High-Conflict Divorce Playbook

You can be telling the truth, have the receipts in your head, and still watch a judge rule against you. That’s the brutal lesson of family court: being “right” isn’t the same as proving it with evidence, procedure, and a story the court can actually use.

We dig into what “high-conflict divorce” really looks like when custody battles keep escalating no matter what you do. We talk about the common setups we see in family law, including one party represented while the other goes pro se, endless motion practice, and how a court can label someone a vexatious litigant for repetitive frivolous filings. We also get practical about advocacy: when self-representation can work, when it backfires, and why staying calm when someone tries to trigger you can protect your credibility as much as any document.

From there, we unpack toxic versus merely difficult relationships, how kids get pulled into conflict, and what judges focus on under the best interest of the child standard, including California’s 50-50 starting point. We also cover domestic violence and restraining orders, including the ugly reality that the court system can be used for control when an abusive person files first. Then we react to the Taylor Frankie Paul footage and discuss what consequences like supervised visitation can look like when violence happens in front of a child. We close with a listener letter about getting married under family pressure while already planning to cheat, and what honesty really costs.

Subscribe, share this with someone in a custody fight, and leave a review so more people can find it. What part of family court do you want us to break down next?

Want more glam during your grind? 

New episodes every other Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts. 

🎙️ Hosts: Ilona Antonyan & Mila Arutunian
📲 Follow us on IG: @glamorousgrindpodcast

Transcript

Being Right Versus Proving It

SPEAKER_03 0:00

You can be 100% right and still lose in court if you don't prove it the right way. Do you think that the couples that are high conflict in court are the ones that had like super toxic or difficult relationships? I think toxic and difficult relationships are two different things. And if you're trying to co-parent with someone who thrives on conflict, you're already playing the wrong game. From where I stand, his behavior was very calm. If someone threw a chair at my child, I would attack.

Defining High Conflict Divorce

SPEAKER_04 0:30

This is a glamorous grind, and we're giving you some real-world context for high conflict divorces and legal cases. Today we're talking about something I see all the time: divorces and custody battles, where one or both parties are labeled as high conflict.

SPEAKER_03 0:52

And we're not just talking about difficult situations. We're talking about cases where no matter what you do, it escalates.

SPEAKER_04 2:11

No, they're not usually. Often you'll see a mix. One party will have a lawyer, the other one will not. The one without a lawyer may often go to court a lot and not have a lawyer because lawyers don't want to deal with them anymore. It gets too expensive. They don't want to pay a lawyer, but they want to harass the hell out of the other party who has a lawyer to increase their fees. That's one of the high conflict situations that I often see. Sometimes it will be both parties who are represented by counsel and they can afford it and they go for it. Alternatively, it can be two pro-s, meaning self-represented people, and they really have no limits. They can go to court as long as they understand procedure. And nowadays with Chad GPT and self-help on court websites, a lot of people are getting savbier with how to go to court on emergency basis and how to seek relief. They're the ones in court often arguing over things that may or may not get them the orders they want.

SPEAKER_03 3:04

Does the court have a way to penalize parties for filing unnecessary motions? Absolutely.

Evidence Skills And Courtroom Nerves

SPEAKER_04 3:11

Just like in civil cases, a party can be designated as a vexatious litigant that is someone who files frivolous, meaning motions that have no merit, no basis, frequently enough to address and revisit the same issues that have already been resolved by the court, sort of like getting second or third or fourth or fifth bite at the apple without having new evidence that they're bringing in. Look, ultimately, facts is what drives litigation and changes the court's mind. And you can have a lawyer who's unprepared, who didn't present your facts, didn't present your evidence. You may have a lawyer whom you've paid only to represent you on limited scope or a flat fee. So they may not work your case hard enough. You may be able to present your case better than anyone else if you can speak in court and present the relevant evidence that's important to convince the judge and have the documents that support what you're saying. So sometimes you can be a better advocate than an attorney. It's just not everyone can speak up for themselves and is different when it's your case and you're going to court and there's a judge on the bench. And especially if the other side has a lawyer that may get technical on you, it's better to lawyer up. But if it's you versus the other person, as long as you can, you know, not let them push your buttons and have faith in yourself and perhaps a little bit of confidence to and techniques to not look at them, not to get triggered by them and just focus on what's going on and evidence, you could do better.

