The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law
Relevant Irrelevant Issues in Divorce
Divorce unfolds in two parallel universes: the cold, mechanical world of legal proceedings and the raw, messy landscape of human emotions. When these worlds collide, many discover that what matters most to them personally holds little to no relevance in court. This disconnect can leave people feeling unheard and unable to move forward.
We dive deep into the concept of "legally irrelevant" issues that carry enormous emotional weight—betrayal from affairs, resentment over financial power imbalances, religious conflicts about raising children, and the unspoken promises broken through divorce. These emotionally charged issues may not sway a judge, but they absolutely impact people's willingness to negotiate and their ability to co-parent effectively after divorce.
Through real-world examples from our decades of combined experience, we explore how alternative approaches like mediation and collaborative divorce create sacred space for necessary emotional processing. We share strategies for reframing painful conversations, acknowledging hurt without assigning blame, and shifting focus from past grievances to future relationships—especially when children are involved.
The conversation takes a powerful turn when we discuss how parents "write the divorce story their children will tell." By defining personal mission statements and values early in the process, divorcing couples create foundations that support them through difficult conversations and set the stage for healthier post-divorce family dynamics.
Whether you're contemplating divorce, in the middle of one, or supporting someone who is, this episode offers wisdom about addressing the human side of legal separation. The law may be an imperfect tool for healing emotional wounds, but with the right approach, you can honor both the legal and emotional aspects of divorce.
What emotional issues are you struggling with that might seem "irrelevant" to the legal process? We'd love to hear your thoughts and questions.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
I have a bone to pick with the two of you. Uh-oh, did you guys notice that I didn't take the opportunity, the low-hanging fruit joke about how some people feel they get screwed in a divorce process? And I didn't get any credit from the two of you for my maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2:I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3:And, I would point out, the podcast is not yet over.
Speaker 2:I still have time. I was disappointed because I lob a softball like consensual sex at you and you just sit there.
Speaker 1:It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing, and that is so, unlike you and quite irrelevant.
Speaker 2:Frankly. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Marriage and family therapist Pete Russo's and attorney Sean Weber for a Frank and casual conversation about divorce, separation, co-parenting and the difficult decisions real people like you face during these tough times. We know that if you are looking at divorce or separation, it can be scary and overwhelming. With combined experience of over 60 years of divorce and conflict management, we are here for you and look forward to helping by sharing our unique ideas, thoughts and perspectives on divorce, separation and co-parenting. All right. Well, you want to start us off, mark? It sounds like you've got an idea of how to start it. I can try. I can just do it. I don't care.
Speaker 3:If I can remember what I said, you you usually are an mc here.
Speaker 2:all right, well, I can just start it. I can just start it, yeah, all right, okay, hello, gentlemen, hello, hello. We are, uh, here to talk about aspects of divorce, like we do every week, and we have talked about all of those relevant issues. The legally relevant things. We've already talked about that you know, like child support and spousal support, and we've talked about property division and things like that. But one thing that we may want to spend a little time on are the relevancy of the irrelevant issues, and what I mean by that is sometimes there are issues that come up in a divorce that the courts, legally, are not equipped to deal with. Most jurisdictions, in the United States at least, are no-fault states, so whose fault it is doesn't come up. Issues of affairs don't come up in court, or other things like what happened during the marriage or religious issues. There's a whole list of things that are very relevant to people personally but aren't necessarily, or most likely not, relevant in a legal context.
Speaker 1:So really really important stuff that has no bearing.
Speaker 2:Very important things that are absolutely unimportant legally but are very important to people. And are handled somewhat Well, in fact avoided often by attorneys who completely because, it is not relevant you know, not just yeah, not just avoid it, but shut down like somebody brings up their feelings.
Speaker 3:Nope, we're not going to talk about that and and essential to address, because people need to have their I won't say day in court, but they need to have their ability to state their feelings, sometimes before we can move on well, and we're big believers in consensual dispute resolution or, as some people call it, alternative dispute resolution, like mediation, collaborative practice.
Speaker 2:We're big believers in that. A big reason why we believe in that is because you can address some of those emotional issues that are important to get to a settlement that would never be discussed in front of a judge. People think they're going to go to court and they're going to get their day in court and they're going to be able to tell their story and the judge is just going to melt into their hands and give them what they want just because of how compelling their story is. And then they get to court and they realize there's so much of their story they can't tell.
