Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Worth Repeating: A Retired Judge's Playbook for Family Court Success
Transcript
- 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 deal with the most challenging human interactions, those involving high conflict situation and the personalities that are involved. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my co-host, bill Eddie. Speaker 2 (00:24): Hi everybody. Speaker 1 (00:25): And a special guest who I'll be introducing shortly. We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute now in Scottsdale, Arizona, formerly in San Diego, California, where we focus on training, consulting, coaching classes, and educational programs and methods. All to do with high conflict. Before we start, send your questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or through our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast where you'll also find all the show notes and the links. I'm just really pleased to welcome Judge Cohen to the episode today, to the podcast. But beyond that, we have a big announcement to make, which is that Judge Cohen has officially joined us here at High Conflict Institute as one of our high conflict experts and basically conflict and court experts and genuinely very kind and nice human being. So I'm not going to go through the whole bio, but I would like you Judge Cohen, if you wouldn't mind just kind of giving your background and what got you here today, which is basically your first day working with us, Speaker 3 (01:41): Right? It is. It is. Well, it's a thrill to be. Megan and I have known each other for about 20 years, a little more than 20 years, and I have been a big fan of and admirer of what you and Bill have done in this field from the perspective of a judicial officer and also someone who's dedicated my career to family law issues. And it came time for me to retire from the bench and I had the opportunity to reconnect with you and Bill, and I'm really thrilled to be here. Speaker 1 (02:21): We're absolutely thrilled Speaker 2 (02:23): And Speaker 3 (02:23): Welcome, Speaker 2 (02:24): Welcome from all of us. We're very happy. Speaker 1 (02:27): Absolutely. Yeah, it's just a genuine pleasure. I will tell the story that I've told several people over the years. Number one, I would not be here if it weren't for Judge Cohen. Honestly, it makes me cud of emotional because it's going way back to it. Time when I was pretty insecure in what I was doing, didn't really understand what I was doing. So the background was that I was hired, hopefully no one from the Arizona Administrative Office of the courts is listening to this. When I say that I didn't know what I was doing when they hired me, but I wasn't used to doing policy and legislative work, and it was quite a big job. And one of my first roles in that position was to lead the review and revision of Arizona's child support guidelines per federal law. Now, I wasn't a lawyer, I wasn't an economist. Speaker 1 (03:25): I had a business degree with an economics minor, but this was pretty big stuff Right away they said, you need to start training the judges and lawyers across Arizona about child support guidelines. I honestly didn't know what I was talking about most of the time, and I kind of would have a prepared speech and I would stand in front of these groups of very skilled and experienced people and teach them about something that they knew more about than I did. So there was this one guy that was usually on a committee and he was going to be speaking on the same stage at the same event. And after I would finish speaking, he would say, Megan, that was so great. You did such a great job. And I believed him Speaker 3 (04:11): Sort Speaker 1 (04:12): Of, Speaker 3 (04:12): It was true. And Speaker 1 (04:15): That was very encouraging for me in a time that I needed that encouragement. So he knows how I feel about him and that I'm just absolutely, absolutely thrilled that he's come to work with us and share his wisdom with the world, truly because it is wisdom that needs to be shared. Speaker 3 (04:32): So can I go ahead and tell what really happened? Speaker 2 (04:36): Oh, I want to hear this Speaker 3 (04:38): Is what really happened is I was on one of the members of the Child Support Guidelines committee and I was involved for decades in that project, and along comes Megan and I met her and thought, oh my God, what a dynamic engaging individual. And then when I worked with you and watched the way your mind thinks, watch the way you bring information together, and that you had the ability to present something quite complicated and made it sound much easier than what it was, I thought this is somebody special. So while Megan has been more than charitable in giving me credit, the fact is I saw what all of you have probably gotten to know, which is that you are truly an extraordinary professional and an incredible resource in anything you undertake. Ah, Speaker 1 (05:36): Thank you. Speaker 3 (05:37): So that's the true story. Speaker 1 (05:38): I'm blushing. I'm blushing for those people listening. Speaker 3 (05:41): So all of you have joined us basically to hear me talk about how incredible Megan is and her to share some nice stories back, but that's not why you're here. Speaker 1 (05:51): Well, I appreciate that, very kind. And there's a couple of you that were very instrumental along