10 Things That Quietly Destroy Your Family Court Case (Sometimes before you've even gone to court)

You may be just starting to go through divorce or separation or you may be just about to step into the family court. And people always worry about what is going to upset the judge. What are you gonna get in trouble for and what is the right thing to do? So today we're gonna be talking about 10 things that can potentially ruin your case. And if you aren't even anywhere near the family court, it's still a really good episode to listen to because the mistakes that you make and the steps that you take in these early stages filter through into court later on. Absolutely. Welcome up. Hello Laura, hello everyone. So we're not doing this to scare you today and we're not doing this to shame you, but we're opening the door and letting you peep in to see some things that later on people kick themselves and go, oh, if someone had told me that, I wouldn't have done that in the first place and I wouldn't be in this mess now. And so anybody going through divorce or de facto separation, listen to this episode, follow these 10 principles and you will be better off in the long run. I agree. I mean, sometimes you don't realize you've done the wrong thing until you've done it and then you're a lawyer or something like that. You shouldn't have done that. And so this is our four warned is four. Yes. But before we get started, a reminder, mum is not your lawyer. I am not a lawyer. We're not psychologists either. We're just sharing the experience that mum has seen throughout her 35 years of legal stuff and sharing some knowledge that we've learnt through working with members in our divorce course. So let's get to the jingle and let's get started. Hello, I'm Laura, a divorce mother of three. And I'm here with my mother, Lynette Galvin, with 35 years experience of family law. You're listening to the divorce course podcasts through our candid discussions. We hope to help you through your divorce or de facto separation. We will be answering the most commonly asked questions and covering the stages and steps that you will face on your way to freedom. All right, mum, we've got 10 things that we're going to touch on. And there are some things in here I wish I'd known. So we're really going to make sure everyone lets us to these today. We are. Number one, the most important and the whole point for family court if you've got kids. Not all of these are kid related, but this is the number one. And the biggest mistake you can make is ignoring the best interests of the children and not being focused. Everything you do and everything you say is for the children. Mum, can you explain why this is a big booboo if you don't follow this from the start? There's a phrase called child-focused, right? And if you are held to be or brought to be child-focused, that's a wonderful thing. If someone says you're not child-focused, it's damning. So and those decisions about how they label you will come through in your family report or through the judge. So the best interests of the kids are absolutely paramount and you've got to make sure, I guess, an extreme cases. I think I've seen cases where people hate their ex. It seems more than they love their children. I know that if you're listening to this, you're trying to do the right thing. You love your kids. So make sure the court can see that, that everything goes through the lens of the child. Yeah. Because the child's experience of your ex is different to your experience of your ex. And that's a problem to get. Don't put them together. And that can be hard for people, especially if they've gone through trauma or abuse. And if you are triggered, please call 13-11-14 lifeline. Or if you're going through abuse call 1-800-Respect, but a lot of people and I've seen this, and it makes sense that they would be saying, but he or she did this to me, he or she did that to me. And whilst that makes complete sense, you'd be like, warning danger, this was going on. But the fact is you're saying he or she did this to me. And it's not, you're not even mentioning the children in that sentence. And whilst everybody else gets exactly what you mean. Of course, well, if they did it to you, of course, they're probably going to daughter the kids. And that makes complete sense to say it. But mum, how do you rephrase it? How do you make it child-focused? - So you rephrase it to talk about the children in it. It's simply enough. So if there was a shouting match, mention where the kids were. Could they have heard it? Did they come up to your afterwards and did they say anything? That's sort of the impact on the children that the court's looking at. Sometimes if you were completely crushed and distraught after a conversation, maybe you don't parent to the best of your ability afterwards. But mainly it is just take a look through the children's eyes because that's the reason they have independent children's lawyers, you know, Laura. If they think neither parent is able to compassionately or clearly think about the children's point of view, the court may appoint an independent children's lawyer. - Have you seen judges get really mad at people who are just not focused on the kids? - Hmm. - Kind of things don't just say. Well, no names, no pactural, but I absolutely remember standing in front of a female judge and she said, "I'm just sad that I have to choose one of you for the children's, if we. " - Oh gosh. - She said, "I haven't got a magic pop-up parent who will focus on the children's needs and not get them, like not." Yeah, it's