Mental Health in Family Court: A Safeguard or a Weapon?

Mental health stigma becomes a weaponized battleground in divorce and custody proceedings—a reality that impacts countless families navigating the family court system. In this eye-opening conversation with family law attorney McKenna Zimmerman, we peel back the layers of how mental health diagnoses, treatment decisions, and even therapy records can dramatically alter the trajectory of a family court case.

Zimmerman reveals the hidden power dynamics at play, particularly through the role of the guardian ad litem—court-appointed attorneys who represent children's interests with remarkable investigative authority. These legal professionals can access medical records, interview therapists, and ultimately make recommendations that profoundly impact custody arrangements. What's particularly striking is how casual mental health accusations ("they're a narcissist") float through courtrooms without substantiation, while legitimate mental health concerns often remain misunderstood or oversimplified.

The conversation tackles difficult questions about domestic violence survivors facing custody battles, the risks of submitting therapy records as evidence, and the complicated territory of court-ordered treatment compliance. For those navigating this terrain, Zimmerman offers critical guidance: transparency with your legal team, proactive treatment engagement, and proper documentation of treatment decisions can make the difference between mental health being used against you or serving as evidence of your responsible parenting.

This discussion illuminates a fundamental truth often missed in family court: mental

💥 Got a book, brand, podcast, event, or product? Stop begging algorithms for scraps. Put it where people actually listen.

This isn’t fluff. This isn’t polite. This is raw, unapologetic airtime that makes your message impossible to ignore.

🔥 Slide into our inbox. Be heard. Be bold.

💊 Ready to Deprescribe Your Psych Meds?

Psych meds have harmed us—and we’re not just survivors, we’re deeply educated in psychopharmacology, psychology, and nutrition. As hosts of The Gaslit Truth Podcast, we guide people safely off psychiatric medications with strategies grounded in science and brain health

🔥 You’ve been harmed. You’ve been dismissed. It’s time to take your brain back—with guidance from people who’ve been there and know their stuff.

Chapters

• 0:22 Family Court & Mental Health Introduction
• 3:15 The Role of Guardian Ad Litem
• 11:05 Mental Health Being Weaponized
• 16:41 Therapy Records in Court Proceedings
• 27:22 Domestic Violence & Child Custody
• 39:13 Court Orders & Treatment Compliance
• 45:39 Final Advice & Conclusion

Transcript

Dr Teralyn: 0:02

You've been gaslit into believing, mental health is always weighed fairly in family court. The truth it can be used as a safeguard or a weapon in divorce, custody and child placement battles. We are your deep-throating informants, dr Tara Lynn and therapist Jen, and this is the Gaslit Truth Podcast. Today we have a special guest McKenna Zimmerman. Mckenna is a family law attorney from the law firm Peterson Burke Cross SC. She is a native to the Green Bay area and studied psychology during undergrad and earned her law degree from Marquette University. Welcome, mckenna, to the show.

McKenna Zimmerman: 0:39

Thank you, I'm so happy to be here today.

Dr Teralyn: 0:41

Yes, I'm happy to have a local person to talk to.

Jennifer Schmitz: 0:44

I was going to say get it. You never get local people on the show.

Dr Teralyn: 0:49

We always get people across the United States usually, sometimes in different countries, but it's always cool to have someone in our own backyard, so we're happy to have you here today.

Jennifer Schmitz: 0:59

Tell us how you really feel about the Green Bay Packers, and that's a trick question, so don't answer it wrong.

McKenna Zimmerman: 1:07

I'm hoping to have a great year. I'm like, oh, look at her little, you can put them on my fantasy team so.

Jennifer Schmitz: 1:14

Oh all right OK.

Dr Teralyn: 1:16

All right, all right, all right, so let's get to it. So our listeners have some questions about how mental health is leveraged in court, particularly family court, and Jen and I, as therapists, we've actually had some of our clients get to this problem in family court. So we were hoping to get some insight from you and start wherever you believe is the best place to begin here.

McKenna Zimmerman: 1:42

Yeah, yeah, there's a lot to unpack with mental health and the court system.

McKenna Zimmerman: 1:47

I think, first of all, it's not always relevant. I think you're going to see it more relevant in cases, of course, where there's children. So if there's a divorce, there's no children, or no minor children at least you know they're grown up out of the home, it might just really not be relevant. You know, if, again, if there's no children and say the only thing to figure out is property division, the financial aspect, you know, unless there's some underlying contributor to the mental health. You know, maybe the mental health there's is due to addiction, like a gambling addiction, maybe the mental health is due to addiction, like a gambling addiction, or somebody's in a manic episode and they're spending a bunch of marital funds, maybe it will still be relevant even if there's not children in that sense. But again, we typically see mental health come up as a hot topic in the courts when there is children involved, of course, because courts are worried about the impact that it has on the children and especially if there's a guardian ad litem involved in the case, that's going to be a concern of theirs.

Dr Teralyn: 2:55

Could you explain to our listeners, because not everybody understands, what is a guardian ad litem?