my path and one is you and one is Bill. So it's exciting to have you both here. So let's get down to business. Let's talk about high conflict and thank you listeners for sending in questions because we have a lot of questions and we're kind of sorting through them to see what we're going to tackle this year. Today though, we'd like to get you to know Bruce A. Little bit better. I called it Bruce, it's Judge Cohen. We just want to look at sort of that big picture as you started as a family law attorney. So that was what, 24 years or so, right? Leading your own practice and helping clients. And Bruce had this Judge Cohen, oh, this is going to be hard, just has this special unique quality of connecting with clients, connecting with other attorneys, connecting with judges, with psychologists, with all humans that he interacted with. Speaker 1 (06:52): I think everyone who knows him could say that has been one of the biggest gifts that he brings to this practice and to the bench was the ability to connect with people. And that's really core in human interactions and building trust in a relationship, especially in a court system where someone's coming in where that might be intimidated or just to be there in the first place and then to have their point of view, their position. Am I going to be heard? Is the judge a big bad guy? I don't know what to expect. And to come into a courtroom where you have someone actually see you as a human being and know that you are probably nervous, maybe mistrustful, those kinds of things. So how did it happen for you? How did you come into the courtroom knowing to whatever level at the beginning that you needed to do that with people so that they would feel comfortable? Speaker 3 (07:55): Well, it's been an evolution, I have to say. And I spent 24 years practicing family law and just short of 20 years being a judge in the Superior Court. And of those almost 20 years, 11 of them have been in the family law arena. And so much of what I would say upon reflection now is an accumulation of observations, experiences, and also reflection. So I will tell you two things. I'll tell you first the Bonnie story. Okay, so here's the crux of it. Bonnie was a dear friend of my wife. This is early in our marriage. This goes back to the early 1980s. She worked for an airline and her responsibility was to do what really was the last interview of a candidate to become a flight attendant. So if you got to meet with Bonnie, it was a big deal in your life, not right, that's what you were applying for. Speaker 3 (09:01): Bonnie would fly from city to city, meet with a group of people, go back to headquarters and report back, and then hiring decisions were made. Bonnie flew in town and because my wife and she were friends from college, she came in a day early and hung out with us. We went out for dinner and she complained about the number of interviews that she had scheduled over the next two days. I have 12 tomorrow and 10 the next day, then I have to fly to Miami, et cetera. Really contrary to my normal personality and poor approach, I said to her, have you thought about what those people are thinking about now? She said, what do you mean? And I said, well, you're sitting here complaining about the sheer volume of what you're about to encounter. What are they thinking right now? And I then speculated, they're probably thinking tomorrow I meet Bonnie, will Bonnie be interested in me? What should I wear? How should I express the things I want to express? And things of that nature. And she thought about and said, that's interesting. And the conversation moved on. It was kind of bold. It was calling her out on something when it's not my way of doing things. Speaker 3 (10:16): Six months later, Bonnie comes back in town, similar type thing, and she said to me at dinner again before some interview, she said, do you remember what she told me? And I said, well, yeah, I thought she was probably angry with me for being that direct. And she said, I had not forgotten that. And she said, now every time somebody comes in for an interview, I think to myself, what were those people thinking either on their way here or last night? By doing that, it required me to be present because I had to now, even though I still had 12 people to interview that person in front of me, I was focused on them. She said, my interviews haven't taken any longer, but they're better. I am engaged. So now let's fast forward 20 years. I now get appointed to the bench as a judge. Speaker 3 (11:07): And in my first week I look at the calendar one day and I have like 20 hearings set every 15 minutes apart and thought to myself, oh my God, 20 hearings, how are going to get through all this? And then kept me. I said, you are a hypocrite. Because 20 years ago when you were jotting with Bonnie, you pointed out to her how her focus was on volume rather than on the impact these cases, or in her case, the interview has on that person's life. I thought, how quick was I to judge her? And as soon as I was in the same boat as her, I committed that same offense. And as a result, every day when I took the bench for months, I would, as I was walking into the courtroom, would just say the name Bonnie. And that brought me to a point of press, and eventually I no longer had to say Bonnie. Speaker 3 (12:03): Eventually it just became part of it. So that was number one is to recognize the