{"id":1447,"date":"2015-10-20T14:42:37","date_gmt":"2015-10-20T21:42:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/?p=1447"},"modified":"2015-10-20T14:42:37","modified_gmt":"2015-10-20T21:42:37","slug":"when-you-gotta-go-to-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/2015\/10\/when-you-gotta-go-to-court\/","title":{"rendered":"When You Gotta Go to Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have long been a critic of the adversarial system of litigation in family law matters. \u00a0It is, in so many instances, an atrocious method of solving the problems\u00a0\"litigator.1\"<\/a>that beset an intimate couple as they dissolve this powerful, attachment-infused bond. \u00a0I still remember a case I had years ago when I was still representing people as a divorce lawyer. \u00a0I was working with the wife and the husband’s lawyer was a top level, high integrity, low stirring-the-pot guy. \u00a0We ended up settling the case after a full-day settlement conference and when it was over, my client had such contempt for her husband – she felt so ill-treated by him through the process, that I came away convinced that, even if the lawyers are solid and solution-focused, the process, itself, is hell on people’s psyches. \u00a0In the ensuing years, I have often felt enormous gratification helping a divorcing couple manage to resolve their legal issues while keeping the pain, anger and fear within manageable levels. \u00a0Mediation and collaborative law permit people who can work together with respect and some degree of empathy to arrive at an outcome that keeps their post-divorce relationship from diving into the pit of chaos and alienation that I so often see in the aftermath of almost every litigated divorce I have encountered.<\/p>\n

That said, there are times you’ve just gotta go to court.<\/p>\n

Presentation of a dispute to a judge or court commissioner may be the unavoidable choice one must make\u00a0in order to establish boundaries<\/span>. \u00a0Ultimately, the legal rules and decisions by a court…and the court orders that result, establish boundaries of behavior for the individuals involved. \u00a0This may be necessary when one or both people are unable to do this themselves. \u00a0One such circumstance arises when one divorcing party deeply objects to the divorce and is filled with such outrage and betrayal that efforts to reach agreement with that person on any but the most onerous and unrealistic terms are impossible. \u00a0Some people’s pain drives the couple into court so that the man or woman sitting on the high bench in robes must establish those boundaries. \u00a0I recently experienced a case such as this, in which the angry party’s lawyer enabled them in their hyperbolic sense of outrage, only to result in a brutally unfavorable court ruling for his client. \u00a0She was unable to acknowledge basic boundaries of behavior and insisted upon maintaining her righteous anger. \u00a0That anger cost her dearly, but she was constitutionally incapable of \u00a0managing her part of the conflict. \u00a0Another situation which will necessitate litigation is if one of the parties is struggling with a personality disorder, which is a “locked in,” very rigid manner of responding to stress which prevents that person from managing the anxiety and challenges of conflict. \u00a0These people need boundaries established and, usually, the court is the only instrument by which this can be accomplished. \u00a0Also, untreated substance abuse presents a significant challenge to the establishment of boundaries of behavior which will be respected. \u00a0In this minority of situations, you gotta go to court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have long been a critic of the adversarial system of litigation in family law matters. \u00a0It is, in so many instances, an atrocious method of solving the problems\u00a0that beset an intimate couple as they dissolve this powerful, attachment-infused bond. \u00a0I still remember a case I had years ago when I was still representing people Continue reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[42,4],"tags":[13,33],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1447"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1447"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1447\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1449,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1447\/revisions\/1449"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/josephshaub.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}