The Three Wisemen of Divorce: Money, Psych & Law

Divorce Court Myths: Where Does a Judge's Power Fall Short?

• Shawn Weber, CLS-F, Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA® and Peter Roussos, M.A., MFT, CST • Season 6 • Episode 4

Share episode

Divorce doesn't have to be a battlefield where only the strongest survive. Yet many people approach it with exactly this mindset, fueled by persistent myths about what the family court system can and will do for them.

In this candid conversation, we three divorce experts cut through the misconceptions that lead so many people toward an unnecessarily destructive and expensive processes. We tackle the painful truth that fault attribution has virtually no impact in our no-fault divorce system, despite many clients' desperate need to have their "day in court" to tell their story of marital anguish.

We explore the sobering reality of judicial discretion—how judges are human beings with unconscious biases who must make decisions based on limited information presented in court. When you hand your most important family decisions to a stranger in a black robe, you're gambling with outcomes that affect you and your children for years to come.

The financial toll of adversarial divorce receives special attention as we contrast the initial retainer promises with the eventual six-figure realities many litigants face. The most damaging myth we address might be the belief that hiring an aggressive "gladiator" attorney will somehow produce better results, when experience shows they just make it take longer.

Through real examples and decades of professional wisdom, we make the case for mediation and collaborative divorce as processes that not only cost less financially but also preserve the relationships that matter—especially when children are involved. While no divorce process is entirely painless or inexpensive, understanding these realities can help you make choices that support your long-term well-being rather than satisfying short-term desires for vindication.

Ready to approach your divorce with clear eyes and realistic expectations? Listen now to arm yourself with the truth about what really works in family transitions.

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.

Shawn Weber:

It was almost depressing. I think I need a therapist, pete. Welcome to the Three Wise Men of Divorce Money, psych and Law podcast. Sit down with the California divorce experts financial divorce consultant Mark Hill, psychologist Scott Weiner 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 70 years in 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.

Pete Roussos:

So, guys, I got a question for you, something I've been curious about and you know, I think this would be interesting for me and, I think, interesting for an audience. But what are the common myths and misconceptions about the family law system that people hold? Ah, the family law system that that people hold.

Shawn Weber:

Ah, the family law system. Um, I mean, just to be clear. I remember my professional responsibility professor at law school always saying that, uh, litigation is like a meat grinder. You go in a pig and you come out a sausage, Like imagine that image, right? But I think people don't realize how destructive litigation can be. And this is not meant to poo-poo litigation. It's a tool that is meant for certain cases. That's just all you can do and it's inappropriate.

Pete Roussos:

And the professionals that work in the litigation system are doing good work, I think for the most of you for the first time in your practice as prospective clients. What are the examples of the myths and misconceptions that you literally have to clarify or disabuse them of? What do you have to explain about how the system works?

Mark Hill:

Well, how about ascribing fault in a no fault system? Yeah so somebody comes in saying he or she was awful in the marriage, did terrible things and therefore I should get what I want they want their pound of flesh they want yes, they want to be paid for the harm they've been caused, on top of what the normal court process would do.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, you caused this, so therefore I should receive this or you should have to pay for everything.

Pete Roussos:

And the reality is in the system that's the myth. What's the reality?

Shawn Weber:

Nobody cares whose fault it is in the system, and it's a court of equity. And even if it was somebody's fault, the court isn't going to determine that. The court is going to just divide things according to equity. If you're in a community property state, like we are here in California, you're just dividing the community property in half. It doesn't matter if you earned it during the marriage, it doesn't matter if you're the bad guy or the good guy, we're dividing in half. And a lot of people don't realize that. Yep, and so then there's this mistake that happens, where people are thinking well, if I can just get my story out there, the judge will see it my way and give me what I want. And no, you know, the judge is going to apply the law, even if the law is stupid, even if the judge doesn't agree with the law.

Mark Hill:

I've been told by judges, all we see is two warring parties and we don't know really what the truth is beyond what has been presented in a very short format.