situation of those who appear or those who are dealing with it. The second is actually more philosophical and it comes from a Zulu philosophy that the phrase or the term is Ubuntu, U-B-U-M-T-U. And what, it doesn't translate perfectly into English, but as best as I've seen it translated, it's I see the humanity in you. That combined with the Bonnie story really guided my 20 years on the bench being present and being able to recognize the humanity of those in front of you by being that engaged. I understood contextually much better the circumstances these people were facing, the dilemmas they found themselves in and was focused on much more of how to resolve that rather than to merely a sign fault. That changed the way I did everything, and it's been my guiding principle. Speaker 1 (13:10): So did you name your first daughter Bonnie? Speaker 3 (13:13): I did be good. My next dog, I abuntu, I Speaker 1 (13:17): Guess so. So you've practiced law as a family law attorney. You've been on the bench as a family judge, fem court judge, a civil, you've been on a civil bench, civil, Speaker 3 (13:27): Criminal, juvenile and family. I was also the presiding judge of the family department for a four year, four years here. And I was in the Maricopa County Superior Court, which is the Phoenix metropolitan area. We're the fourth largest court system of the country. Wow. So the family department itself has over 40 judicial officers. It's a very large Ford. During I picked the pandemic to be the time that I would be in a leadership role, which wasn't my best decision as far as timing, but we made through it. Speaker 1 (14:00): Good, good. Yeah. Wow. 40 judges. And how many cases per year in just the family court? Speaker 3 (14:07): There were tens of thousands in Maricopa County, 30, 40,000 new cases a year. Plus the cases that come back. Speaker 1 (14:17): Come back, yeah. Modifications. Yeah, things like that. So you've done that, Bill's been a family law attorney. So Bill, from your side of it, what was it that you learned either as a positive or negative from your time in the courtroom? Not you were in San Diego County, but different state, different jurisdiction? Speaker 2 (14:38): Yeah. Well, let me just start out by saying that Bruce's approach is an excellent approach and I've had the pleasure of being in front of some judges who I felt that from, but also many judges who didn't necessarily even want to be there. I've had utility lawyers become judges, tax lawyers become judges, a wide range who were just passing through and they did okay. But I think that really the wonderful judges are the ones with the type of approach that Judge Cohen has. And I want to add that he has a national reputation for being an excellent family law judge. I go to national conferences and see speakers and such, and I've seen him speak at a national conference. I was in the back of the room, so you probably didn't know I was there. Speaker 3 (15:38): Oh knew. I knew Bill N was there. You can't go anywhere without people knowing you're there. Speaker 2 (15:44): Oh. But I just think it's a wonderful approach. I've been a family lawyer really since 1992, and I keep trying to do the math and that's like 12 years, 13 years ago, no, 22 years ago, 33 years ago. Okay. Only 15 years of those that I regularly represent clients in court. And then I did mediation mostly after that. But I've been in front of, I don't know, 50 different judges. First of all, I think it's one of the hardest jobs in the world and I want to give you credit not only for being there, but for being there as long as you are and that having a judge stay in family law is a precious thing because judges I speak to, we all agree it takes two or three years to train a family law judge. And the ones I described who didn't really want to be there, that wasn't their life goal. Usually when they were really good is when they would transfer out and we'd have new judges to train. So I think first of all, that's a wonderful thing, but I also think you're in a good position to answer some questions that I get a lot from clients, and I do a lot of consultation now about high conflict cases, and the majority of them are people with cases in family court wondering what to do. So I'm so glad that you're working with us now. So I have endless opportunities to ask you all these questions. Speaker 2 (17:28): Great. So I don't know if you're ready, but I have maybe my biggest question. I get clients who say, my case is going terrible. I've been in court two or three times and I've got the biggest hearing or trial coming up now or meeting with family court services to get to explain my case about parenting or some other decision maker, a psychologist evaluating my case. And what I learned over the years, because I'm a mental health professional before becoming a family lawyer, is that it really helps to communicate simply and that clients should think about how they can boil their case down into three or four categories of information. And the most important examples of these three or four categories, and often there are concerns about the other person's parenting and also presenting their own parenting. And usually the most high conflict cases are about the kids. Speaker 2 (18:38): Although there are financial high conflict cases where there's no kids, but the majority seem to be with kids. And so I say, explain your