really hard with everything else going on to think about the kids. But there's videos and things you can watch. They're very confronting. And the kids miss nothing. - Even little kids know. - And if there's tension. - If a judge has got to choose between the two of you, like you said, you're the one who's being child-focused, you're the one who's thinking about the children, how's this affecting the children? If I make this decision, how does that affect? And the other one's just completely not giving two hoots about it. I'm guessing the judge is going to be more in favor of the person who's been more child-focused, I guess. - Absolutely. And that's where that argument, about 50/50. I want 50/50. That's an argument about fairness for the parents, isn't it really, rather than looking at the best interests of the children? So that's a tricky one. - Now, I know you might be thinking, oh, well, I'm not going to be in court. This is something, but the decisions you make early on really matter. So please, and if you are in that tricky situation, go and listen to some of our parenting episodes, our co-parenting episodes, and really just double-check, and are you thinking about the best interests of the children in every decision you make? - Yeah. And the central practice direction specifically says that these rules, these expectations of the court, these principles of good behavior, and constructed behavior, extend to way beyond your going to court. So you might not think that it's going to come into court, but the court legitimately looks back at everything you've done since separation. - Right, so-- - Yeah. - Number two, one of the other big things that really upsets family court judges. And I like to see, to remind people, like a family court judge is sitting in a room with low windows, dealing with people going through divorce for family court day in, day out, sometimes seeing six at a time, six fighting couples at a time? - Yes, and more sometimes than in a day. - And it kind of reminds me of when my kids were younger, and they were fighting, or I remember mum, fighting with my siblings, and then coming up to you and going, blah, blah, blah, did this to me, and now blah, blah, blah, blah, and you would be like, oh my goodness, and then you'd punish both of us. - Yep, that's it. - Both of you to your room, both of you don't get dessert. - And I'd be like, but that's so unfair. You did explain that to me a little bit, and now when I look at it, I'm like, okay, that's how a judge is looking at people in a way, 'cause there's sick of it. - Yeah, and I mean, I may have been a bit unfair on you. One of you might have been right, or entitled, but I didn't have time to unravel it, and nobody was paying me to unravel it, so I was sending off, but the judge is being paid to unravel that. So they're sitting there in a broom cupboard essentially. Day after day, with swabbling couples going past their bench, and they have to deal with-- - So you're listening today, and your case is the most important thing in the world to you. You probably think about it, you probably eat, thinking about it, you sleep, thinking about it, you probably dream about it, you probably walk, thinking about it. So number two, one of the things that really upsets family court judges remembering that lens, when you walk into that room, or even when you're just writing letters to each other at the start, focusing on the emotion instead of the law. When you're just fully, and I don't know how you take emotion out of it, and we do talk about that in writing your affidavits, how to take the emotion out of it. But if you don't take that emotion out, if you don't take whatever you're going through out of it, and just focus on the law, it really upsets judges. - Yeah, it does, look, the way to take emotion out, the easiest way, is to just state what happened. I seem to remember an old cop show that used to go, "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." But you put your flavor in it, you know? Like if you were talking about your workday, for instance, you wouldn't say, "I dragged myself out of bed at six o'clock every morning, and that's so-and-so, I didn't help." That, you wouldn't, but you say your truth. As I got up at six every morning, I was sometimes quite tired. - Yeah, so you don't, the judge is not going to make an order based on your assessment of your ex's character, or even your assessment of the behavior of everyone. They've got to make their own mind up, based on what's presented to them. - Well, and what do the judges use? What law, so they look at the law? So it's the Family Law Act. So it's basically, they look at the Family Law Act. So remind yourself when you're going through this, guys, that yes, there is the emotional side that you have to deal with, but the judges don't care about that, not really. - No, it's not going to help them make the decision in accordance with the law, and efficiently. And of course, they're required to follow the law and apply the law properly, because they are subject to appeal. And if you waste your very precious words and your judge's precious time on stuff that's very important to you, but not relevant to the act, then you can choose them off quite quickly. And if you've got 10 pages to write an affidavit and you use five of them to talk about things that don't even have any relevance to the Family Law Act, or if you get so hyper-focused on something wanting justice for yourself, it may quietly ruin your case without being focused on what's really important. So let's just quickly do number