Shawn Weber:

Well, and then, related to that is the, what I call the myth of justice. You know, you have that concept of the, the goddess of justice. You know that it's always on a seal at the courtroom or there's a statue of a lady there holding the scales of justice and she's blindfolded, she's blind and and and she's going to apply the law blindly. Um, that doesn't really happen there. There's no such thing as justice or fairness at court. Um, the court strives for fairness and justice, but you know, we've always said this before fair is the f word, um, it's like or, as mark says, it's like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder. What you believe is a fair outcome may not be what the other person believes is a fair outcome. And, uh, the court's not able to just make something feel fair to you. All the court can do is apply the law.

Pete Roussos:

Well, within that construct of applying the law, how much room, if you will, is there for the biases that, as human beings, we all have? A judge has, or that attorneys have, you know what? How is? How do you think of bias in the context of the legal process?

Shawn Weber:

Well, I think I think number one. You know there is an aspiration to be non biased. When you're a judicial officer, it's in the judicial canons that you shouldn't carry a bias. But the reality is, is all these judges they're human beings. They'll be the first to tell you we are human. You know, I think I was telling you guys before we started recording.

Shawn Weber:

I went to a judicial temperament training one time and there was a commissioner there that I knew pretty well and he was distraught that he took a test. There was like an online test we were all supposed to take to kind of show us what our unconscious biases were and he was distraught that he had a bias in favor of white European men. And then the person that was facilitating the training was a black female judge and she had taken the same test and she reported to all of us. Yeah, it kind of surprised me I have a bias in favor of white European men, you know. So you never know what kind of bias your judge is going to bring. And there were.

Shawn Weber:

You know, judges are receiving training to control their unconscious biases, but you know, sometimes some are better at it than others. Unconscious biases, but you know, sometimes some are better at it than others and you know so many of the issues in family law like custody parenting. I mean there are laws and case law that they're supposed to kind of guide the judge's decision, but the reality is everybody has a bias and they're going to be influenced by their bias. Sometimes they don't even know they have it by their bias. Sometimes they don't even know they have it, and so there's some risk there that you'll go and you won't even know what bias this judge has and it can influence you. You know it can influence your decision in a way that's maybe negative for you and maybe come out as a way that you feel is not fair or just.

Mark Hill:

And I've heard, sean, that basically in family law it's a little different than other areas of the law where there are very few appeals that get upheld. So there are very few appeals basically. So it's what your judge decides is what you're going to get. And the reason for that is people walk out of divorce court and it's not unusual to see both sides really upset and dissatisfied. And you know, given the opportunity, I think many people would appeal. But I've heard attorneys tell clients no, you don't want to appeal this, even though I think we had a really good case. Very little gets overturned on appeal in family law.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, I mean there are certain rules that have to be applied in a certain way and judges do a good job of just kind of covering themselves enough to show that they followed the law. But then those areas where they have discretion, there's not really much you can do.

Pete Roussos:

What are the areas where judges have discretion?

Shawn Weber:

um, I think a big one is parenting and determining what's the best interest of the child. Um, there are certain like burdens of proof that can shift depending on what's going on, like if you have a person that's an alcoholic or you have a person that's abusive of you know, like an abusive person that's been violent with domestic violence. There are certain procedural evidentiary questions that come up as a result of those actions and burdens of proof shift around. But for the most part, what is in the best interest of the child? That is very subjective and the judge is going to try their best to figure out well, what is in the best interest of this child. But at the end of the day it's really up to the judge what's in the best interest of the child and as long as a reasonable person could make a cogent argument in favor of what the judge is saying, then that will survive on appeal.

