates my point and I don't want to take up all my time dealing with his made up accusations. Speaker 3 (40:52): So I hope the example makes my point. And then you move on. You've now unwound the impact of his point. You've given a strong example, you've expressed it in clear terms and you haven't fallen victim to now your whole case is responding to their nonsense rather than making your important points. So your point about starting off with key examples, the most impactful or important, I always say the only time to present things in the chronology in which they happen is when the judge's decision needs to determine what happened first, second, and third. But a judge never has to know whether domestic violence happened before child abuse versus some other issue, let's say, of being neglectful of a child. What would be key is to say he is abusive and neglectful, and I have examples. Here's some examples of him being abusive. You give the two strongest and say, I have 10 others listed here if you're interested, but I think I've made my point. Here's examples of him being neglectful. Here's two examples. I have others as well. If judge, you're interested in hearing them now you've made the point, you've bolstered it with evidence and you've let the judge know you have more examples. If the judge is unsure, I love it. Speaker 1 (42:13): Yeah, exactly. So if you're in law school, you should listen to this and take notes. Maybe listen to it more than once. But guys, I've just figured out maybe a potential book title here is Family Court should Not Be a Mystery for the Judge. Good ones. Speaker 3 (42:29): I'm going to get working on that right now. Speaker 1 (42:34): Alright, well, this has been really fascinating and I've tried to keep my conversation to minimum because it's really wonderful listening to both of you talk about these really important topics that are so important to parents and to the professionals who help them. Speaker 2 (42:49): I want to make one more quick comment here, and I gave a domestic violence example where someone said it's parental alienation was really domestic violence. I want to also say that that sometimes happens the other way around someone's accused of domestic violence when it really is parental alienation. But the key I want to say here is the term parental alienation is a little bit like personality disorders and people don't necessarily want to hear that term or see that as winning. So again, you explain the behaviors, so you explain this alienating behavior or just undermining behavior, taking the kids to the ball game when it was my day for parenting, that's an alienating behavior, but you don't have to say that. You can say she took the kids to the ball game and it was my day and I had other plans. So again, specifics are really what matter. I think that's a really Speaker 3 (43:48): Important point, bill, is to get away from the terms. So if he constantly speaks poorly about my intelligence in front of the kids is a far better way of expressing it than saying he is alienating the children from me. You describe the behavior and that description then leads to a conclusion. Don't provide the judge with conclusions. Provide the judge with the information that paints the picture of what the conclusion should be. Thank you. Speaker 1 (44:22): And there's probably another book title in there I'm thinking. So with that, we'll wrap this up and thank you both for really a very helpful conversation and listeners, we appreciate your time listening to our podcast. And if you have questions, let us know at podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or you can submit them to high conflict institute dot coms slash podcast. Next week. We're going to be talking about how to handle it when you kind of figure out that a loved one or good friend has this pattern of behavior of high conflict and it suddenly dawns on you. I've been talking to a lot of parents recently who are in this position and they realize that they're maybe adult child has this pattern and it can be quite devastating. So we'll chat about that. Until next time, keep learning, keep practicing the skills and be kind to yourself and others while we try to keep the conflict small and find the missing piece. It's All Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins and Ziv Moran. Find the show notes and transcripts at True Story fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.