McKenna Zimmerman: 3:01

Yeah, so a guardian ad litem is an attorney litem? Yeah, so a guardian litem is an attorney. They do specialized training. They have to do some certain prerequisites to get that position but they essentially are appointed. In cases involving minor children Divorce can be custody placement, child support cases, anything like that they represent the best interests of the child. So it is their job to come in. They do a pretty comprehensive investigation, you could call it. They talk to the parents, they talk to the child if they're old enough to voice their wishes and have conversation. They may also talk to teachers, counselors. They can talk to, you know, doctors, pretty much anyone they have. They have a lot of ability to do and talk to a lot of people, get records. So, yeah, they're there to look out for for the best interests of the children okay do you have a question, jen?

Jennifer Schmitz: 4:00

no, no, go ahead. I was going to, but I'm like I'm just going to hang tight on it for a second. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Dr Teralyn: 4:05

Because I've had a lot of over the course of my career, which has been pretty long, a lot of interactions with multiple guardian-at-litems and my question always is where does the relevance show up and who makes it relevant? Is it the guardian-at-litem that usually makes it relevant, or is it typically one of the parents? Is it a guardian ad litem that usually makes it relevant, or is it typically one of the parents? Like is it a concern there? Like is it normal customary for a guardian ad litem to start digging into mental health in the beginning, or does there have to be, like somebody bringing it up as an issue?

McKenna Zimmerman: 4:38

I think it typically comes from one of the parties. You know, they know the other party. There might already be a history there. If it's something more recent, that was maybe triggered by the divorce or by the court case that's going on. Maybe it came out in a court proceeding and it was kind of obvious to everyone. Then the guardian ad litem might have got, you know, tipped off to that on their own. But typically I would say it comes from one of the parties who then shares that information with a guardian of item.

Dr Teralyn: 5:07

I'm going to guess it's usually not the party with the mental health disorder that's bringing it up right, Right. So can we talk a little bit about how mental health can be leveraged negatively in court?

McKenna Zimmerman: 5:20

Yeah, you know, if somebody has a long history of mental health, especially if it's went untreated, that can certainly. You know there's a difference between having a mental health issue, you know, having something diagnosed and getting treatment, working really hard to manage that, whether that be, you know, through counseling, therapy, medication, whichever route they're taking and not getting treated. So I think it comes up in that context a lot. You know, if there's this long history there, you know, hey, if they haven't been doing anything and it's been boiling over, you know, in marital issues and affecting the family, that's a lot of the times where that comes out. So I think that also makes a difference. Have they been getting treatment? Is this something new? Is this something that's been going on? I think when there's a history there, it's a lot easier to point to things. You might have records, you might have text. You know if there was fights and there was videos taken. If there was, you know pictures. There's more evidence if it's been an ongoing issue.

Jennifer Schmitz: 6:34

McKenna, can you talk about what would constitute treatment? Treatment, yeah, I mean in your eyes, right Like what constitutes treatment In the eyes of the law. What constitutes?

Dr Teralyn: 6:45

what constitutes in the eyes of the law, what constitutes in the eyes of the law.

Jennifer Schmitz: 6:47

Yes, treatment?

McKenna Zimmerman: 6:49

I mean, I think it just are you doing steps to address? Hey, do you know you have a problem, um, and are you doing steps to address that? I don't think they. You know, counseling, are you going counseling? Are you talking to somebody? Are you seeing a psychiatrist? Are you following your doctor's recommendations? Are you following your psychiatrist's recommendation, whether that be to take certain medications or otherwise, something that is from a professional, a licensed professional, that's going to have, you know, typically have more weight than, oh, I'm talking to my friend who you know has studied or has an interest in psychology. Right, that happens a lot.

Dr Teralyn: 7:37

That really does. I went to school for psychology once, right, and yeah, or I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So I want to say the one thing that stuck out to me is following what, like, a psychiatrist says, or so I feel like, within that following, is there choice? Like, does that person get choice? Because you know, somebody can say, well, they said she should be on medication and she's choosing not to, she's choosing a different route. Is that then, can that be leveraged in and of itself, that the person is choosing a different route to address their mental health? Because that almost feels like a commitment, it's like running the line of a commitment.

McKenna Zimmerman: 8:22

Yeah, it's like running the line of a commitment.

McKenna Zimmerman: 8:23

Yeah, yeah, I would say, if you are, you know, maybe the attorney that's representing the person that has having some mental health struggles, in that situation, if they are not comfortable with or, you know, don't feel like medication is helping them or they have some doubts about it, I think that would be a situation where you would bring in another doctor and get a second opinion, see if that recommendation is different, and then that is something that you could, you know, present to the court as a second opinion to say, hey, this one's saying this, this doctor's saying this, you know, for X, y, z reason, I'm not comfortable taking medication and I think that this is better for myself.

McKenna Zimmerman: 9:04

This doctor says it's better, or that it's an option not to, you know, to manage my mental health and not take medication. Again, having a professional, you know, having that documented and written, is certainly going to be helpful, rather than just saying, oh, I don't want to, I don't like it. I think that has to be unpacked more. Why is it not working? Why do you not want to take medication? Is there other options we can look at? So I think it would be that individual's job and kind of the job of their attorney to help them in getting that documentation to show hey, there is other options that we think could work here.