Shawn Weber:

It's only when a judge doesn't follow one of the burdens or doesn't make a required finding that there could be, or there's just a blatant abuse of discretion, which is very hard to prove, can a best interest of the child finding be overturned. It's very difficult. Another area is in the area of spousal support, the amount of spousal support, especially in California, it's a very wide range of discretion that the judge has to determine. They're not allowed to use a computer system to just tell them what the number should be. They have to just kind of make a judgment call based on the factors. There's a list of factors a mile long in the family code about what they're supposed to consider. They have to consider the factors. If they don't consider the factors, it can be overturned.

Pete Roussos:

Sean, can I just jump in and ask you? It's interesting, because am I correct in my understanding that child support is much more formulaic?

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, that's a guideline. That's just a formula. There's very few circumstances where a child support order can be anything but the guideline, but with spousal support it's not that way, and so the judge has an enormous amount of discretion, and as long as the judge is able to show that he or she considered the mandatory factors that you know it's a list of factors like did someone give up career so that the other person could have a career? Did someone perform more domestic duties than the other person? You know things like that, none of which have anything to do with what is the number that should be the spousal support.

Pete Roussos:

Hey guys, can I actually try to steer this a little bit? I'm just thinking about this conversation, and what I'm aware of is regular listeners to the podcast have heard us many times talk about why we are such believers and devoted to the practice of mediation, collaboration, alternative to sport, dispute forms of resolution, right, and what we talk about is how, when people go to court, they're ceding these decisions about these monumentally important things in their lives to somebody else. So you know, folks who listen to this know where we stand vis-a-vis litigation versus what we do, and so I'm wondering this is a long-winded way of steering, if you will, something that's more in our let's go to our wheelhouse. What are the myths and the misconceptions that people have about mediation and collaborative divorce? Because there are also, I think, a bunch of those that we've heard and that we talk about.

Mark Hill:

If I don't have a strong attorney fighting for me, I'm going to end up losing.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, or one myth that people come in with is it's either going to be A or B. You know, like I call it the false binary, it's going to be either I win or he or he wins. You know, you know it's it's. It's a false binary, and without understanding that, in mediation, what sometimes we look for is is the chance for both to win or both to lose. Similarly, similarly.

Mark Hill:

I mean, there are some financial issues that, if litigated, the judge is required to choose A or. B, Whereas in alternative dispute resolution we can be a little grayer and say well, maybe a 40-60 split here might work for you guys. But the judge doesn't have that choice. They have to pick A or B, and that is probably not what at least one of the participants wanted.

Pete Roussos:

Well you know, go ahead. Pete, I think regular listeners have heard the two of you say I think a number of our discussions. I've heard the two of you say I think a number of our discussions and it just is so striking to me one because of the realism of it but that a really successful, healthy mediation often means that both parties are a bit disappointed.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, I kind of joke with my clients. If you're both disappointed at the end of the day, then I've done my job, you know. But what it means is they've compromised. You know they're in the popular culture today, especially with the politics out there, there's this kind of this notion that a compromise is some kind of a dirty word, like we shouldn't compromise. And uh, we, as mediators and alternative dispute resolution practitioners, understand that a compromise is actually a good thing. It means you've gotten, you know, you've managed risk. If you go to court, you know you, like Mark said, the judge has to pick a, pick an answer. It's not like you can go in and say, well, I have this appraisal that says that the house is worth a million five, and I have this other appraisal says the house is worth two point five. So, judge, what do you think? And the judge could split the baby in half, you know, and pick a middle number. Judge is not allowed to do that. He has to either pick the one point five or the two point five.

Pete Roussos:

A myth that I have encountered is people thinking that if they go into a mediation process, they actually can be more secretive.

Shawn Weber:

Yes, yeah, it doesn't work very well that way or the fear corollary to that, the fear that my spouse is going to be more secretive and so therefore I'm at risk if I go into mediation. What we found is it's just the opposite that people are more likely to share information in a mediation context than they are in a courtroom situation, and the reason for that is simple. I mean, when we're in law school, we're taught, when there's a discovery request that comes our way, to share as little as we can legally get away with, whereas in mediation, because people are not just completely under the gun the whole time in this adversarial battle, people are more likely to share, and the good news is, mediation can't continue unless there is sharing going on in this kind of process is helping people who are ending their marriage get to a place where both parties feel like they're sharing sacrifice fairly, and because it's mediation they get to decide what fair is.