Speaker 3:And even if they do tell it, it doesn't even have any impact, but to candidly, probably upset the judge exactly, it pisses the judge off, you know. Objection relevance sustained yep, yep, so we can't, we're not going to talk about your, the girlfriend or the boyfriend.
Speaker 2:we're not going to talk about that or that case. You and I had mark, where the guy, the wife, ran away with the horse trainer. Remember that one? Oh, yes, yep. And we got to a point in the negotiations where we're trying to figure out what to do with the horse and the husband, who'd been very stoic up to this point, he says, well, we'll shoot the horse.
Speaker 3:Right, that did not go down.
Speaker 2:well, did not go down well with the wife, yep, you know. But but that was something you know he had some strong feelings that needed to be addressed, that could not have been addressed in court, and we were able to deal with it and and in fact in that case that had major financial implications because they had been paying for, if I remember in the right case.
Speaker 3:They've been paying these horse expenses for decades on the assumption that when wife got her inheritance it would kind of take care of their retirement. And now they're getting a divorce and the whole.
Speaker 2:Well, that's another case, but we see this kind of pattern a lot, right?
Speaker 3:Okay, yeah, yeah, that was another one, but that wasn't Okay, but I mean, they all blend together, right they? Do, Unfortunately. Yeah, I mean we see a lot of the same facts. Obviously, in my case that one we see a lot of the facts resurface.
Speaker 2:Maybe it's good that they blend together so people won't guess who we're talking about. Yeah, but yeah, I mean that kind of thing comes up. Yeah, my wife's going to get an enormous inheritance. I know she is because her mother is on death's door she's 102, and they have a lot of money and she's going to get that inheritance. Court doesn't care, because the inheritance hasn't been received yet.
Speaker 1:You know, as we're talking about it, guys, I'm thinking about this from a process standpoint and I think that one of the things that drew me to collaborative divorce when I first heard about it in 1997, 1996, was the idea that that is, in a collaborative process, sacred space is made for people to be able to process their emotions. It's a chance for the aggrieved, if you will, to do the grief work on an emotional level that's going to be essential to moving forward in a collaborative way, even though there may be material aspects of what it is that they're wanting to address in terms of settlement that wouldn't be considered in a court process the emotional dynamics. There is absolutely room and space made for that in a collaborative process or in the kind of mediation work that we do, because we recognize that that's essential to people being able to move forward, to grieve effectively and to work collaboratively and cooperatively with each other to address the settlement issues.
Speaker 2:I think that's very true. I mean, one of the premises of our whole podcast is the idea that there's the emotional, the legal and the financial and they all three have to be addressed in order for people to be willing to settle their case. And these emotional things need to be addressed in order for people to be willing to settle their case. And these emotional things need to be addressed.
Speaker 3:And what's really interesting is that I remember a case with you, pete, years and years ago, where a couple started going at it. I can't remember, I had no idea what it was about, but they started really laying into each other and under normal circumstances that raises my anxiety, and so my immediate reaction was I need to jump in and stop this. But I had you there and your colleague Lima, and basically you let him go and it was okay for me not to interrupt because you were there, because you would have stopped it if it was going to. He was going to come across the table at her or something like that which I was concerned about. And later in our debrief I asked you guys why, and you said that conversation had to happen and this was the best environment for it to happen in, and I've never forgotten that. So you gave me the permission not to let my anxiety stop. What had to happen in, and I've never forgotten that. So you gave me the permission not to let my anxiety stop. What had to happen?
Speaker 1:You know, and I'm thinking about this too in terms of my understanding of, like the restorative justice movement, or actually thinking of. Also, what's coming to mind for me is research that I heard about that had to do with how hospitals respond to malpractice complaints and how important it was for people to be able to express their thoughts and feelings, even if they didn't get what they wanted. Being heard was an important part of the healing process. So I think, mark, what you're pointing to is the importance of people being able to express themselves. Now, I'll often steer the conversation, if you will, by asking people is this the conversation that you need to have and is this the way you want to have it? For people to take responsibility for that? But I think that in that case, it was absolutely the conversation that they needed to have and the way they needed to have it in order to move through that issue and move forward.