Dr Teralyn: 9:43

Do you feel like medication is weighed more heavily as treatment than anything else in court?

McKenna Zimmerman: 10:23

Not I guess, not that I've seen. I haven't seen a ton of you know, I think it's more often where you would see counseling or meeting with therapists or psychiatry. You know more of the counseling aspect of things, I guess for cases that I've worked on. I haven't seen a ton where there's medication requirements.

Dr Teralyn: 10:46

Or just the idea that medication is weighed more heavily as a treatment, right, like so, when we think about mental health because Jen and I talk about medications all the time when we think about mental health like treatment the definition of treatment typically comes with medication first as treatment, right, and I know we know that logically it doesn't, but in circles it certainly does. So I was just curious if you know medication is like well, yeah, definitely need meds, because I always think about the people who are injured by medications as well. So if someone's been injured by a med, you know, is that a conversation as well, like the med made them worse and there hasn't been anything that has, you know, helped them, or they don't want to be on medications anymore, which isn't always a bad thing, yeah, right, it's just a thing. So I think that's where I get kind of lost in the weeds on this conversation. Is personal choice with you know, mental health care or treatment, Right, and who gets to decide?

Dr Teralyn: 11:51

If someone has a mental illness, that's you know enough to be to take your child away. So if you has a mental illness, that's you know enough to be to take your child away. So if you can think of thinking through that is there. Are there certain things that someone would definitely, with a mental health issue, be looked at as not capable? I mean, I get the extreme cases of like suicidality, homicidality, things like that. But do you have any insight as to like what else would really be taken into consideration? I'm trying to reduce fear around it Because I know some people go in. Well, I can't tell them that I'm depressed or I have a history of alcoholism or whatever Like. So what are some of the things that can kind of reduce the fear around disclosure of mental health issues and make it so that it's not weaponized in the same way?

McKenna Zimmerman: 12:41

Yeah, I think you know one thing is really getting in front of it. Especially, you know if there is a guardian ad litem involved and you're worried that the other party is going to bring it up or that they're going to get to the guardian ad litem first and share that information. I think getting ahead of it is huge Going. You know talking, either if you have an attorney, talking with your attorney and then talking to the guardian litem together to make sure that comes across how you want it to. Or you know, if you're unrepresented, you know reaching out to the guardian litem and having a conversation about it.

McKenna Zimmerman: 13:13

I think transparency is a good idea. To get in front of it, say, hey, this is what I struggled with in the past and acknowledging that and then again highlighting what you've done to work on that. And again, that might not always be medication and if it's not explaining why, hey, I was on medication. It didn't work for me. I had a bad reaction to it. I actually felt like it made things worse for me. But these are things that I am doing and it's something that I want to continue to focus on and work hard on.

Dr Teralyn: 13:46

Yeah, I'm wondering why you would have to explain why it wasn't medication if it was your choice to get treatment in a certain way. Can you offer some insight on that?

McKenna Zimmerman: 13:59

I'm just thinking, if they were on a medication and there was documentation of that provided, and then you know they'd say, oh, why did you stop this? You'd want to, you know, of course, explain.

Dr Teralyn: 14:05

Sure, okay, I understand what you're saying. I thought you were saying, like you know, you have to explain yourself why you chose not to do medication with a mental health issue.

McKenna Zimmerman: 14:13

I'm just thinking, if it was documented that you were previously at one point stopped it abruptly. You know, explain, you know. This is the path that I was on. I decided to go a different route.

Dr Teralyn: 14:24

Have you seen in court like truly like weaponized mental health disorders, whether it's family court or otherwise? That shouldn't have been. That you're like, wow, this is like crazy that this is being brought up in such a way and you don't have to disclose, but like, have you heard of, or a case law or anything like that, where it was really truly weaponized and what that would look like if someone felt like they were being weaponized? What is that?

McKenna Zimmerman: 14:53

Yeah, I'm trying to think weaponize, what is that? Yeah, I'm trying to think I haven't had a ton of cases with mental health where it's been a super hot topic, but I'm sure you know people like to throw around oh, they're a narcissist. I see that one all the time.

Dr Teralyn: 15:10

Oh, let's talk about this for a second.

Jennifer Schmitz: 15:12

Let's talk about it.

Dr Teralyn: 15:13

Thanks for bringing that up, yeah.

Jennifer Schmitz: 15:15

Glad you said that, yes, yes, and I don't know again how much you're willing to share. But just curious to know when that happens, how many times have you had an expert, like a psychologist, come in and say, yes, he's a narcissist, she's a narcissist Diagnosable. You haven't have you, no, all right, everyone listening hear that for a minute. She's a narcissist Diagnosable. You haven't have you. No, all right. Everyone listening like, hear that for a minute. Here's from the legal attorney side, so you hear it from the shrink side of us going.