concerns. You may have a hundred things you want to say, but you have to narrow them down and really focus on three or four key concerns like undermining my parenting. The other parent may do activities to undermine my parenting. What are the examples of that? The judge isn't going to want to know. That's your conclusion. They want to know your examples of that. I say, forget about chronology. Don't tell the story from, well, in 1994 we got married. Speaker 1 (19:22): That's probably what I'd do, Speaker 2 (19:25): Say what's most important. So one day he hit me or one day she said to the kids, you don't need your father anymore or whatever it was. Those are big important things. Doesn't matter when they happen, you need to get them out early. So that's been my recommended approach and I was curious your thoughts. Is that helpful to you? Is that unhelpful? Do you think that's a good idea, maybe not a good idea? Speaker 3 (19:54): No, that's incredibly sound advice. When somebody is facing anticipated litigation and even if they're well into the litigation, they could incorporate or employ this approach even if they haven't used it up till now. But certainly if they're anticipating future parenting case or there's one that's just starting following approach, which is very much aligned with what you just said, bill is appropriate. Almost all jurisdictions base their parenting laws on the notion of this concept called best interests. You can see that term internationally best interest of the child and it rolls right off the tongue. We all are committed to it. We all look and say, I feel good about myself. Why? Because I'm doing what's in the best interest of a child. Speaker 3 (20:52): But if you ask somebody to define it and what is in the best interest and what things, even though it might be in the child's best interest, do we not have the authority to do, for example, a child being raised by mother and father, but the grandmother is actually the best of all the parents. She is the one most focused on the child. The parents are each facing their own individual challenges. If I were to do what's in the child's best interest, I may want to place that child with grandma. I don't have authority to do that unless both of the parents pose a risk to the child. So we're really not talking about best interests, if you will, it's best interests under the existing and the confines that we operate under. So we also recognize the autonomy that parents have to raise children the way they deem fit. Speaker 3 (21:50): And as a result, even though I may think it's not a great idea to expose a child to certain things, they have the right to choose that for their own children. So again, another limitation on this notion of best interests. So if we just focus on that term, we are all going to be missed or not connecting with one another because our definitions are different or what we would consider different. Most jurisdictions have statutes or the laws in the jurisdiction that list factors that the court is to look at in assessing best interest, and these are the custody statutes. In most jurisdictions, that's the term that would apply. And there's various factors, the wishes of the child, the wishes of the parents, the interaction of the child with each parent, the relationship, the child's adjustment to school, home and community that can go on whether there has or has not been any domestic violence, whether there are any mental or physical health issues. Speaker 3 (23:02): And it gives a list in almost all cases. If there are let's say 12 factors, and I'm just picking an arbitrary number, all 12 won't be an issue. There'll be some that are neutral, there'll be some that are obvious. For instance, the wishes of a child would be irrelevant if the child is an infant. So we know that there were 12 factors, were now down to 11. So Bill, this is where it piggybacks on what you said. My experience tells me that in most cases when there is a legitimate dispute other than just two people being disagreeable with one another, but a legitimate factual dispute that there'll be three or four factors within the statute that are truly contested. So yes, the child has a good relationship with both parents, but this parent has physical limitations or certain mental health issues that could impact the ability of that parent to meet the needs of the child. Speaker 3 (24:01): Or there might be an issue about geographic proximity that might then have an issue regarding the child's adjustment to school and community. The child can remain with the same peer group if placed with father, but would've a major change placed with mother. So you identify what those three or four areas are, and then you always your case on that. Now, the chronology one bill, and I'm so happy you raised that if I'm, as the judge required to make a finding of the sequence of events, what happened first, what happened second, what happened third? Then you presenting your case to me, the history or a timeline is very effective. But I will tell everybody listening, I don't remember one case in the thousands that I presided over where the chronology of events was the central factor. Now, yes, things evolve and I have to keep that in mind, but that's not the central factor. Speaker 3 (25:04): What occurred is, so instead of presenting your case in a way that I'm not going to use the information, which