three, which is tailing into that, like you said, month, treating court-like therapy. We've talked about the emotion thing, but one of the things, venting, blaming, storytelling, no facts, but really the big one is labeling your ex as a narcissist. - Absolutely. - That's a big note. So Family Court judges hate that. - They do, because we're not psychologists, and you're not a psychologist. Your ex may be displaying narcissistic behaviors, and you will identify them, but it might be, that's just how they may be in the litigation, or they're just jerks, or horrible people, but that doesn't mean they're narcissists, and it doesn't mean anything to the judge either, but it doesn't look a bit disingenuous if you leap to that conclusion. So don't do labeling. If you want to say anything, describe their behavior and its impact on you. And if you've got a lot of incidences like that, you could put like a summary, like, you know, during the relationship, she was financially controlling, and on a number of occasions, I wasn't able to access money however, but for example, and just put one or two or three examples. And then the judge can join the dots, okay? You could seem to be controlling your financially, you couldn't access money, you could even leave out financially controlling, and just say, I was always broke, they had all the money. That's sort of thing. And then the judge can join the dots. Remind yourself, you're not a psychologist. We aren't either, so you're just giving facts and let the judge, like you call it a little breadcrumb trail. That is it, to the conclusion. I was told that as a young lawyer, you need to lead the judge to the conclusion that you wanted to have by putting the breadcrumbs down, and letting the judge reach the right pathway. And when you really think about it, if you say, my ex is a narcissist, do something about it, the judge is going to go, what do you want me to do? There's nothing in the family lorac that says you can't be, that if you're a narcissist, this happens. It's all about their actions. It's all about what they're done and what they're doing. Yeah, and if the judge gave you an order that says that your ex is a narcissist, what's that going to do? It doesn't impact on your lives. There's nothing you can use it for. So a lot of people go to court looking to be exonerated, you know, to be, to finally tell someone what they've been enduring in silence for all of the years. So you've got to remember, the court's coming in halfway through the story, maybe even only at the end of the story. So it's very easy for them to misidentify who's the problem. So just be very regular and steady in how you report what happened to you and mainly focus on the things you can talk about from your own experience. I think something that we've all learnt, talking to lots of members and myself, pain of going through divorce is real. Okay, best court and the legal process is not where you process it. It's not the place to process it. I don't offer processing. They just offer a way out of it without each of you ending up in fisticuffs, you know. Okay, number four, a really practical one. Really upsets family court judges if you don't understand how evidence works. It's a bit unfair, isn't it? Well, it is, but if you're self-repped and you're trying to go, "Oh, no, I don't worry, I've got proof, I've got proof, I've got evidence." How do you not upset a judge by not having any proof or done it properly? How do you do proof? Oh, wow, that's a big one. So the evidence act in federal courts is this thick and it's massive, right? But the court can only make decisions mostly based on evidence that's put before them. So it's got to be relevant to what they've got to decide. So relevant to one of the sections of the family law act, they have to apply and it has to be, it has to be admissible. Like it has to not have been something said in negotiations. And then those sorts of evidence that you put before the court, you shouldn't draw your own conclusions from them. You attack a document and let the court use it, let the judge use it. So it's unfair to expect people that against in person to know the rules of evidence when a lot of lawyers don't. And the court has a power to in under in the family law act. They don't have to strictly follow the rules of evidence. So if it's really beneficial to the children, you can get that information before them, that might help for the kids, but yeah. So there's ways like subpoenas as one way, affidavits as another way, but they all really happen usually deep into the court process. And you've got to you've got to make sure that it's not something that you've got that you can produce, but it hasn't been properly, I guess obtained or it hasn't been shown to the other side or something like that. So there's a lot of rules when it comes to evidence. So many rules. Is it, is it, do people make mistakes and just go all it's an assumption or it was hit like the hearsay? My friend down the road said he said this to me. Like is that, does that count? No. So it's really got a big proper. Yeah, so you need like first hand evidence from a person who's seen it all done something. And examples are you would never say he was drunk when he drove off. How do you know that? So in the old, like the magistrates court for drunk, you'd have to say he smelled of alcohol or a shared trouble getting the key in the ignition. I'd seen her drink three wines. That sort of thing, but you don't draw the conclusion. So that's that breadcrumb thing again. It is. It's not saying they were drunk when