Dr Teralyn: 15:43

Narcissism is like super rare people like truly right, it's like the hot thing now the last few years. Well, and what she did say is people don't want to spend money on that. I heard people don't want to spend. So when you say people don't want to spend money on that, are you talking about like a psyche valve?

McKenna Zimmerman: 16:00

That and bringing like, yes, experts into court, you know, oftentimes like a party, especially if mental health is getting brought up, they'll say, oh, I want a psyche valve done, so they'll file a motion. You know, ask the judge.

Dr Teralyn: 16:13

That would be weaponizing.

McKenna Zimmerman: 16:21

I think that would be an example of weaponizing. So that does happen. I would say a guardian ad litem can also request that If it's a party asking oh, I want you to do a psyche valve on the other party. I've seen a lot of the courts say okay, you're both getting them.

Dr Teralyn: 16:34

Yeah.

McKenna Zimmerman: 16:35

Which is fair?

Dr Teralyn: 16:36

Which is fair?

Jennifer Schmitz: 16:37

It is fair.

McKenna Zimmerman: 16:38

Yeah. So that's something that I've seen happen, like, hey, we're just going to do them for both of you. But again, a lot of people, once it comes down to number one, finding somebody to do them, especially here in Wisconsin. It is so hard to find a licensed psychologist or a licensed psychiatrist who does that and will do it in the context of a family law case, because, you know, along with that comes testifying in court if this goes to trial.

Dr Teralyn: 17:10

Well, and I also want to point out that you know, having had interactions with Guardian Elitism and things like that, they're always wanting information about the children, right? What do you think about the children? I'm like I have no idea, I don't work with the children.

Dr Teralyn: 17:25

I can't speak to so many things, and I think therapists get that wrong, because they see the parent and then they speak for the child and they really shouldn't be at all. They see the parent and then they speak for the child and they really shouldn't be at all, because that's a very big specialty for child custody, evals and things like that, and I feel like sometimes it's brought about as a very flippant thing. Well, you should know, because you work with the mom or you work with the dad. What do you think? I'm like, I have no idea, I have zero idea. Unless they are in active addiction or something you know, then then you might know Right, but then you can say that active addiction I can't say how, honestly, can't say how someone parents when they're in active addiction you know, really can't.

McKenna Zimmerman: 18:05

Yeah.

Jennifer Schmitz: 18:07

So you hear the request coming through or the verbiage of somebody who's who's got certain diagnoses, like those buzzword diagnoses right, like narcissist right, like this person's a narcissist right and it sounds like that one doesn't come to fruition. Very often, where you've got yep, here comes the expert. The expert comes in, does the eval and says yep, he's a narcissist or she's a narcissist Right.

Dr Teralyn: 18:32

What would be the relevance of saying someone's a narcissist in court?

McKenna Zimmerman: 18:39

is it really? I mean, I think it's pretty. It's pretty easy to see that people like to throw that word around. You know they're in the middle, especially if it's a divorce. They don't like each other. They're going to say X, it's just. You know we're here to focus on the child, the child issues, custody, placement, property division, finances. It's really just not.

Dr Teralyn: 19:01

I would guess he calls her. He calls her bipolar, she calls him a narcissist, and that's probably how that plays out.

McKenna Zimmerman: 19:07

Correct yeah, yeah, a lot of the times. Yeah, that is.

Jennifer Schmitz: 19:13

Okay. So I've got a question around the world of informed consent. The world of informed consent, which for us is a huge deal, there are risks, there are benefits, and are there other alternatives? Okay, and we have clients. I've had several clients that have come to me and I just kind of wonder if this advice is fair or not from your lens, McKenna.

Jennifer Schmitz: 19:38

So I have clients that will come and they'll be going through a divorce and in the context of therapy, they will say to me Jen, I want all of my records, I want all of my therapy notes because I want to use this in some way, shape or form, as some kind of leverage that they need, whether it's to show that they are actively seeking out mental health services, or it's to show that, which many people believe, that the notes are going to reflect, a level, a heightened level of distress or trauma that they are going through from the other party, which is why they were seeking out services.

Jennifer Schmitz: 20:20

Right, Like I'm going to see a therapist because I'm going through a divorce and part of that divorce has got all this trauma tied to it, right? So they're wanting to, for one reason or another, obtain their clinical notes from meeting with the counselor and so when people ask me for that, I have a really honest discussion with them about the benefits and the risks for them of doing that. And so I'm kind of just wondering from your lens when it comes to the risks for that right, Like I know that there can be benefits, but do you see risks in that for clients if they bring those notes forward to court hoping it's going to help them?

McKenna Zimmerman: 21:05

when it hurts them greatly to get those records and when you do a subpoena you have to provide that subpoena to the opposing party, say, hey, you know this is what we're doing. Um, and yeah, I, you know they're gonna. They could potentially have access to those documents you know. Or if they know about it, they know about it that could come to light so they might see their own records. Oh, I think counseling's been going great. They don't know what their therapist has been writing in their notes.

Dr Teralyn: 21:54

Well, that's just it. That's the whole problem.