Shawn Weber:

The two of them together yeah.

Pete Roussos:

Yeah, yeah.

Shawn Weber:

Or what's a good business decision, like, maybe we can't even get to agreeing what fair means? Like I mentioned, fair is kind of the F word. So then, well, what's a good business decision for you, what's going to make sense as far as this particular issue, so that you can reduce the risk of what could happen to you at court and you can end this conflict and the other thing that happens in. You know, when you're at court, you know there's different reasons why people have conflict. You know there's, there's and there's different reasons, or let me rephrase that there's different methodologies for how people resolve their conflict.

Shawn Weber:

You know some people resort to power. You know I'm going to have power over you, I'm going to, you know, maybe I'm going to be violent, I'm going to force you to do something, or I'm going to use some kind of legal authority that I have. Or there's rights where we're trying to figure out who's on the right side, and that's that we see power and rights brought forth in a litigation context. But what you don't see in litigation context is what are the party's interests? And what we found is, with interest based negotiation, is you can actually get people more of what they want if they can agree than if you went to court. And one of my favorite examples of this is you know, there's a parable of two old ladies fighting over an orange. You've heard that one.

Pete Roussos:

No, no, I don't know.

Shawn Weber:

OK, so two ladies fighting over an orange, and so then they go to the magistrate, or whoever the person is that decides these things, and he comes up with a solution. The solution is we're just going to cut the orange in half and each of them gets half an orange. They should all be happy, right? Well, no, because what really was going on is when you look at the interests of what these women had. One woman's interest was she wanted the zest from the peel, and the other one wanted the pulp, you know, and they could have both had 100 percent of what they wanted If the magistrate would have stopped for a moment to figure out what their interests were.

Shawn Weber:

But when you go to court, it's just about applying the law. So we're just going to cut oranges in half, we're going to just apply the law, no matter what the interests are, and so you can't get creative at court. I mean, it's one of the strengths of court the judge is always going to apply the law, right. But the negative to court is that the judge must apply the law.

Pete Roussos:

Yeah, are there myths and misconceptions, or what are the myths and misconceptions that you see vis-a-vis cost of mediation and collaborative?

Shawn Weber:

How people think about the costs of those processes. Well, I mean, I don't know what you think, mark, but I think that people, when they hear how much a mediation, how much a mediator, will bill per hour, they kind of get nervous that this is going to be just as expensive as going to court. So I might as well just hire an attorney, because they may have a similar hourly rate. But what they don't realize is how much more hours are spent in court and how much those hours are completely out of control with all the experts that you hire, whereas in mediation and collaborative you have a lot more control over the cost. You spend a lot less time. You pick your experts together at the beginning and really control their costs, instead of letting them be picked at the end, when it's out of control. And so with litigation you tend to have more of a runaway train.

Mark Hill:

And I think, sean, that they don't really have a good understanding of what they're in for. I think in mediation and in collaborative we do a fairly good job of laying out what costs could be, and we don't know. I mean, you know, people ask me how much this is going to cost. I use an old English expression how long is a piece of string? The longer you pull on that ball, the longer it will be. So it's not easy to determine it. But then you get this retainer talk. Oh yeah, just give me $5,000 and we can get going on your case. Oh well, 5,000 is not bad, that's okay, I can afford that. But what that won't even do is get you through your declarations and the necessary court forms done.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, that's just your first retainer.

Mark Hill:

Exactly.

Shawn Weber:

And it's going to keep going, and keep going, and keep going until that case is done, and you could be in six figures before you know it.