they drove off. You've got to kind of go, well, they had three drinks. They were struggling and slurring words. So it's really describing. And you have said to me before when we've done it, I think we've done an episode on subpoenas and evidence. So go and listen to those episodes. But you have said before that the family court standard of evidence is a lot lower than the criminal court. It is. So in the criminal court, it's beyond reasonable doubt. Right. So it's a very high standard of proof. And a lot of people get away with things that you would think they should have been, you know, sentenced for. But in the family court, their standard of proof is a different standard proof. It's a civil one. And it's on the balance of probabilities. So and when you give this sort of evidence of what happened and who said what and how what you observed, you are the expert on that. So you could be cross-examined on that. Oh, well, when you say that you sort of have three glasses of one, where were you standing when you saw that happen? You know, did you really? And so where everything you put before the court has to be something you have such a good knowledge about, it's from your own experience that you can be cross-examined on it. And that takes us to number five. And if you think that really, I think this probably makes judges like eyes pop out of their head and their brains explode. You know that emoji where they've got a like fire, the brain exploding? Lying. So even inconsistencies can unravel a case. What happens once a judge picks up this person's inconsistent or is full lying? What does a judge do? Well, what they do, or the judge then, if they've got to choose between two versions of an event, they're going to choose the version of the person who hasn't been shown to be lying. So you lose your credibility if you've caught lying. I mean, when you have a court case or even the separation, right? You can forget what happened. You could swear blind something happened on a Wednesday and then someone produces the evidence shows you, no, look, it was the first act. I could have sworn it was Wednesday. Well, you probably did swear it was Wednesday. But you should then change and go, I've since learned that I was mistaken and it was Thursday. But some, so you expect a little bit of a ardubagian and different versions of the event because sometimes you're looking back over 20, 30 years of history. And that's legitimate. As the case becomes clearer and evidence gets found, most of you will be in alignment on most of the facts. But yes, but if you and the face of all of that still maintain it was Wednesday and then get even when you, they show you wrong, you still maintain it. Well, then the court's not going to have a lot of confidence in your evidence. Have you seen big lie, lie pants on fives get their comeuppance in court? Yes, it's very disconcerting, especially if you're their lawyer. What are judges saying? Have you seen a judge say something to a liar or? Lots of times, lots of times. What are those kinds of times? Well, the worst thing they could say is to the lawyers who are, I suggest you take your clients out. They don't have a discussion or I suggest you go and settle this. And I've seen a couple of cases where the other persons lawyers, other persons in the witness box and sitting thinking, how am I going to get this evidence in? You know, how am I going to do it? And then they just tell this biggest porcupay lie, which means that you get a chance to correct them and show them the evidence. If you lie in your early material, you're really, it's like garbage in garbage out, right? If you're telling your solicitor lies, if you go to mediation with lies, or even to a barrister for an opinion on lies, well, then you'll just get an outcome based on that lie. That's what they protect your outcome will be. But if you go to court and you get caught in the lie in the witness box, that wasn't taken into account when you got all your earlier advice. And you may find that you have to settle or that you should have settled youngs ago if only they'd known. And in a very bad situation, sometimes the lawyer will reconsider whether they will continue to act for someone. Do you not tell the truth? Do barristers try and get you to be caught out in a lie? Oh, yes, that's the whole aim. Right. That's what it's not. It sounds nasty the way you say it. But what they're doing is testing your evidence, because in the family, could everything, nearly all evidence goes in by affidavit. And that includes your own evidence, any of your witnesses' evidence. And remember, when I said you've got to know what you're talking about, you've got to talk about it so you can be cross-examine. So the barristers job is to not your barristers, the other person's barristers. Their job is to shake your confidence on that, to dig down and try to get you to go, "Oh, actually, oh, no, I was wrong. You know, try to do that." Or you say something and they go, "Well, in such and such, you said this and they can give you a document and, you know, just catches you off." So you really just got to be honest. And if you want to face a bit of consequences, it's better than that than ruining your case. We've done an episode called, "When your ex is lying in court," he says, "She says saga." And a judge can choose, can't they? Well, this person's been caught out lying, so I'm going to believe this person for everything, the other person for everything they've said. Yeah, but also too, especially in property settlement. There's a range of outcomes. Probably range