Jennifer Schmitz: 21:56

Yeah, I think that's part of the issue and so I was kind of curious to know if you've seen that come, because I have learned over the years to have a very honest conversation with my clients the first time that they say, hey, I would like to subpoena these records and get them, for it's usually divorce typically is when it comes up as for divorce court and I talk with my clients about how risky that could be for them and I don't think people have a full understanding of that and so they really truly don't right Like they want to show.

Jennifer Schmitz: 22:35

You know, I've been seeing a therapist and because I've been having a lot of distress, my life is very distressful and I know, jen, that's all I talk with you about and it's going to be in all of these notes when in reality, one sometimes that's really truly not how dictation is done at all and oftentimes it's not our opinion, we're not in their writing Because of divorce. Jane Doe has PTSD. That's not how we do things. Maybe some counselors do, but then also hears you on the other end going yeah, sometimes this can be very dangerous because that info is out. Yeah, anything can be used against you.

McKenna Zimmerman: 23:30

Then yeah, I mean, once that's good, bad, and if it's more so, they just want to show that they've been having appointments and going regularly. I think there's other ways to get that information without all of the notes that come along with it.

Jennifer Schmitz: 23:46

Yes, right.

McKenna Zimmerman: 23:47

Yes, because.

Dr Teralyn: 23:49

I think in the notes what they're a lot of times what they're. I'm just going to grossly generalize. A woman is asking for the notes because she's hoping that it says in there that she has been traumatized by her partner, who they're now going through divorce. One way to look at that is is that now she is going to counseling because she is a traumatized woman. Now she's trying to take care of her children. Could that be weaponized in that way for her? She's thinking it'll help her, but it might actually end up hurting her due to if something is written in there about her stability.

Jennifer Schmitz: 24:23

Right the content. Right yeah, the content of it.

Dr Teralyn: 24:25

Like, the very thing that's supposed to help you ends up hurting you, and that's part of the informed consent process.

McKenna Zimmerman: 24:31

Yeah.

Dr Teralyn: 24:31

So do you guys go through all that Like, do you say, like, listen these notes could really hurt you.

McKenna Zimmerman: 24:37

Well, I mean, if we, we, we don't know what's in them yet. So I think that's also where you have to have a conversation with your client. Like you know, I don't know what you've been telling, you're there, you know you might, right, you know. I think that's a conversation that you have to have with them and see if it's really. And like when they're saying, oh, I'm so traumatized I want to bring that up, I don't know if that's really relevant.

Jennifer Schmitz: 24:59

So yeah, explain that, because that's one of the first things you said when we started the show. You said some stuff with this. Mental health piece is not relevant.

McKenna Zimmerman: 25:06

Yeah, yeah, and I mean, you know, if you're saying, oh, I'm very traumatized, you know, certainly it is a traumatizing experience for many people. There's lots of emotions on probably both sides during a divorce. It's kind of similar to like how Wisconsin is called a no fault state for divorce. So if somebody cheats on somebody, that shouldn't be coming up in court because it's simply just not relevant.

Dr Teralyn: 25:34

But it's traumatizing.

McKenna Zimmerman: 25:35

It's traumatizing and you know that's things that they might vent to their attorney about, you know in the, you know outside of court or vent to their family and their friends. But that it's just. It's a no fault state, so that's not doesn't get any weight in deciding how property is going to be divided or that's not even given weight, though, about how children are going to be divided. For what?

Dr Teralyn: 26:04

Trauma, like if you've endured an affair and you feel traumatized by all this. That's not even included in how children will be divided, right, right, like your trauma over an affair. And so then I think about too, like it just kind of dawned on me, like I know you've worked with domestic violence victims and things like that. I read that in your bio. Before there's a distinction, maybe, I don't know, you can clarify If a woman has been abused like literally abused, that doesn't always mean that the children won't have rights to the other parent, correct, yeah, can you talk about that? Rights to the other parent Correct, yeah, yeah, can you talk about that? Because I think that is like a it's a problem. It's a, it's a problem for many people because how, how can that even be? Right, how can how can that be? Can you speak to that at all? What's?

Dr Teralyn: 26:54

the rationale behind that.

McKenna Zimmerman: 26:56

Courts always want to, you know, try to encourage a relationship between parent and child. So, just because the relationship between the parents has, you know, been unhealthy or dissolved for whatever reason, that doesn't you know, they, again, they want to support that relationship between the parent and the child if it's healthy and safe and possible to do so.

Dr Teralyn: 27:25

So you know they determine that. How is that determined?

McKenna Zimmerman: 27:30

Like the safety part, that would be the guardian of item. That's what. That's what they're there for.

Dr Teralyn: 27:37

No, but I mean like it would be okay. So you've been abusive to your wife, right, whatever? Or the wife's been abusive to their husband, whatever, you've been abused by somebody, is it a matter of like, well, the children were never abused though.