is what happened first, what happened second, what happened third, you presented based on the factors that that state has given to be those that I'm to consider. And therefore, if I were questioning you and I would say, okay, Ms. Hunter, you're maintaining that the children be best living primarily in your care. And there's a statute here that lists the factors. One of those factors are include the adjustment of the child to homeschool and community. How do you feel that factor comes into play? You would say, well, if the children are placed with me, there'll be continuity in all those areas. Do you have any examples of how that may impact your children if we didn't maintain that? And then you go through your examples or highlights or whatever it might be, and you don't give all 100 examples, I might say you have a few highlights Speaker 3 (26:14): Of examples that would help the judge understand why that's a factor in your case. The other thing is there's a tendency to paint oneself in the most glorious life and paint the other dy in the most negative light. And that's understandable, but it's not productive because in the end, the judge, if the judge accepts all that testimony, would ask, how is it that Teresa gave it up with Jeffrey die? Why? Because she's perfect according to her own testimony, and he's pure evil according to her testimony. You actually have greater credibility when you can point out both the strengths and weaknesses, not only of the opposing party, but of yourself as well. Then when you point out those areas of concern, you have far greater credibility. So that's kind of the approach. And a good starting point is always to understand the law in your jurisdiction, not the law that says we decide parenting on best interests, but what the legislature in that state designated to be the factors that reflect on what is in a child's best interest. Speaker 2 (27:30): One thing I want to say is as I really like what you're saying and my impression and you can add to this, is that this is pretty much true nationwide, if not worldwide, that best interest. And there's factors in each state. These laws are state laws that no matter where you are, what you just heard Judge Cohen say, is relevant to you. Speaker 3 (27:55): And the other part that you'll find there is there are some cultural aspects that are not necessarily reflected in the law. In the United States, there's a tremendous focus on avoiding gender discrimination, which existed in the custody laws for generations. Speaker 1 (28:17): And people still think it does, and maybe it does in some places, Speaker 3 (28:20): And it does in some, for instance, in some of the far east countries, there's still this preference in favor of mothers, but that's a cultural thing. Whereas in the United States, we had a concept up until 1973, so that's over 50 years ago. There was a law that said if all things are equal between the parents children of 10 years, which was defined to be eight or younger along with their mothers, well that got abolished because that's discriminatory. But even though it got abolished, the thought or the theory behind it was still embraced by many people. Still is today probably. But the laws are gender neutral. So the laws are going to give you what those factors are, but you also need to be mindful of the culture in the area you live. So Arizona for instance, our laws focus on ensuring that it's public policy, that both parents should be significantly involved in the raising of their children. If you understand the policy of the jurisdiction you're in, you can then prepare your case accordingly. If you're in a jurisdiction where they still favor gender for some reason, then you adjust your case knowing that to be true. Certainly if you're a father in a jurisdiction that still embraces that old way of thinking, you want to be prepared for that and be able to address it. Speaker 1 (29:50): Yeah, that's interesting because so many people contact us and I guess there's still such a notion or perception out there that the courts are for the mothers, right? They're always in favor of the mothers or maybe not always, but a great deal of the time. So it's good to hear that the courts are aware of this, that the courts are thinking of this and what is in the child's best interest isn't necessarily a gender issue. Speaker 2 (30:20): Correct. Speaker 1 (30:20): Right. Speaker 2 (30:21): I would want to add, as a family lawyer over the last 30 years, I've also seen many, many people believe that the courts prefer the father and defer more to fathers. So what I've been telling my consultation clients, which is about 50 50, is that today, in today's world, both genders can complain that it favors the other gender. But the reality I also see is sometimes depending on the particular judge that they may have an unconscious bias leaning one way or the other. And the only way I've learned about that is when I've been in front of the same judge several times and I can tell my client, here's some things you want to make sure you emphasize because this judge may lean a little this way or that way, but I don't like the idea that the courts favor fathers or favor mothers. I see the courts overall now, it really, really depends on the judge and the case Speaker 3 (31:28): That folklore, first of all, it's got me to it. So when something explains away something that someone