is over 10 or 15% between the lowest you might expect to get and the highest you might expect to get. And if they're really upset with one of you, if it's you, they're upset with. They may give you the lower percentage that they legally can give you, rather than giving you the higher percentage. Okay. So it does really, lying does really impact. All right. Does speaking of property settlement, this gets us to number six, failing to do proper disclosure. Now, this really is upsetting some judges recently. Are there cases recently, Mum? Where the judges have done some things? You're invited to our free webinar. Whether you're stuck at the beginning of deciding to divorce or you're struggling to find your way through the legal jargon and fear of the unknown of the legal process, we are here to empower you to take control. Join us to learn what steps you can take followed by a live Q&A, where you get Lin, my amazing Mum and family law accredited specialists, to answer your question. All you have to do is go to www.thedivorescourse.com.au and click on reserve my seat. We'll see you there. Hari spaces are limited. So don't miss out. Register today. They've been recent cases, but always the courts have been angry about this. So the family law act has just been amended. So that now under section 71, be of the family law act. Instead of just being in the rules, it's now a section in the act that says that you have an ongoing obligation to make disclosure. Before you go to court, and even after court started, and you've got to keep giving your documents over all of the time. And I think lawyers sometimes we could have a podcast just based on disclosure, because it really worries people. And we do have a delay in disclosure. Not making a disclosure. Not showing the court all of the documents or not showing your ex all of the documents is a very grave sin in the eyes of the court, because how can someone assess whether there's they can make an offer that's reasonable? How can the other person assess whether they could accept an offer? Is that reasonable? But more importantly, how can the court make an order that is just and equitable between the parties? And they must not make an order unless it's fair. So disclosure is like the linchpin of the whole family-like to property and children. So how can it ruin your case? Well, the court can just, if you haven't made proper disclosure, one of the rules is that if you haven't shown a document to your ex, you can't raise it at the trial. Even if it's something that's really important to your case, no, you should have shown that before. So that's one way they do it. If it's not in the appropriate line of the preparation for court, don't try and mention it at the hearing. If you don't make any disclosure, the court has the right to perhaps send your case to an undefended hearing. So the other person doesn't get a say really. It's just whatever the other, whatever the nonoffending person, the non-naughty person, yeah. It's pulling their hair out. Yeah. So I think all of that, all about thisness should look at the central practice direction. WA has one similar, and that practice direction extends from way before court and it talks about the consequences. Well, let's get to that in a minute. Just a reminder, though, and mum, you wanted to point this out, failing to do proper disclosure. Even if your ex is refusing to do it, why is it important that you should still do it? I'll tell you why it's important, because the court, these two kids fighting and the parents says, why didn't you do this? I'll be because he didn't do it. Get your material in, right? Yeah. It's no excuse if your ex is being lazy. It hasn't even if your ex, if she hasn't given a single document, you've got to be as pure as you can be and be absolutely up to date. So that you can stand before your mum or dad or the judge, like sort of the goody-two shoes, who's done everything right. Because when the judge wants to rant or identify the reason the case is being delayed or held up or whatever, they will swivel their eyes away from you and focus on the other person. But they have no time for, I didn't do it because they're not doing it. How childish does that sound? And it doesn't help the court. So if you've got court orders for the timing to do stuff, do it, keep yourself dead on time for everything, even if the other side isn't cooperating, so that you can stand up and say, "Well, I'm ready." And you may find yourself going to your conclusion. What never happens is non-disclosure cannot and will not end once, stop a case happening. So without the disclosure of the court can draw their own conclusion. The other person can put best evidence forward. So it's important. Number seven, and we touched on it already. You've just not following the practice directions. So can you explain what they are and why they're important for everyone listening, whether you're at the. Before you've even seen a lawyer or before you've gone to court, all of that, you need to kind of get yourself around it. Well, can you explain what central practice directions are? So the law for family law in Australia is from the Family Law Act, or its equivalent. That's your legislation, right? Then the cases that have been decided, they're the judge-made laws. So your legislations, the government-made laws, the judges interpret it, and that's why we quote cases and things. But it's hard to find the law, the cases, and the rules, the rules, or also put out by the judges, and they've got different things to do. And you can easily get bamboozled. And