McKenna Zimmerman: 27:53

Yeah, I mean they'll look at. You know, was there ever physical abuse towards the children? Obviously that makes a huge difference, and you know, if there was, was it documented? Was CPS ever called? Was there ever a police report where that was referenced? Did kids ever go to school talking about it? Did they talk to a counselor and say something? You know documentation is really the key when you're bringing things to court. And then the other thing is did the kids witness the abuse? Because just witnessing it is extremely traumatic, even if they were not touched.

McKenna Zimmerman: 28:30

I'm glad you brought to that you know that's where guardian ad litem has to see. How has this affected kids? Do we need to do some sort of therapy between the child and the parent that was the abuser to try to mend that relationship? You know, like reunification, counseling and then also putting the safeguards in place. You know, does there need to be a restraining order between the victim and the abuser? How does?

Dr Teralyn: 29:14

that work If there's a restraining order against the parents like how would that work?

McKenna Zimmerman: 29:18

Yeah, so you know, I've seen there's a lot of places that do like safe exchanges. So when you're, you know, changing between placement time, they can utilize a safe facility. A lot of times they do that. I know in Green Bay we do it at the. There's a sheriff's department where they have a safe child exchange area because there's always officers at the building, it's well lit, there's cameras, so that's an option. Utilizing third parties, that's something that can be written into a marital settlement agreement or an arrangement hey, we're going to use grandma, we're going to use an older sibling if they can drive, there's ways to work around that so that there doesn't have to be that contact. And as far as there's other ways to communicate and exchange the children without having that physical contact between the abuser and the victim.

Dr Teralyn: 30:17

I think that's where it gets gray, it gets muddy for people, right? So because you have unfairly been through that and the children have too, I would argue that any child in a household that's living with abuse is going to be impacted negatively, even if they didn't directly witness it. Right, yeah, so I think that's where the unfairness anyway with that goes, and the mental health, the unfairness of like you've been traumatized but now your trauma is you're the patient. Now, right, you're the victim and you're the patient, but the other person kind of gets away scot-free, right? Is anybody asking that other person? Are you getting help so that you're not abusive anymore? Are you getting help for your anger? I don't know. Does that ever happen?

McKenna Zimmerman: 31:25

Yeah, I've seen it where, like anger management is a requirement or similar.

Dr Teralyn: 31:29

The worst thing ever anger management. Sorry, I've got feelings about anger management, just so you know. Mckenna.

McKenna Zimmerman: 31:38

Or you know just a therapist that specifically deals with domestic abuse. So maybe you know I've seen situations where there's one therapist who I guess has like a program or specializes in domestic abuse and they will meet separately with both the victim and then do separate sessions with the abuser so they get to know both parties and see what that dynamic was. So I've seen that as a requirement and that's again usually recommended by the guardian at Lytton. They'll come in and say, hey, I think we should try this and see how this goes and see how this goes.

Jennifer Schmitz: 32:20

So that guardian at Light Em, do they have specialty education? Specialty training, like you know, in everything from mental health to psychiatric medication, to, you know, family systems, to trauma, to like, everything in between, like, are they specially trained?

McKenna Zimmerman: 32:47

so that they can understand all this. They do get special training, of course, not in like medication. You know they're not doctors, so when it comes to like them making recommendations, that's why it's never going to be a court's never going to say you need to take this medication Right or you need, it's going to be you need to follow your doctor's recommendation.

Dr Teralyn: 33:05

Because again, they're not.

Jennifer Schmitz: 33:06

That feels so similar though.

Jennifer Schmitz: 33:07

Yeah it does. It does feel similar Like cause we're we? We talk about this as therapists, right, like, okay, let's, let's broaden this for a second Cause. We are not like. We do training in psychopharmacology, Right, but we are not prescribers, right, we can't prescribe a medication, right. But something that is very helpful for us to have training in is understanding what medications do, what they don't do, what happens when people stop taking them, what happens over the course of three months, six months, when, if someone stops a medication, here's what you might see happening.

Jennifer Schmitz: 33:51

Here's what a timeline looks like for someone who maybe starts a medication and just keeps stacking more on. And what does being harmed actually look like as a parent? Because now you've got one that's a person, right, you got somebody sitting here that's doing everything right. As a parent, because now you've got one that's as a person, right, you got somebody sitting here that's like doing everything right as a parent, but they're pretty drugged up, like they are psychopharmacology, they are med stacked right. So, yes, they're going to work and yes, they're doing the things and paying the bills they need to do, but they are just completely emotionally numb or they are unable to do certain like I don't know daily living things for their children because they can't connect at all with them because they're going through withdrawal, or here's what withdrawal looks like.

Jennifer Schmitz: 34:30

So you have somebody who is acting erratically, irrationally, and it's not a character for them, but it's because they're going through withdrawal, right? So I'm thinking about these specialty things that, like I mean even us we're not trained in. But when you have a client who has this as part of their world, that could change the trajectory from like a legal standpoint of yeah, you're trying to argue this parent's unstable and we're arguing it's meds doing this or something like that right you know, like, and so I'm just thinking about the intricacies of some of this, that like, because it sounds to me like that guardian at lighten, at lighten is like the gatekeeper for a lot of, a lot of stuff.