Speaker 2:So maybe we can make a list of those very relevant, irrelevant issues that we see a lot that really gets uniquely addressed in collaborative or in mediation. The first one that comes to my mind is when there's betrayal, betrayal, trauma, there's affairs, or maybe it's financial betrayal, but the feeling of betrayal is not something that the court really cares about. The court cares if there's like a breach of a financial duty, like if you breach a fiduciary duty, cares if there's like a breach of a financial duty, like if you breach a fiduciary duty. But just the concept of so-and-so did me wrong, doesn't really, because it's a no-fault state. In California at least, it doesn't really get dealt with in court at all. But if people are going to have at least a somewhat positive feeling about their divorce when they look at it in the rearview mirror, it needs to be discussed, right. So, pete, I mean, when you have somebody that's really struggling with betrayal, how would you work with them? What do they need to hear?
Speaker 1:Well, I think that, if I'm thinking about it in the context of a mediation case, so the spouse who committed the betrayal part of the work that I do with that person is to help them understand the absolute importance of them being open to hearing from the other person about their pain, what it was like for them, and then to work with that person who committed the betrayal in terms of what it is, that they are willing and feel a sense of integrity about taking responsibility for. What are they going to acknowledge, what are they going to own. And then, for the person who feels betrayed, part of the challenge, if you will, of my role working with that person is to help them understand that it's important that they be able to express themselves, it's important that they be able to tell their story, but for them to also recognize that they are not entitled to anything.
Speaker 2:In regards to the feeling that they're having, they're not entitled to anything as it relates to settlement.
Speaker 1:Yeah, in regards to the, in regards, they're also not. They're not entitled to anything as it relates to settlement, but they're also not entitled to being heard, and part of why it's important to to help them understand. That is ideally. Ideally, the, the parties are going to come together and the person who who feels betrayed is able to express themselves in an appropriate way, and the person who betrayed them is able to acknowledge the hurt that they caused and to take responsibility. But even if that doesn't happen, for the person who was betrayed to be able to express themselves and hopefully have a sense of not just integrity but also closure, even if they don't get the response that they wanted, because they were able to assert themselves in an appropriate way.
Speaker 2:I had this lady one time. She's like. I just wish he would apologize.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And I said to her I said but does he feel sorry? No, that's the problem. Do you think he's going to suddenly feel sorry because you asked him to Right? No, I don't think he will.
Speaker 3:So what do we do now? But he might acknowledge that she's experiencing pain, which is probably as far as because you have this all the time with affairs. Well, if so-and-so hadn't happened, I wouldn't have had an affair. If you had been more or less, I wouldn't have had an affair. So there's a concept that they were pushed into the situation. Whether it's real or valid, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2:Well, and there's a technique that mediators use all the time, and I'm sure therapists use it too, peter the reframe. I'm going to take this statement that you made you jerk, you had an affair and I hate you and you're going to turn it into something. You're going to reframe it in a way so that it's at least goes in a more positive direction or at least more neutral direction, so the other person can hear it so you're angry because he had an affair during the marriage. That upsets you and makes you angry. You know that kind of thing.
Speaker 1:And I think Sean, this also speaks to, I think, one of the advantages of a collaborative process or mediation, the way that we do it, where I think we're willing to slow things down, do that kind of emotional processing and help the parties understand why it's so important. Because those kinds of conversations I think are essential to being able to work through the pain and take steps towards a more collaborative resolution and working together, particularly as it relates to co-parenting and things like that.
Speaker 3:And what I found is you never know when these issues will arise, because people are reluctant to share their hurts, sometimes quite understandably. But imagine if you're not going through an alternative dispute resolution process and this blows up right before your court hearing and how disruptive that could be to making any progress on your case because it can't be discussed or it won't be discussed and it could blow up in open court and we've seen that happen.
Speaker 1:Guys, here's one that I wonder about is that we see, I think commonly, where the emotional charge around separate property issues, and so let's talk about that. What are some common examples that we see of an emotional charge around a separate property issue?
Speaker 3:The biggest one is generally an inheritance that occurs during the marriage, or gifting from parents where there's a big imbalance on one side or the other of the parents in terms of net wealth or generosity, the concept that the gift was made to both of them and then they bought this big fancy house with that money. And then, when we go back and look at the gift tax returns, we realize that, even though mom and dad might have said, hey, it's a gift for you and your kids and your family, they actually filled out the gift tax returns to gift only to one and therefore it's traceable. And you know that's often a betrayal. Sean, it's a hard one, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah we see it a lot.