Toxic Behavior That Fuels Cases

SPEAKER_03 4:44

Do you think that the couples that are high conflict in court are the ones that had like super toxic or difficult relationships?

SPEAKER_04 4:52

I think toxic and difficult relationships are two different things. Every relationship can be categorized as a difficult relationship. Toxic relationship is where like you can't be in the same room with them, you can't have a normal conversation, everything turns into a fight, they're looking for something and grab onto to turn it into a negative, to spin it and drain your energy and just fight with you no matter what. I don't think that's applicable to every case. Not every relationship is toxic. Many relationships are difficult. And sometimes it's temporary that people are fighting over a specific cause in court related to custody visitation. And then when the dust settles, when they get used to status quo, when status quo meaning they get used to the circumstances that they're now have a divided family, and they have to follow schedule and they get tired of spending money on lawyers, going to court to fight over, you know, the hours and modifications, andor being punished through contempt for violating the court order, people eventually calm down, most people, and their level of toxicity and their litigation lowers. But often the most toxic cases in family law is where people call police on each other a lot, involve children in litigation, uh, expose children to court orders, turn kids against the other parent, speak negatively about the other parent to the children, send use them as messengers between the two households because the two parents can't communicate, send each other nasty text messages, uh, post things on Facebook about their custody proceeding and what's happening and saying bad things about the other side. That's toxic to their own case if the other side can use it against them, but also to their relationship because they're continuing to add good to the fire.

SPEAKER_03 6:40

And it seems like a lot of people have told me that divorce changes people. And it's always very interesting to me to look at it from a perspective of someone who's been married and we've had our ebbs and flows, but like two people who were once in love and like chose to be together and start a family together now become like arch nemesis and aren't going to court all the time. It's really crazy to see.

SPEAKER_04 7:09

There's a lot of pain in that. Usually one or both people feel some sort of pain. And betrayed. One or both people want some sort of revenge against the other and try to manipulate whether it's finances or children to show the other person that they're right or wrong or to exercise control in some sort of way through litigation proceedings. And it resolves itself with some people, with others, it continues on for years. A lot of people in the world in the United States have mental health issues. If you have a mental health issue that perhaps was undiagnosed and you're in the middle of a stressful situation, custody proceeding, dividing your assets, those things can be aggravated if you're not seeking professional help. That's why we always say in a divorce proceeding, one of the two attorneys often represents one of the two parties who are temporarily insane. There's temporary insanity in every divorce or a new proceeding because it is too much for a normal person, no matter how strong and resilient they are, to be unaffected and live their life as normal as if everything is okay. You're gonna be getting bills from your attorneys every month, you're gonna be getting nasty messages from the other side, you're gonna be pissed off half the time because you don't agree, what they fed your child, how they dress them, you know, what they said to them, they didn't do their homework, whatever it is. And, you know, some people can parallel parent, and other people get very entangled in what the other person is doing right or wrong, and it drives them crazy and nuts and hateful, and they become the they just want to win through court, often for a good cause for the best interest of the children, but sometimes it's more of I'm a better parent than you, and I can raise them better than you, and you suck.

SPEAKER_03 8:53

So you said being the better parent. So how do you think that's relevant in court if someone is trying to prove that they are the better parent?

SPEAKER_04 9:01

Well, it comes down to the best interest of the children, which is a very vague definition under family court, and the court looks at the health, uh, welfare of the children, who can make proper decisions for their health care, for their school. Who's a better parent? That's not what the judge decides and given custody. The presumption in California is that both parents, regardless of their gender, should have 50-50. That's where it all starts. But then you look at the best interest of the children for them to have stability, who's better able to take care of certain needs. Uh, if you can show that one parent is neglecting the basic needs of the child, then yes, you can certainly cut the visitation or put a parent on a supervised schedule. If there is any sexual or domestic violence, then that's a totally different story than the person who is a perpetrator of any sort of abuse will have very limited visitation or supervised professionally or through a neutral person.