the aim of the court really was that people could self-represent if they wanted to. And so in the interest, I think of clarity, the court has issued practice directions. There are practice directions for financial matters and practice directions for children's matters, and they're just a much easier to digest. And if you've got them in front of you, you're not going to go too far wrong. But in 2021, they put out the central practice direction. And this is like core principles of the court. It's multiple pages, I think, 30 pages. It tells you what's expected at each step of the way. And you can quote them at the sections and write to the other side. So you're in breach of practice direction 1.3 or whatever. And the court has done that as a kind of interpretation of what they expect and how things will be done in the court. This doesn't really have the highest, it's not like rules that have to be. So very clear, and it's not like the government's legislation because they do that. It's just, this is how the registry is going to operate. This is how we're going to manage our case load. And I think if you don't have that, I have a hard copy printed out. And I know most lawyers do have a copy on their screen most of the time because if you follow that, you can't go far wrong. And it's kind of like a little handy guidebook. You just look at what do you want to go and read and go, oh, okay, okay, okay. And if you are self-repped, you can be like, well, I read the central practice directions and it says for mediation, we're supposed to do x, y, z. So there are things in there. So it's got format, the court rules. It's kind of showing the judge or showing your case that you're organised, you're trying to follow the rules and you're not disrespecting the process. I think it's really important and a good way not to upset a judge. It's very comforting for you and no one can criticize you if you've followed those practice directions from the court. That's right. Number eight, and you'll have to kind of explain this a little bit for us now, but I had it as not narrowing the issues and just going in front of a judge and being like, sort it all out for us. Yeah. And you're saying, you know, what really upsets a judge is when people go in there and fail not to agree on anything that's obvious, that you're already agreed on. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I think so. I think there's people who think that court can eat and drop your whole mess in front of the judge and go, can you sort that out? The court wants you to try and work out what you can by mediation or between yourselves. And then if you think it is a great big knot and they should gradually sort of unpick bits of it, you can solve a lot of the trouble, a lot of it yourself. And what you should go to court with is just that nutty bit, that hard bit in the middle that you can't quite work out yourself. And so they call it narrowing the issues. It's the point of mediation and other communication. And most people say, oh, well, we'll agree to that, but we're still don't agree to this. OK, well, if we tell the court, we agree on all these things and ask the judge to talk about this one thing. So what you're doing is that's a much more efficient use of the court's resources. However, there's one bad thing that I want to say, Laura. Some people will say, I'm not sorting out children until I sort out property. Or I don't want to sign a parenting plan until I've got properties and I don't want to do, you know, just, or I'm not agreeing on anything. You can't sell a house or anything unless I get my car back. Like just holding people to ransom, facilitate little things. And the court's not interested in that. Right, absolutely. But evidence might not fit before the judge about you saying those things until they go to work out costs. So what's going to upset a judge really is what you're saying is if you just walk in there and drop your entire every argument, every decision, everything on their desk can go. Sort this out for us, please. Because the judge is going to go, seriously, you can't even sort out who takes the kids to the soccer game next weekend. Like, surely you could sort that out. And so I've actually seen, I've sit in the back of court or some of this. I've seen where the judges read out all the issues and go, surely you don't, you agree to that, don't you? And then they freak out and go, yes, I do agree to that. And so, you know, you don't want the judge to be thinking you are that incompetent and that argumentative and that horrible to each other that you can't figure it out. And don't get me wrong, though. There are going to be people listening to this undoubtedly who have x's, who are that horrible, who don't want to agree to anything. And you are going to go in front of a judge. And like you said, they're not going to know who's the pain and who's not at the start. So it really is going to upset the judge. But if you can continue to show that, and like you said, you've tried to make this agreements, here's examples of you trying to agree. Here's you being reasonable and then being unreasonable. Is that kind of how you get around it if you've got one of those kind of x's? No, you can't use that in evidence. Really? Because yes, you can't use evidence of negotiations before the court. So what do you do? You use it after the court's made a judgment. Right. Then in submissions about costs, you can say to the court, you're on it, we were only here today, for these last few days, because that person wasn't reasonable and here's my letter and