Pete Roussos:

One of the things that a discussion that I have with prospective therapy clients, because I'm often asked how long is it going to take. But I will talk about how. My experience is that it almost always takes longer than clients want it to and that it's therefore also more expensive than clients hope it will be. And I'm wondering if there's a parallel in your practices. You know, does mediation typically?

Shawn Weber:

take longer than people expect it will take. Yes, it takes longer than people expect it will take. And but then what I have to teach them is that if you were to litigate this, multiply that time, dive by 10, you know, and it'll take much longer because the wheels of justice turn slowly, part of why it's so expensive. You've got this relationship with this attorney who's your zealous advocate, but the wheels of justice are turning slowly. You know it's hard to get to a hearing, and so every minute you spend with that attorney is costing you money.

Mark Hill:

And everything that your soon-to-be ex-spouse's attorney sends to that attorney requires a response.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah.

Mark Hill:

Which has a cost associated with it. But I mean people come into alternative dispute resolution with unrealistic expectations too. I mean I always tell people it's probably going to cost you more than you want it to take longer than you hope it would and be more emotionally painful than you anticipated and be more emotionally painful than you anticipated. Be aware this is not easy, this is difficult, and I tell people it would be unrealistic to expect the divorce to be that much easier than the marriage was, wouldn't it? And sometimes that will get people's attention. They will understand you know that no matter what you use, which process you select, there will be challenges with it and unrealistic expectations can be very frustrating when they're not addressed up front.

Shawn Weber:

Well, it related to the money that you spend on the process too. You know, a lot of times when I used to litigate I'd have somebody it's a custody case. I love my child and money is no object. I'll spend whatever I have to spend and pretty soon they realize money is an object because it's finite. You only have so much and there will be a point I don't care how rich you are where you will run out of money if money really is no object. And uh, the other thing is spending more money isn't necessarily going to help your child more. In fact it could actually harm your child more. You know, like if you get engaged in a really adversarial process where the parents are at each other's throats I mean, we know from research that hurts kids and also from experience. We watch it happen real, real time. You know they always say no one hates war more than a warrior. You know and I think that's true no one hates litigation more than somebody who's actually litigated and has been in the trenches and knows what it's like.

Mark Hill:

Yeah, very true.

Pete Roussos:

Yeah, yeah, go ahead. How common is it also that people will think, oh, if I could just get on the other side of the divorce. Once we get done with the divorce, things will be better between us.

Shawn Weber:

Oh yeah, that happens a lot. People think that once the trial happens, it's over. The battle is when you're in litigation and you you're engaged in a process that encourages conflict, an adversarial process. You're not feeling better about the other person at the end of the day and the conflict will continue, whereas in mediation and collaborative practice we tend to kind of, because it's a non-adversarial process, we're trying to find solutions. The agreements that the parties create for themselves tend to be more lasting and enduring than the ones that are imposed upon them by a judge, because they created it together.

Pete Roussos:

I think there's also, particularly when coaches are involved and there's an interest on the part of the parties to try to create a healthier process between them. I think that sets the stage for a healthier and more collaborative post-divorce co-parenting dynamic.

Shawn Weber:

Well, you know, I was on a call this morning on a very difficult case where there's two attorneys, there's a parenting coordinator, a mental health professional, and the conversation that these three professionals were having was they're, these parents are destroying their kid. It's going to have a personality disorder. This kid's going to have a problem. They better be saving their money for the therapy bills we're worried he's going to have. You know, all kinds of problems when he gets older, including suicidal ideation and drug usage. You know the worst case scenarios right, Because we've seen the movie before. And that brings up a point.

Mark Hill:

Well, it brings up a point that you raised earlier, I think, when we were chatting about this, before we started recording, which is the fantasy that you go through a court trial and everything's ended, everything's complete, it's not ended.

Shawn Weber:

Yep, it's not ended. You're going to have I mean, I used to make more money as a litigator doing post-judgment motions than I ever made in the, you know, the main case.

Pete Roussos:

Really.