Domestic Violence And Restraining Orders

SPEAKER_03 9:59

So we touched briefly on domestic violence situations, and you know, what we've talked about in prior episodes is domestic abuse is not just physical abuse. It can be emotional, it can be financial. And what about couples where there is domestic abuse in the household and one of the parties who is the more abusive party is using the court system as a way to manipulate or control the other party?

SPEAKER_04 10:27

We have a case like that right now that's fresh in our mind. We have a a situation where our client received a restraining order against the other party, but then chose not to proceed with it and dropped it and stayed to work on a relationship. She almost got choked to death by her partner. But she let it go, see, thinking they're gonna work it out. Then the other party months later set her up and was the first one to file a restraining order against her and served her. And when you do that, when you're the first one to file a restraining order, whether it's a your you know, motive is to control, intimidate the other side, often the restraining orders are used that way, then you get so legal, so physical custody, that's all you're what you're requested, which is what that person got against the initial victim, I would say, are clipped, then that gives them ability to further brainwash their children, keep them away from the other parent, exercise manipulation and control over the children, turn them against, then alienate them against their the other parent, depending on the age of the children. And the court process takes a while. So you're stuck in the system. Even if you you then you know, there are other events that in this situation led to this person filing a cross-restraining order for domestic violence against, and they have two restraining orders against each other now pending. Because the lying ex filed the restraining order first, he got the move out order. So the client is kicked out of the house, he got full custody of the kids, and there are visitation orders that supervise our client's visitation because she was second in line, not the first in line to do it. It would have been completely reversed if she would have been the first one that didn't, you know, that proceeded with her order back then. You know, when the victims feel sorry for their abusers or hope to save their relationship, we can backfire because then they find themselves in a position where they aren't a defensive now, and then the person who's abusive and manipulative, just like they were in their relationship with their spouse, is doing that with their children.

Celebrity Case And Custody Fallout

SPEAKER_03 12:37

Basically, you can file a restraining order against anyone, and then if the judge grants it, then that person is forced to move out and be away from their children. Yes, very sad, but true. For our real justice segment, we're gonna talk about Taylor Frankie Paul and the issues going on around the Bachelorette.

SPEAKER_02 13:01

Yeah. Yeah, look at you. Look, look.

SPEAKER_01 13:05

Yeah, look.

SPEAKER_02 13:07

This is called physical abuse. Yeah. See, Taylor, this is all you do. It's the only thing you know how to do is hurt me. Huh, and you think this is okay?

SPEAKER_01 13:25

It's not okay. Your daughter is raped! Oh my god.

SPEAKER_05 13:34

Oh my god.

SPEAKER_00 13:38

You you season 22 of the Bachelorette is cancelled on ABC after the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives star Taylor Frankie Paul is seen on video obtained by TMZ throwing four stools at her ex-Dakota Morrison during a brutal fight in 2023. One of the stools appears to hit her daughter Indy, who was five at the time.

SPEAKER_01 14:05

Oh my god. Oh my Let me go!

SPEAKER_00 14:21

About halfway through the attack, the camera goes black, but you can hear the violence continue. This is the first time we've seen video of this fight, which was covered in the pilot of the Hit Hulu series. The prosecutors saw it years ago and used it as evidence to file felony charges against Taylor. She eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. Her probation ends in August. So, what does Taylor have to say now that the video is published? Well, she argues the code is behind the curious timing of the release and additional accusations of domestic violence during the run-up to the Bachelorette's now scrapped premiere.

SPEAKER_03 15:45

Are she the victim? Are you kidding me? Sounds like a PR statement of denial. Okay, from where I stand, his behavior was very calm. If someone threw a chair at my child, I would fucking kill them. I would lose my shit. Are you kidding me? I would not kill anybody in front of my child. I would call the police, and I think that's alright. No, I would I would attack. I'm not gonna lie to you. I wouldn't if someone threw a chair, a metal chair at my child, I would for sure attack him.

SPEAKER_04 16:12

If I would first attend to my child first, I'd probably run outside with my child and call the police and take him to the ambulance first.

SPEAKER_03 16:19

That's what I would probably do. He was very calm of like, tend to your daughter, are you kidding me? I would be like, You get away from that child, you are no longer deserving of being their parent. Like, that's not okay. How can you even act like that in front of a k your own kid? I think it's the video shows lack of self-control.