Speaker 2:Or related to that. Mark, you and I had the case where there was a person who was quite wealthy, with premarital wealth We've seen this several times, yeah and then the other spouse marries and then there's a power imbalance in the marriage as a result of one person has a bunch of wealth and the other one doesn't. Maybe there's a really well-written prenup.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Yep. And so then one of the spouses feels like a second class citizen in the marriage, and then, as the divorce occurs and the property is divided, it still feels like a second class no-transcript.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, we've had the case where it's like the woman that has the money, oh yeah, yeah. And then the husband has kind of been didn't need to work during the marriage because why they had tons of money, and then the marriage dissolves and suddenly he's expected to earn his own keep. Maybe the wife feels like he's been a deadbeat the whole marriage, maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, but there's these feelings swirling around, this power imbalance with the money that legally, no one can do anything with. That. You know how you feel about your money is not really important to the court, no, but it's very important if you're trying to settle your case without going to court, and so we have to talk about it.
Speaker 3:So to be able to have that conversation is essential. As difficult as it is and, as you know, as avoidant as lawyers and accountants can be of these such topics, it just tells you why you get into such quagmires with divorce and nothing moves forward because you don't address these issues. And so you know it's like waiting for Godot. Let's go. We can't why we're waiting for Godot. We're waiting to have this conversation so we can get past it and then talk about real settlement options. Need spouse, the one that actually has the resources to be a little generous, perhaps to get it done once you've had that conversation, which would not necessarily happen if you go to trial.
Speaker 2:You know there's that the law can only do so much right and the law doesn't really. It's just a set of rules that somebody came up with because they're trying to order their society. But I think of that Charles Dickens book. You know all of the twists. When Mr Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction, and then he replies if the law supposes that, said Mr Bumble squeezing his hand and fatiguing both hands, the law is an ass.
Speaker 3:Absolutely Nice quote.
Speaker 2:But I think you know I have that reaction from a lot of people. Well, that's just ridiculous. You know that's terrible, that's not fair and we've said time and time again on this podcast that fair is the F word, but it's not what happens at court. It's where you buy a pig, but it's not what happens with the law.
Speaker 3:Or it's like beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 2:It's in the eye. Yeah, because what you think is fair may be different from what I think is fair.
Speaker 3:Yeah, Because everybody just wants what's fair.
Speaker 2:Right, and so that's another one. There's nothing in the family code that says fair. There's stuff in the California Family Code about equity. It's a court of equity and so we have to be equitable. But you know, there are also laws that specifically say how things are divided, whether it's equitable or not, and the court has no choice but to apply the law. When you go to an out-of-court option like mediation or collaborative practice, you don't have to necessarily apply the law.
Speaker 3:Although you should know what the law says, because I always say we do this work under the umbrella of the law. So we need to know if we're under the umbrella or if we're stepping outside of it, because you can agree to step outside from under the umbrella if you both agree.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if you both agree. That's the key here. Yes, yeah, well, he should give me this, well, does he agree? No, well, then I don't think he's going to give it to you.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so Sean, full confession. You used a term earlier today that I had never heard before. Uh-oh, Consensual dispute resolution.
Speaker 2:I know it sounds like consensual sex, doesn't it?
Speaker 1:No, no, but I wanted to have you say more about it because it you know, I always use the term alternative dispute resolution, so I'm curious about the genesis of that term, and does that mean something different to you?
Speaker 2:So a lot of practitioners like us in the community have been gravitating towards the term consensual dispute resolution as opposed to alternative dispute resolution because number one they didn't want to view mediation or collaborative practices like alternative weird, like alternative medicine you know it's not the acupuncture of law yeah, not that there's anything wrong with acupuncture.
Speaker 2:I look forward to your letters. But, um, but also the, the, the idea that it's actually a mainstream concept, but then also the concept of consensual. You reach an agreement because you consent to it. You're not going to a stranger in black robes who creates your orders for you and imposes a ruling upon you. You and your partner consent to an agreement. You and your partner consent to an agreement, and so I, I, I like the, the concept of consensual because it really does emphasize the importance of informed consent. So you do need to know what the law is, but then you, you willfully submit to the agreement that you submit to and then you own it. It's about empowerment.
Speaker 2:It really is more empowerment yeah, yeah and responsibility yeah, even if you agree to something you don't like. Yep, like I always tell my clients uh, if I'm doing my job, you'll probably both walk out of here a little disappointed because you've compromised on something. You know compromise actually a good thing, as opposed to what they tell us in washington. Yeah, you know you got more of what you would have made you. You've gotten more of something by giving something up.