Shawn Weber:

I always made more money on the post-judgment? Yeah, because it keeps going. It keeps going. You've got a relationship with this client until the kids are grown and you know you can do a lot to short circuit that in non-adversarial processes.

Shawn Weber:

And I think related to that is the myth of this concept that if I get a really good zealous advocate, a gladiator that's going to fight my war for me, that's going to be good for me and my family, that's going to be, and really what that ends up doing is it ends up there's a lot of costs associated with hiring that person that you don't realize, and one is the absolute destruction of the relationship with the other person.

Shawn Weber:

And so, you know, I'm always asking my co-parents, you know, do you want to dance at your daughter's wedding? And I, you know, I'm always asking my co-parents, you know, do you want to dance at your daughter's wedding? And I, you know, we've we've heard those stories of people where the other person doesn't even come. You know, neither parent comes to the wedding because they're afraid the other person is going to be there, or it's just this uncomfortable, awful thing. Would you like to have a? You know, could you imagine having a parenting relationship where you're not having to go to bed at night worried about what the other person is going to do.

Pete Roussos:

I shared this before in one of our discussions, but this goes back probably 18 years the case that I had where I, when I was still doing court ordered therapy and had a woman that I was working with. Both parties were court ordered into therapy and at some point in time I asked her you know, how much have you spent on your divorce process so far? And it was half a million dollars and there was no light at the end of the tunnel for them. So she and her soon to be ex-husband well, not so soon to be ex-husband, but at some point in time would be ex-husband hated each other and they had hired two attorneys who hated each other.

Pete Roussos:

And it was this perfect storm a very, very costly process in financial terms and in emotional terms, and just brutal on their children. And, among other things, that case was the reason why I thought well, I'm not doing court-ordered therapy anymore, in large part because my experience was that people who are court-ordered generally don't want to really participate and it was useless. But it also steered me even more fully into collaborative work.

Shawn Weber:

Yeah, that's interesting. You know, I've done mediations where attorneys are involved and sometimes the attorneys are worse than the parties. You know, and you see these parties looking at you. Please, god, help me. You know, you know, and you see these parties looking at you. Please, god, help me. You know, and, and and then you see these attorneys just ready, loaded for bear, ready to go after each other because they think that's what they need to do. Or maybe, like you said, they actually don't like each other. It has nothing to do with the parties, it's just they're animus towards each other.

Shawn Weber:

Um, and having to wrangle these attorneys to think you know, what are you doing to this family? You know, I remember this couple of attorneys, one time in particular, where they were just arguing like I was the judge and I'm the mediator. I'm like, look, you understand that I don't have the authority to decide anything, right? So all of this effort that you're spending arguing your legal case is not helping you. Can you come up with a proposal that the other person might accept? You know, and and kind of telling them you look, you're destroying this family and you're destroying the children that are in this family.

Shawn Weber:

Um, usually that doesn't go over well, but sometimes I'll have an attorney that kind of shocks them into better behavior. But yeah, this myth of thinking, well, if I hire the nastiest attorney I can get that's going to help me and my family, it'll probably end up costing you more money than you have. They'll probably end up dropping you at the end of the day because you can't afford them anymore, and so when you're most vulnerable, they'll drop you like a hot potato because you can't pay their bill, and then you'll be stuck hanging the bag, holding the bag. You know they don't care that it's your life.

Pete Roussos:

Well, I think, as you're talking about that, sean, what? But that I think, as professionals, we have a responsibility to help our clients develop realistic expectations. So I wonder about folks who consult with professionals who are less scrupulous, who are willing to encourage unrealistic expectations about what you know, what might happen in a court process?

Shawn Weber:

I mean, I've seen it a lot and I've actually worked with attorneys that acted like this and they would give you, you know, like Mark mentioned earlier, the retainer talk, I'm going to get you all of these things. He's, you know, we're going to get his left leg in a bag and he's going to pay all your attorney's fees. He's, you know, we're going to get his left leg in a bag and he's going to pay all your attorney's fees. And aren't I great, I'm going to do this for you. And then you get into the case and then the person's telling you well, you know everything I said about. You know, I looked at the court stuff and it's actually it's going to be more like this.