SPEAKER_04 16:38

I don't think that she wanted to hurt her child or intentionally did this, but because she cannot control her emotions, which is even more dangerous. Yeah. If you lose your mind and control over yourself and your anger takes over your entire body, you're so reckless you can throw anything at anyone without paying attention who you're gonna hurt, whether it would be him, and especially doing it in the presence of the child, whether the child was close enough to get hurt or even within the hearing distance of the child, that's extremely damaging and scary and traumatizing. And I based on that, he should have gotten 100% custody and she will be placed on supervised visitation. And would have to go jump through a lot of hoops uh to regain custody slowly. Oh, that was awful. That poor kid, man. I mean, I've seen things like that and worse in some of the videos and the parents do get put on supervised visitation, and um if uh they don't follow the steps, it can be a long difficult path for them, especially if they're not taking responsibility and blame the other party. That's even worse. Like, if I was his lawyer, I would use those statements she's making now to blame him. At a future court hearing when she's seeking more custody, it shows lack of awareness, not taking responsibility, blaming, she's trying to spin this twisted theme that he's out to get her, and she's lucky and it just hit the child and they're okay. But it could have been worse. If there have been violations of the restraining order, if he obtained one against her back then, then he could use the violations of a temporary restraint of a permanent restraining order through family court. She violated it, he could file a contempt action in family court against her. And then if she's found in contempt, he can also report it to her probation officer. Violation of a restraining order in family court would be violation of probation terms in criminal court. So then she could go back to jail potentially and serve the time. But I don't know, I would have to really look at his all the court orders, court minutes, the probation terms, and their court orders from family court. Maybe he never filed a restraining order, I'm not sure. Uh, if she thinks that he's out to get her, that suggests that then he probably get got a restraining order against her and he probably has more custody right now. If she's saying that and he didn't do those two things, that means he was very forgiving and lenient, more than he should have been. And she's just ungrateful. It's hard to see that, but it happens. And you know, it's the see, it's a woman doing that. It doesn't matter. Men and women both do it. Everybody's a human being, like, and people have mental health issues. Like he said on the video, he's like, it's you and it's your problems. I don't know what she's dealing with. It's your pain, he said. Huh? It's your pain. It's you and your pain. Yeah, so she uh maybe she's on medication, maybe she has some sort of personality disorder, psychiatric disorder. We don't know. If they did a custody evaluation, which he doesn't need to do because he would have full custody if he wanted to after this event for at least a period of time until she would um go back to court and prove herself. But if they ever did custody evaluation, he could request that she undergo psychiatric evaluation, determine whether she has personality disorder. That would be an issue, and parenting and custody plan they may share could be customized around her working on those issues.

SPEAKER_03 20:11

Shit happens. You know, relationships are hard and it takes two to tango. I'm sure he wasn't like a perfectly, you know, um perfect angel and she just lost it at him. I'm sure there were conflicts. But with that said, there's I think there's no excuse for behaving that way in front of a child.

SPEAKER_04 20:31

Well, look, if I was if I was her lawyer, now I'm gonna argue the other side. I would argue that he did something before that. Perhaps I don't know if it's true, maybe he hit her, maybe he did something that she was, let's say it was self-defense. I bet it was not self-defense because she got convicted of felony, right? So it was not. Uh interestingly enough, he says in the video, hey, you always do this. A lot of times men just feel like it's not like they're not gonna record a woman or they're gonna not gonna, it's embarrassing and shameful to them to admit the woman is beating them, but it happens. And here he finally records her. Sounds like it's not the first time, but before I saw her throw in the chair, when I started watching the video initially, I I heard him narrating what's happening, and I thought, okay, a lot of times people do that for self-serving statements. They make comments to help themselves, thinking they're building evidence against the other person. I thought he was narrating at first and perhaps exaggerate exaggerating, saying you'll always do this, right? Without proof, just to as if it's conclusive that she always does this. But then when she threw the chair, I'm like, all right, the guy has certainly has a point and she's got anger issues.

SPEAKER_05 21:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 21:38

I don't know. I could never do family law. I could never like deal with that and then not like go home and not like carry that with me.