can't from their own position, a mom or dad can't explain, it's easy to default to those types of thinkings. This gender partiality was much more of a problem in the laws abolish this 10 years doctrine, as I said in the early seventies. But even if you were in courts in the eighties or early nineties, you still saw situations that were inexplicable other than gender bias. But one of the reasons for that was that the judge presiding over the case was a judge raised in a generation where moms were the nurturers in society roles. So even though the law changed, you had to change the thinking of the judges. There are no judges now that were raised in that generation. It's been 50 years since that type of thinking was embodied in the law. Speaker 3 (32:32): And since none of the judges that are presently on the bench really were consciously involved in legal issues that long ago, I think it's a safe bet to avoid that thinking if it does exist, pointing it out or building your case based on that assumption is probably going to get you wrong more than you'll ever be. Right. So owing in and thinking to yourself, I know I either have an advantage or a disadvantage based on my gender, really, it's going to take you away from the task at hand, which is determining what would be in the best interest of the child. Speaker 2 (33:11): Yeah, and actually I want to reinforce that. I would say it's interesting your timeline view, since about 2000, I have seen it be much more balanced. Most of my examples were I think it leaned one way or the other was before 2000 and my 15 years representing clients was 1993 to 2008. So I kind of straddled that. But I do think now that the efforts and the law, the language, all of that, and I encourage people often they're afraid to go to court because they're afraid of one of these presumptions. And I really encourage them, no, you need protection. Go to court and explain your case. And much more likely that will be given respect because of the facts of your case, not your gender. Speaker 3 (34:10): And the gender issue is interesting because you are projecting onto another person that being the judge, a bias that they may or may not have, number one, or they may or may not have ever even thought about because it's alien to them to think of favoring somebody based solely on gender. And then you build your case on something that you have no proof. It even exists when your proof is the jailhouse expert, I call them. It's interesting, my experience in criminal law, how many defendants come in and say, well, I spoke to a guy who said I should be getting probation for this offense. And then you say, where was this guy you spoke to? Oh, he's my cellmate in jail. It's like those are not direct. And we'll hear a father or a mother who did not do well in court, and they will through their own internal consistency, will then speculate that it was because of a bias of the judge. Speaker 3 (35:12): And then we'll tell you, oh, don't go in front of that judge. That judge is biased. And why? Because in my case, the judge ruled against me and because I am of this gender, it must be biased. So way with a grain of salt, how much weight you're going to give to those kinds of rumors. The other thing is control what you have the ability to control. If the judge does have a bias, you are not going to be able to control that. I don't believe by the way that it exists anywhere near what the public may perceive it to exist. But even if it does, so what do you do if this judge perhaps might be biased? Be the best version of whoever you are that could dissuade that judge of that bias. So if you're in front of a judge that you suspect favors moms as a dad, don't go in there and challenge this bias that you don't even know whether it exists. Speaker 3 (36:13): Portray yourself as you are the best father that you're capable of being, so that even if there is this preconception, you are immediately taking down that wall by showing that you are focused on what's really in your child's best interest. So you don't self-sabotage your case by applying a bias that you don't even know that it exists and then behaving in accordance with that bias. Well, judge, you just favor her. She's the mom. And then the whole discussion is about the judge. The judge says, no, Sarah or male, I don't favor that parent because of gender. I base it on the evidence presented. I'm interested in your evidence. Now you're a trial on the judge. Instead of you putting your best foot forward to say, here are the reasons why my plan furthers the interest of these children. And the other thing I want to throw in there, I keep alluding to best interest since it doesn't have an actual definition. Here's what I've defined it to be, and I teach family law to law students as well over the years. And when I tried to get them to come up with a definition, it's be what's, how do you define best interest child would be a plan that is best for them, not a definition. So what I would throw out to you in trying to assess that is identify the needs of the child and each parent's ability to meet those needs. Speaker 3 (37:45): And if as a parent you start your case by saying to yourself, the judge is going to decide this on best interests. What are the needs and interests of my child? Well, they're a piano prodigy. They also with my child, need extra help probably in math and science, but