McKenna Zimmerman: 35:12

Right, they definitely have a lot of power, um, again, because they, they kind of play that investigator role. They, they talk to everyone. So they're they're talking to both sides, they're talking to the child and again they can get records. They can have the parents sign releases to get counseling records and medical records. All of the things All the records yeah. Yeah, so they do definitely hold a very powerful position in that way that they are doing an investigation and then they are putting forth a recommendation.

Jennifer Schmitz: 35:47

It's almost like you'd have to know these things, to then seek them out, like have some kind of knowledge of these different areas, to even go OK, maybe this is what's going on. To even go okay, maybe this is what's going on, and then to seek out some kind of documentation, if it even exists right In some of these more specialty areas.

Dr Teralyn: 36:12

Yeah, I'm more curious still about that fine line between are you doing what's recommended and a court order, because I feel like that can hold somebody pretty close to like losing their kids if they don't do. Well, you don't do what the court is recommending, then here's the consequence for that right the court's recommending that you take medication. You're like I don't want to because it makes me feel terrible.

Jennifer Schmitz: 36:37

Like if you're chaptered, like if you're a chapter 51 kind of thing. Is this what?

Dr Teralyn: 36:42

you're.

Jennifer Schmitz: 36:42

Okay.

Dr Teralyn: 36:43

Yes, but not Right. Yes, but not. So you had said and I'm going to get this wrong, so you can please clarify. Okay, if you go in there and you're like we've talked to a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychologist or psychiatrist recommends medication and client is refusing medication, you're like OK, so if you refuse medication, you could possibly not have some type of visitation with your kids or some other type of thing like that could be used against you in court for choosing not to go down that path for mental health treatment. But yet it's not a court, it's not a Chapter 51. It's not really a treatment, but yet it's not a court. It's not a Chapter 51. It's not really a court order, but it's like a strong suggestion, right, and if you don't, there could be consequences. Is that what I'm hearing?

McKenna Zimmerman: 37:31

The only way there would be consequences is if the other party brought that to the court's attention.

Dr Teralyn: 37:40

Meaning.

McKenna Zimmerman: 37:41

Like if the other party knew that they, you know, hey, you're supposed to be following your doctor's recommendations but you're not. And if they knew that part of that, you know. Or if they've been somebody who's been on medication per their doctor's recommendation for many, many years, during, you know, say when they were married. And then if they for some reason find out, oh I think they're off their meds or I know they're not taking their meds, how they would know that, I don't know, especially if they're separated, living in different households. But you know, that would have to be an issue if they believe that the other party's not following a court order.

Dr Teralyn: 38:20

That would have to be brought up. You're talking about a court order if they've been court ordered to take medication and they're not.

McKenna Zimmerman: 38:25

They can't be court ordered to take medication. I've never seen that Again it's going to be court ordered to follow their doctor's recommendation.

Dr Teralyn: 38:30

That's such a close like I'm not understanding the distinction, like I'm getting. I'm not understanding. If your court ordered to follow what your doctor says, isn't that a court? If the doctor says, take medication, isn't that technically a court order to take medication? Don't follow what your doctor says, so okay like it's a cousin, like we're cousins here right, like it feels like a cousin doesn't it or the same family tree.

Dr Teralyn: 38:58

The same family tree, like that's where I'm getting lost in. So I'm like, so I feel like, even though it's not a chapter 51 court order, you know, it still is a court order that could be weaponized later.

McKenna Zimmerman: 39:12

Right Again. But if, if I mean, you'd have to kind of have proof that they're not taking their medication, or at least things to you know, to be able to bring it up and say, hey, they're not doing this.

Jennifer Schmitz: 39:26

Yeah, Like it has to somehow be documented right, Like there has to be some kind of way to prove that right, so you'd be able to see whether or not somebody was actually even picking up a script at a pharmacy right. Like whether or not they're even doing that Like in terms. I get what you're saying, McKenna, like in terms of like what? Like we don't. You're not there to know whether or not physically.

Dr Teralyn: 40:00

Yes.

McKenna Zimmerman: 40:00

Are you physically taking this? Are we in the prison order? And this is why, and here's why I believe that. And then, you know, then they try the other party and say, ok, what do you have to say? And that's when they might say hey, you know, I haven't been, and this is why, because it's actually making me worse. And you know, I've been talking to my therapist about it and maybe I have document, documentation to show that therapist about it and maybe I have document documentation to show that.

McKenna Zimmerman: 40:24

So in that way you know again there's a hurdle to get over before it's going to be all these consequences. You know the court's going to want to hear from both sides and say, hey, okay, if this is true, what let's why?

Dr Teralyn: 40:41

is that you know what's going on, right, right. It's just so interesting to me how all of this can be brought in as, like, the primary issue, and I get it. It can definitely be a primary issue for some people, but when it's not a primary issue and it becomes one, like, I feel like, yeah, I feel like that's when it become, you know, scary, weaponizing things like that, and that's where mental health stigma can live too, right Like, so that's why people don't want to bring it up in court, because they're feeling like if I don't bring it up, then nobody knows and then it won't ever be brought up against me. But eventually it's going to be brought up right, and I talk about this too with people with addiction stuff. I tell them like, go get treatment.