SPEAKER_04 21:48

If she was my client, I'll tell her get an individual counselor, go to some intensive therapy, get anger management, because it's not just about doing what's right for the court. But if you have a child, chances are when the other parent is not there and you get angry, you'll be abusive to that child because you can't control yourself. And then when the other parent is not there, you're gonna be back in court because a child will be complaining about you. And the other person was not there will want to return to protect the child, but they have no proof because it's child's words, and the other parent is not there to see what happened anymore because they live in separate homes. So that's where people some often return back to court to present to the judge what they're hearing from the child. They have no real proof or evidence. And what I've seen happen often is the judges may not believe what this person is saying because they were not there. So how do you know? Well, my child told me, Well, your child is five years old or seven years old. Do they lie sometimes? Yeah. And then the other parent will show circumstance where you know the child may be exaggerating or you know, something that will dissuade the court from believing that this is the truth. And unless you have photographs or other professionals involved, like school counselors, therapists, coaches, someone else who can support the accusations, it may be difficult to convince the court that something is going on just based on child statements. If there was a restraining order in the past like this, then obviously it gives the party who is complaining a lot more credibility, returning back to court. If there that hasn't happened in the past, uh, or it happened, but it was somebody never went to court to get a restraining order, then you have to slowly build the case and gather the evidence because without it, the court may not find it convincing that you will be like, I'm the better parent. Well, what proof do you have? Well, my child tells me that you know she screams at them and she throws things in a house. Were you there? No. How do you know? Well, my five-year-old tells me then she complains and she comes back home scared, and you know, she said, Mommy told me not to tell anybody. Okay, and then you go to court with that. Then the angry parent will then punish the child. And then, okay, you go back to court again. And the child will not tell you anything next time because you're scared. So is this it? This can drag on for years, and a lot of parents are looking for that proof. I think you need to get consult with an attorney to really find out for your specific circumstances how do you prove this? Catch it.

SPEAKER_03 24:39

Okay, so let's get gritty. Let's get gritty. Hi, Lola and Mila. I'm engaged to the perfect woman on paper. She is everything my family has always wanted for me, but I'm already finding myself fantasizing about an affair. She's Catholic and Filipino like me. We have only been dating for six months. I know it's fast, but I want kids, and she's the perfect person to do that with, and my family loves her. The problem is she is great and I do care about her, but I know I won't be able to be just with this woman for the rest of my life. My friend, who is also a woman, told me I can't possibly marry her when I'm not going to be honest with her. In my mind, I will take care of her and our children and all of their needs. I will provide and be all the things a husband should be, but I also need excitement and most people who are married end up having affairs anyways. I think I am just more realistic about it. So am I not if I go through with getting married, but I already know that I'm going to need someone else. Does this make me a total asshole or a realist? Ugh, give me that so I can address everything in part. I don't want to say my opinion. I think he's honest. I would support him if he wanted to move forward. But I would hope he would be honest and have an honest conversation of like, because it may just be like fear. Like it may just be fear, and maybe he doesn't actually feel that way. No, no, he feels that way.

SPEAKER_04 26:04

He is curious about what's out there, and he used to explore that. Okay, if you were my brother, let me just lay it out, okay? Not as a lawyer, but maybe as both. I would say, hell no, don't get married. Number one, because you're gonna go through a divorce, and the divorce is gonna cost you a lot of money, a lot of stress, and there are a ton of women who you will find perfect on paper to have children with. Are there though? Yeah, there. I mean, okay, maybe as a woman, I feel like there are a ton of women who are perfect on paper, and not a ton of men who are perfect on paper.

SPEAKER_03 26:35

I think there's just not a lot of perfect on paper people these days. I think it really is.

SPEAKER_04 26:39

Well, for him, it's subjective. Like he has his standards. He she has to be Catholic, parents have to like her. And Philippines. And I'm sure she has to be cute, but if he's already fantasizing about others.

SPEAKER_03 26:51

If this was like 40 years ago, this would be the norm.