not in the arts. What are my abilities then to meet those needs and to fill those deficits? And when you focus on that, you're now putting together a plan that allows a judge to make that call. Speaker 1 (38:19): And honestly most That's right. Most judges, I would say on the family court, a majority probably don't have significant background in family law. Is that your experience? Yeah. So it's a big ask we have of judges, and I know judges often get a bad rap for their time on a family court bench, when in actuality, from my experience working with judges for a lot of years is judges who are trying to do their best in a very complicated and complex world. So it's interesting that both of you, bill and Judge Cohen have tried to bring it down to something very simple and manageable and usable, right? In a court system that can be overwhelming and a perception of bias and that. But I think at the end of the day, most judges, probably the majority, are really just trying to do a good job and do the best they can with the skills they have and not understanding necessarily perhaps when it gets into the more complex high conflict cases, really understanding what's going on behind the scenes and reading between those lines. So in your experience then, and when we get to those cases that are more high conflict, they're coming back to court a lot more often. Is there kind of a pattern that you see? Is there an on ramping to that, that a judge is getting a clue like, oh, this might go really high conflict, or this might be a challenging case? Speaker 3 (39:43): There is are senses you could gain of that pretty early in the litigation process. But rather than say, here are those kinds of things you look for, it's more the overall presentation. How invested are both parents in creating a workable plan that will complete the racing of this child. When you have parents in front of you who are more focused on being right than getting it right, you could pick that up. Now, being right is part of getting it right. My interpretation of the events is accurate, I appreciate that, but where's your focus? You are not using the righteousness of your position exclusively based on your presentation of what historically occurred, but how it translates into the future. So when we think in terms of if you have a child who's 12 years old who is the subject of custody litigation, the goal is to raise a happy health and well adjusted child, the amount of time that's left to do that is less than six years. Speaker 3 (40:58): Assuming the child becomes an adult at age 18, if the parent understands that there's five or six years left, or how can they create an environment over this next five years that is the most dedicated to ensuring this childer is up to be happy, healthy, well adjusted? Not that I get proving to be correct, that I was the better parent, but that I am furthering that goal. And almost always, if you speak to children of divorce, they will not tell you, oh my goodness am I glad that my parents agreed that the weekend schedule ends Sunday night rather than Monday morning, because if I had to do it till Monday morning, I would've failed out of school. I said, nobody ever, what do they say children, adult, children of divorce say? The big thing is my parents created an environment that I was comfortable in both places that I went or where there were deficits. They put in protections for those, but they tried their best to make it work. That's the variable. That's the key, is what is the focus. So when we look at the high conflict, the cases that you brought up, Speaker 3 (42:25): How can you tell? What are you seeing? It's really that notion of those that are invested in trying eventually to have somebody validate their perception versus those that say, here we are. Everything has disintegrated of what we had set as our goals in life, but that doesn't mean our lives have ended nor our responsibilities as parents, nor our rewards as parents. And if we were still living together as a married family, happy who we're not, we would figure out a way to coexist to ensure that our children grow up to be happy, healthy, and well adjusted. So why? Because we're not together. Do we abandon that same goal? And that shifting of perception, not giving the reward about who was right about what happened yesterday, but incentivizing getting it right tomorrow, and that shift in the paradigm within the corporate is a major step towards reducing the negative impacts of IFL children. Speaker 1 (43:30): My kids. Speaker 2 (43:31): Well put. Speaker 1 (43:32): Yes. Speaker 2 (43:34): I look forward to future discussions. This is great. Speaker 1 (43:37): Yeah, there'll be plenty. We've only just begun and so Judge Cohen, thank you. Thank you for being here for these two episodes and we'll have him back listeners, a whole lot more listeners, thank you for listening today and thank you Judge Cohen for joining us. I'm sure everyone really has enjoyed this. Next week we'd love to have you join us again where we'll be answering listener questions, all these questions that you send into us, and we'll do our best to answer them. So join us then. In the meantime, send your questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast. Until next time, keep learning and practicing. Be kind to yourself and others while we all 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.