Speaker 1:Yeah, um, I have a bone to pick with the two of you. Uh-oh, um, two minutes ago, when I brought this up and you said it sounds like consensual sex, did you guys notice that I didn't take the opportunity? The low-hanging fruit joke about how some people feel they get screwed in a divorce process. And I didn't get any credit from the two of you for my maturity and my restraint.
Speaker 2:I was actually disappointed in you, Peter.
Speaker 3:And I would point out, the podcast is not yet over. You still have time.
Speaker 2:I was disappointed because I lob a softball like consensual sex at you and you just sit there and I saw a little smile on your face but you didn't take the bait. It was decorum.
Speaker 3:It was decorum, it was maturity that I was showing and that is so unlike you.
Speaker 2:And quite irrelevant frankly.
Speaker 3:Yes, yes.
Speaker 2:But no, no, that would I mean. Yeah, people do feel screwed, don't they? I mean, let's accept real. I mean I mean we're joking, but it's actually serious.
Speaker 1:People feel screwed yeah, that is, I think you know. I mean the theme of what we're talking about, these, the whatever it is that's irrelevant in the eyes of the court. What we're really talking about are the emotional aspects of of whatever that content is, but the emotional part of that for people. And so how do do we facilitate a process to, to help them go through process, resolve that internal sense that they are either being take advantage of or not getting what's fair?
Speaker 3:And it has to be addressed because otherwise it'll play out in the only two remaining arenas, which are the money and the children, and once the money's done, it's done. Unless there's been some kind of fraud perpetrated, it's done, and so what's left is the kids. It's done, and so what's left is the kids, and we've all seen it where the children become the final pawn in the game, and to their detriment.
Speaker 2:I found very useful in the mediation context, when we're discussing these things, to be more focused on the future. Court is focused on the past. Something was done and I get my redress right. That's what court's about. A rule, you know, it's all about past, but what we do in mediation and collaborative practice is very future and interest based. What are your interests, what do you need tomorrow, what do you need next year? And so a future focused approach, I think, works a lot better than a past focused approach, even though we do have to. Sometimes you have to talk about the story and you have to process the emotions that surround that story, but then my question always usually lands at okay, well, we've talked about this and I see that it was very painful for you. Now what are we going to do? And I see that it was very painful for you.
Speaker 3:Now, what are we going to do? And that is something people are so not focused on except in terms of fear, and often they don't want to look at it because I don't want to know what I can afford, because I'm afraid it'll be terrible. But that allows us to. I always ask people in my initial meetings where do you see yourself three to five years down the road? And most times I get total silence. They haven't even considered it and I'll even say well, how do you see your relationship with your spouse post-divorce? And that, again, is often greeted with silence. Yeah, again is often greeted with silence. Yeah, so you're right, sean, to get people focused on the future. Um is is really critical, because then they can start to plan. But if you're not thinking about the future, you're not going to plan for the future here's a common conversation.
Speaker 2:We're talking about values for the future, for your family going forward. Number one it's hard for people to fathom that the family even continues, but it it does. You're still a family, especially if you have kids. And then so what? How are you going to interact, going forward in your roles? Well, I don't know how I can interact with this person because of what they did to me, you know. And then you said well, what about your kids? Do they need you to interact? You know, To what extent do your children need you to find a way to talk to each other? And then people start thinking about the future. What are your kids going to do? We say it a lot on this podcast and we say it to our clients Mark, you have the power to write the divorce story that your children are going to tell about you later.
Speaker 1:You have the power to write the divorce story that your children are going to tell about you later. We've talked before in various episodes about the value of having clients at the start of a process. Define their mission statement, yes or how they want the divorce process to go, but also, what do they want that future co-parenting relationship to look like? What do they want that future co-parenting relationship to look like? I think that's such a powerful exercise because it really encourages people to, from what's best in them, define their higher self objectives and aspirations, and it also then helps us talk with them about okay, what are going to be the obstacles to getting there? What are the emotional issues that we need to address and talk about in order for you to be able to move forward together to realize this healthy vision that you've described.
Speaker 3:Defined it's well said so it is so critical to have them define it, because I mean, if you define it, it's like they have no ownership of it, so why should they bother? If they define it, we can take them back to that. Well, this is how this is a challenging conversation. Let's go back and see what we said about this back when we first met with you, how you wanted to resolve such things. Has anything changed about that? No, okay, so perhaps we could. It brings everything back together, so it's a critical part of the process and it's often totally ignored.