McKenna Zimmerman: 41:22

Yeah.

Dr Teralyn: 41:23

You know, just just go, go, go do the thing, go get treatment, whatever, and then you're being proactive at least. Yes, yeah, right.

McKenna Zimmerman: 41:31

And that definitely has some weight, you know, to show. Hey, I recognize that I had a problem and I chose to do something about it. That definitely looks. I think it can look um, really great on you know it can look better for someone anyway.

McKenna Zimmerman: 41:46

And addiction and mental health are obviously so closely intertwined. So there's lots of new ways that courts are adapting to try to still encourage those relationships, even when parents are struggling with addiction, relationships even when parents are struggling with addiction. So I want to make very clear that you know, just because if there is a mental health diagnosis or struggle or addiction, that's not an automatic, you know, you're that's it's not Not your ace in the hole, it's not someone's ace in the hole, and I think that is what it's being almost used as, like addiction or mental health.

Dr Teralyn: 42:22

Is somebody's ace in the hole to get a child away from the other person?

McKenna Zimmerman: 42:25

That's not accurate, right there's certainly different things like they have. Soberlink is one of the new big things.

Dr Teralyn: 42:32

Oh yeah, Clients that use that yeah.

McKenna Zimmerman: 42:34

Yeah, so like the handheld breathalyzer with the facial recognition. You know, sometimes there's maybe a condition like hey, before you know X amount of hours before it's your time to have the kids, you have to do that. Yeah, I've seen that too and maybe that's only a condition for, say, the next six months. You know there might be different timelines on what that looks like, but that's definitely a possibility. And then, hey, if after six months, if things are going well, there's no issues, then you know, maybe we'll increase your time.

McKenna Zimmerman: 43:07

That's. I've seen stuff similar to that happen, drug testing, whether it be, you know, hair testing, urine, urine sample there's lots of different options.

Dr Teralyn: 43:19

Yeah, I like Soberlink. By the way, if anyone's listening to what Soberlink is, it's a, it's a, it's a breathalyzer, essentially, and it sends a report to people. So if you fail it or if you're late or whatever, so it does that. I do like that, especially if you're truly in recovery and you've got nothing to lose, right Like it's. Usually the people not to be the ones who don't want to do it are the ones who are still using so often not always, you know they just want to be trusted, right, which I get that. But truly, if you want, your kids are going to do whatever it is, whatever it takes, anyways, in my mind, whatever it takes to have time with them, and that might be Soberlink.

Jennifer Schmitz: 44:05

So yeah, that's a little commercial for Soberlink. We should call them and let them know we are not endorsed by Soberlink.

Dr Teralyn: 44:08

Yes, all right, mckenna, our time is up here. Is there anything else that you would like to make sure that our listeners understand when it comes to mental health and family court?

McKenna Zimmerman: 44:18

Yeah, I think you know it's important to be super open and honest with your attorney. I think you know it's always hard for us when there's skeletons in the closet that we didn't know about and it comes out. It's a. It's a lot easier to know about it and to say, you know, hey, we can work with this. Thank you for telling me. You know, we can show that you've been working on improving your mental health or working towards overcoming an addiction. It's always easier to prep for that and know ahead of time.

McKenna Zimmerman: 44:49

So I think you know, just taking that first step to be open and honest with your attorney, and hey, maybe it will never even come up, but if it does, you know you kind of are a step ahead and prepare to deal with that and again, to get in front of it, maybe have a conversation with a guardian ad litem, if there's a guardian ad litem involved. Um, and just again, you know, think about your kids. Um, you know, take those steps. You know, if trust needs to be rebuilt, you know, like the sober link, like if you're willing to do that, I think that's great, um, that you're trying to fight for your kids and do that. So, yeah, I think don't look at mental health as like a death sentence, like don't think that that's going to be the only factor that's considered. Um, and just be proactive, get in front of it, um, yeah.

Dr Teralyn: 45:42

And I want to make it clear that spouses should not be diagnosing each other or assessing. Leave that up to the professionals.

Dr Teralyn: 45:51

Yes, all right, all right. Thank you so much for being here, mckenna. I do have a statement I want to read real quick, jen, about the MedWatch, if we can do that real quick. Yeah, if you've been harmed by SSRI or SNRI withdrawal, your story matters. We're calling on you to submit your experience to the FDA's MedWatch system. Let's make it impossible for them to ignore us. Join us in submitting your story at antidepressantinfoorg. The deadline is approaching in October, so we need as many people on that as we possibly can get All right. So thank you so much, mckenna, for joining us, and if you've hung around with us this far, this is the Gaslit Truth Podcast. You can follow us on anywhere. You listen to podcasts and Instagram and Facebook, and you can follow Jen and I and all the social platforms. So thank you so much for being here and that's a wrap.

McKenna Zimmerman: 46:39

Thank you for having me. Thank you, mckenna, it's a great conversation.