Shawn Weber:

And then you're very dissatisfied with your representation because the person that encouraged you to retain them then starts backtracking on all the retainer talk because, of course, they can't give you all of that stuff. You know one thing that I you know, a good piece of advice for anybody engaging an attorney is you want somebody that's willing to give you the bad news at the beginning. If it's all good news, be suspicious, you know, because it's probably wrong. So find somebody that's willing to give you the bad news along with the good news. Tell you where your case is weak and not just assume that everything's going to be just awesome because you've hired them yeah, and also, if you've hired somebody, and everything in their marketing, everything in their messaging and their advertising is all about warfare, or winning, or winning You're going to be entering into a very vulnerable legal arrangement with this person.

Shawn Weber:

Don't think for a minute. They're not going to beat you to death too. You know they're going to. If you guys get into a point where there's a dispute over your bill or something, they're going to turn on you so hard because that's what they do. It's kind of like there's that parable about the Native American person that picks up a rattlesnake and the rattlesnake tells him please take me down the mountain, and I just need the help to get down the mountain. And then when he gets to the bottom of the mountain, he bites the, the boy, and the boy's like well, wait a minute, I helped you here. Why did you bite me?

Shawn Weber:

well, you knew what I was when you picked me up yeah you know, and I think you know, if you know what this person is, that they're a nasty piece of work, you want to think twice about entering into a complicated legal arrangement with this person. Yeah, plus, also, I've learned that the nasty attorneys don't get better results. The really smart attorneys are the ones that understand that this is a human process and are willing to negotiate with their opposing counsel. They're willing to be human about it. Those people tend to do better at court.

Mark Hill:

But they don't always have the conversation that settlement will be necessary earlier enough in the case. In the case, usually that message is delivered later and it's a shock to the client because they expected going into court and it's Al Pacino and justice for all. I'll just tell my story and I'll get everything I want, like they told me before, and the reality is that message should be delivered early on, that any divorce ends up with some form of compromise, either one you are engaged in or one that is enforced upon you.

Shawn Weber:

That's true, that's true.

Pete Roussos:

I wonder if that's a question that would be good for people who are thinking about a divorce process. You know, is there one question that would be one of the most important things that they could ask professionals that they're consulting with? And would the question be you know, in your experience, what are the compromises that I'll likely have to make in order to have a healthy and successful outcome?

Shawn Weber:

I think that's a good question to ask your attorney.

Mark Hill:

I think even asking the question what did you, mr Attorney or Ms Attorney, consider a good and successful outcome? Because that's not always the same thing.

Shawn Weber:

The attorney sees that their client would see and that's a lot of the disappointment we see at the end of these cases there's that wonderful movie on netflix I think I mentioned it before on this podcast marriage story um, with adam driver and scarlett johansson. Um, you know, the whole premise of the movie is they start off in this divorce context and they start with a mediator and that didn't go well and so they immediately each went to their attorneys and it became a war and there's a. There's a scene in the movie where the two high powered attorneys are speaking for them in court and you watch these people recede in importance, you watch them absolutely lose control of their own lives, and it's kind of a turning point in the film, you know, and these attorneys are just doing what they've been trained to do, yes, yes, and the judge is just doing what that person can do. The judge doesn't really care about you as much as they'd like to say they do. You know they're just. You're just one, two more litigants that they had that day. They've had 40 cases that day and you're just another one and there's nothing that's special about your case for them. And you know, you're asking these people who, um, don't know you, to decide their lives.