Speaker 2:Often is, it often is and it shouldn't be. I think when it's done well, that becomes a rock for people, a foundation for people to build on for their future relationship and for their family. It does so much. Yeah, well, you know. What we haven't talked about is religion and politics.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah, Are those relevant Sure?
Speaker 2:Not particularly, but they're important.
Speaker 3:Yeah, they are yeah.
Speaker 2:And so sometimes that comes up where you know maybe there's a religious consideration, Like my pastor said this, my priest said that, my rabbi said that you know, my religious text says tells me this, yes, and it may be very relevant to you, but we're in a state which is, you know, separation of church and state. There is no consideration by the courts about your religious needs or the religious needs of the children or the religious needs of the children, which is another huge one.
Speaker 2:You promised me we're going to raise the kids Jewish, and now you're taking them to church. What's going on here? Well, I changed my mind. Well, what do we do about that? So sometimes there has to be a conversation about this.
Speaker 1:Um, I'm thinking about I'm thinking about a couple that I worked with where they had very, very divergent political views, yeah, and the the tension between them was that they each thought that that should affect the time share, that they amazing, yeah, that that should affect the timeshare, that they should have more time with the children because of the bad influence that the other parent could be.
Speaker 2:You know, since COVID and the current politics, I've seen more and more political struggles with parents. Go ahead, Mark. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3:Well, same point. Same point. Basically. I had a case where the wife wanted to control what tv channels were watched in husband's house because that, basically, was the political decision based around which and you know you may, I may have disagreed or agreed with her. It didn't matter, you know she had to come to terms with the fact that that channel that she hated because she thinks it's all lies, didn't want she, didn't want the kids exposed to it. But guess what? They were going to get very different political views in different households, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Speaker 2:How about this? Under no circumstances. This was the father speaking. This is a value he wanted put into the mission statement. Under no circumstances will the children ever become Dodgers fans.
Speaker 3:Oh well that I understand.
Speaker 1:I think Mark don't you have that in your treatment agreement.
Speaker 3:We should point out that there is game three of the division series between the dodgers and padres about to occur on the day we're recording this, so these are heightened feelings, yeah yeah, so I mean some people, I mean, they take their sports very seriously.
Speaker 2:It's like religion for them, right? Yes, yep, you know. Or their family was always. You know, my family were always reds fans, and if anybody was a cubs fan, oh, oh.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and it's not a choice.
Speaker 2:No, it's not a choice.
Speaker 3:You're raised in it. It's not a choice.
Speaker 2:Well gentlemen, we've done it again. We have, indeed we have burned through some time with these good people that listen to us and we know you're out there and thank you for listening.
Speaker 3:Yes, and, by the way, did you know?
Speaker 2:you're out there, um, and thank you for listening. Yes, and, by the way, did you know?
Speaker 3:we're on youtube now and I would add something that we've often said in the past bring us your questions yeah, would you like? Us to talk about what would be relevant to you. What haven't we discussed um give us ideas?
Speaker 2:and that is something with the youtube YouTube channels. Please push the like button, subscribe and let us know what you want us to talk about, or let us know what you think of what we said. If you think we're full of crap, tell us. If you like what we said, we like that even better.
Speaker 3:But we enjoy critical feedback.
Speaker 2:Absolutely Well, speak for yourself. No, I like it. I do like it. We want it. We'd be good. So, Mark, if people need to get a hold of you to talk about a financial issue, what should they do?
Speaker 3:Go to my website. My company is Pacific Divorce Management and my website is packdivorcecom. There is a contact form you can fill out and we will be diligent in getting back to you.
Speaker 2:And Pete. If people need time emotionally processing the relevance of their irrelevant issues, what should they do?
Speaker 1:Also can reach me through my website PeterRussoscom, that's P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-S dot com and the contact me page on my website.
Speaker 2:And anybody that has a legal question about divorce. Feel free to reach out to me. I'm also available to mediate any dispute that you have. It's Weber dispute resolution dot com. Weber, like the grill dispute, like we had a fight and resolution, like we solved it. Weber dispute resolution dot com. Until next time, good luck.
Speaker 3:Adios, see you.
Speaker 2:Thanks for listening to another episode of the three wise men of divorce, money, psych and law. If you like what you heard, be sure to subscribe, leave us a review and share with others who may be in a similar place. Until next time, stay safe, healthy and focused on a positive, bright future. This podcast is for informational purposes only. Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or mental health advice is intended during this podcast. If you need help with your specific situation, feel free to schedule a time to speak with one of us for a personal consultation.