SPEAKER_04 26:54

I would not get married unless she kind of knows what's gonna happen. Because she'll think you're an asshole, she'll think that you're a liar, they just used her, and there's gonna be a lot of resentment and hate. And when you have you're gonna be sharing children with her, your life is gonna be hell. You can have babies with anyone you want without getting married, you can have sexual relationships with whoever you want without getting married. Your parents want you to get married. So I wanna I I wanna pay special attention to the words you used in this email because it kind of reminds me a little bit of when I felt pressured by my family to get married and do things right by the book. They left me alone after I did that and it didn't work out. I think that family pressures are very real, but you gotta think for you. You already know what you want and what you don't want. So you would be getting married for your parents, not for yourself. You're not ready to get married. You're ready to have some fun and you haven't gotten it out of your system yet. If when you guys one day split up, because assuming it's more likely than not, she'll find out you're cheating on her, she'll be very mad at you, she feels like you betrayed. So unless she's like a good religious girl who forgives all your sins, well, you're Catholic, so maybe, you know, maybe that'll work. No way. I mean, you know, then they go to the priest and asking for forgiveness.

SPEAKER_03 28:10

I think, okay. Worst case scenarios in both situations. He marries her. Worst case scenario, he cheats on her, they get a divorce, they have kids. Terrible. What you said. Yeah awful. Best case scenario, he has he has his little flings on the side, she never finds out, and then they live happily ever after because they have kids, and then he may cheat, but she's the woman of his dreams. He provides for that's not a woman of his dreams, the woman of his mom's dreams for him. I think he's gonna cheat no matter what, it seems like. On her. Okay, but then worst case scenario, there are other people.

SPEAKER_04 28:45

But you guys are religious. So talk to her about that. Look it up on Chat GPT. And I agree with your woman friend. Hey, if she wants to get married and she's open to that, perhaps then you'll be honest about it. If not, she'll say you're crazy and she'll dump you. And it's okay.

SPEAKER_03 28:57

But the then the other worst case scenario is he doesn't marry her and he dumps her, and then she's the one that got away, and then he like goes and fucks around, has his fun, and then he's like, damn it, I should have married her. Because now he has to get out of his system. But the in between, maybe he just talks to her about it. He just sits down and tells her, This is how I feel. Maybe we can get therapy or something to like.

SPEAKER_04 29:19

Six months in bad sign. I went to therapy six months into my relationship and got married to the dude. It lasted four months. No. Therapy early on, red flag, don't do it. Imagine this girl that he wants to marry is your sister or your daughter. Would you want someone to marry her knowing already that they're not gonna be in? I wouldn't want that. I will tell you, be honest with the other person. It's not fair. She's putting her life and trust in you with the best hopes of honest relationship. And she'll give her body to have children with you. She'll sacrifice herself and women ruin their body. And I'm just saying that in general, you're gonna be pay for paying for it different ways. Child support, spouse support if you get married, um, your your assets if you have any. She's not gonna work, you're gonna be on the hook for a long time. This marriage license that your mom wants you to get is gonna cost you way more and a lot of regret. Versus, if you don't get married, you're gonna have babies with someone that you think is are perfect, even her. If you continue on just dating for a while, and then divorce won't be painful, custody proceeding could be. But don't marry just to make your parents happy. Don't do it. It's called honesty. You have to be honest. Your friend is absolutely correct. You have to be honest because it's not just your life.

SPEAKER_03 30:35

Imagine though, like a man coming up to you and being like, I really want to marry you, but I want to have sex with every other woman or other woman. I would say fuck you.

SPEAKER_04 30:43

But if I really loved him, he'd be down. No. Send us a wedding. No, don't send us a wedding invite, no.

SPEAKER_03 30:56

Alone and I will be there.

SPEAKER_04 30:57

We're gonna come with a protest sign with our billboard. Does anyone have anything?

Building A Peaceful Life After Court

SPEAKER_03 31:02

Does anything have anything to say to protest this marriage? Claim our scribe! If you're dealing with a high conflict situation, just know you're not alone, and there are always ways to protect yourself.

SPEAKER_04 31:16

And the goal isn't to win every battle, it's to build a life that feels peaceful again. And peace of mind in any relationship really is the most valuable thing.

SPEAKER_03 31:25

Hit that subscribe button and make sure to follow us. And if you've got a question for Let's Get Ready, leave it in the comments or send it to podcast at AntonianMiranda.com. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time on the glamorous grind.