Shawn Weber:

And I there was a litigated case I had years ago was a custody case, um, and I remember going before the judge and these people were at each other's throats, you know, and I go before the judge and the judge stands up there and he points his finger at my client, says, do you love your children? And then my client's like, yeah, I love my children. And then he points his finger at the other parent do you love your children? Yes, I love my children. Well, I don't love your children and you're asking me to make a decision about where they're going to go to elementary school. Can you please go out in the hallway and figure this out? I thought that was a wise judge, actually. Yeah. Yeah, because because we were able to, uh, reach a settlement at that point, you know, when it became very clear you're asking a stranger in black robes to decide the life and fate of your children. Come on, do you really want to do that or do you want to stay in charge? And staying in charge means you work with your co-parent or you work with the other person on the other side to reach an agreement.

Shawn Weber:

And you know another myth, you know I've had so many people say well, you don't understand my husband or my wife. They're so charming and they're going to be able to just take advantage of you and they're going to fool you and just know if you get a good trained mediator or a good trained collaborator. There's no fooling going on here. We've seen it all and we can spot the imposters a mile away. And what we're going to provide you is just a very balanced process where you can have a conversation with this person, and the reason you're hiring a professional dispute resolver is not because you're getting along with this person. You're hiring a professional dispute resolver because we have training to help you bridge gaps, you know.

Pete Roussos:

A lot of food for thought here. Yeah, we've done it again.

Shawn Weber:

It was almost depressing. I think I need a therapist, Pete.

Pete Roussos:

No, guys, I appreciate that we're talking about this because I do think that expectation setting is so fundamentally important to what we can do for people who you know they don't know what they don't know and they don't know what they think they know that's, that's false or wrong or likely to um, you know, cause them to to struggle in a process.

Mark Hill:

So I think and and the other. Yeah, peter, and the other thing I'm I just occurred to me is that people are going through an alternative dispute resolution process and we know that it's going to take them a year or 10 months or 14 months on average to get through it, and we may have even told them that at the outset. But they get frustrated because the costs are going up and the lack of progress from their perception because they have a challenging situation or a challenging spouse on the other side gets them to a point where they start to throw their hands up in the air and say, you know, I should, I would have been better off in litigation. Why am I doing this? If I just hired an attorney, this would be over by now. And of course, I see the smiles on your faces as I'm saying this.

Mark Hill:

But the reality is there is no control going, divorce going on. This is not a double blind drug study where somebody's getting a placebo. There's nothing to compare it to, it's frustrating, it costs money, it takes too long, it hurts, it doesn't go away. When you walk out of the mediator's office or walk out of the courtroom and go to bed that night, you take it with you. So I think, being realistic, that it is a process it's certainly not an event that is going to have its difficult times, and that the team you establish around you is there to support you and will help you get through this. The better the team you have, the more information you have, and the more information we have, the better decisions you can make.

Shawn Weber:

All right. Well, here we are.

Mark Hill:

Yeah.

Shawn Weber:

We've done it again.

Mark Hill:

Look forward to your feedback. Anyone that's listening we'd be very pleased to hear from you. If you have a topic you'd like us to discuss on this, please tell us you If you have a topic you'd like us to discuss on this. Please tell us. In the meantime, I think we can move on to the next cases.

Shawn Weber:

We all have pending this afternoon. So, mark, if they want to talk to you about their finances in a divorce, what should they do?

Mark Hill:

Go to my website. Pacific Divorce Management is the company pacdivorcecom. P-a-c-d-i-v-o-r-c-ecom. Fill out the contact form. We will be in touch in a timely manner.

Shawn Weber:

Okay and Pete, if they need to talk to you about the emotional challenges that they're going to be facing in their divorce, what should they do?

Pete Roussos:

Also my website wwwpeterroussoscom, that's P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, and the contact me page there.

Shawn Weber:

Okay, and anybody wanting to get a hold of me to talk about dispute resolution or to get legal advice, my website is weberdisisputeresolutioncom. That's Weber, like my name. Dispute like we had a fight and resolution like we solved it. Dot com. Look forward to hearing from folks and looking forward to talking to you next time. 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. 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.