here's their response and here's my other letter and here's their response. And so I want him to pay or her to pay my legal fees from the day that I sent that offer over. So that kind of, it comes to play in costs. OK. But when people are being cost examined, the barisists will generally be able to provoke a person who hasn't got a genuine reason to object to something. They can generally nail them down and they go, no, well, why not? Can you explain to the court why not? No, I just don't think so, sort of. And that court calls that not making appropriate concessions. So there you go. Yes, OK. It does seem, Laura, sometimes, that they ask a lot of us. The court expects litigants out of the marriage, fresh out of a relationship to be as placid, yet they to operate almost like automatons at robots in terms of just getting through the facts. But I guess we have to all try. I know about it. It's just, it's a big ask. All right. Number nine. OK. And we put this one in here as a warning to everyone. I don't think anybody is deliberately doing this. And if they are, I don't want them listening to our podcast. But undermining the kid's relationship with the other parent, that doesn't, I'm hoping all our listeners don't do that. But sometimes it would really upset a judge. And sometimes people are just genuinely like, no, I think it's a bad idea. My kid's around this person. Like it's a bad idea. But if parents say things like Little Johnny hates that, or the kids don't want to go, but there's no evidence, there's no backstory, there's no abuse, there's no anything, do judges instantly start thinking of that alienation word? And does that get people in a lot of trouble? It can. When you say there's no abuse or none of the other things, what usually, there's no evidence before the court of those things. And you don't want to be the only evidence that you draw that conclusion and feed the court, your conclusion rate. May entirely be entirely valid. But in days, our where the court is looking at the best interests of the children, they're looking at who has been the primary career and who should care for the children going forward. But there's property settlement consequences and child support things all that hang off there. And sometimes if there's been a family violence and for that reason you're not wanting the children to go, I'm afraid a very common, tacky response is an automatic, you're alienating the children. They're suggesting that the children feel that way, not because of their lived experience with your ex, but because you're making them feel that way. So to avoid the court looking at you and maybe swallowing that narrative, you need to, again, don't draw the conclusions, right? Your evidence is thus as far as the court is concerned when it comes to that, right? Because how can they tell which one of you is lying when you're each saying different things? So it's going to be family reports or another way that the evidence gets in before the judge of who's doing what you can do, though, because you're there with the kids is you might be able to say when their mother comes to pick them up, little Donnie runs and hides under the table in the family room. I've tried doing this for him or that for him and he has a tantrum, his screams won't go. You can say that's what you've seen, you can be cross-examined on that, but you shouldn't draw the conclusion from that that your child hates their ex. Your experience with your ex is different to the child's relationship with your ex and actually, several children in a marriage can all have, they all experience their parents differently. And so it's not for you to say that they hate going or anything so you can put your concerns and what to observe. - And I think it's a really important point. And look, I know there's heaps of people out there who are trying really hard to protect their children from abuses. - Yes. - And we have done a whole episode on when abusers use parental alienation as a weapon and to say that it's, you know, the kids don't want to come to me because of what I put them through, they don't want to come to me because that parent is making them hate me or whatever it is. So that is a really common tactic in court. - Very common. - And again, not everyone gets to court, but like you said, mom, it's the ones that get to court are the ones that are usually, like it's like 80% family violence cases, so I was reading this the other day. So of course, there's a lot of that going on. And so there's a lot of tactics where they say, oh, they're accusing me of abuse. So I will say it's parental alienation. That's their go-to playbook. And so you've got to be really careful about how you go about it and make sure that, like mom said, you're stating the facts, you're stating what you're observing and getting outside special people to give it more gravitas so that you're not labeled an alienator. - Even though there's a lot of research that says that parental alienation is not a psychological thing. - Yeah. Do you know, one of the most powerful things a client ever said to me, whereas when we were sitting with the barrister and the barrister was saying, why do you say this shouldn't happen? Why do you say this? And he said, it's not me. It's not for me. I am my child's spokesperson. I'm presenting what happens with them and hers were involved with the child vomiting and holding onto rails and things. And she went in, like, she had no way of knowing if anything was wrong in the other household, but she said, I've got the obligation to put all the evidence forward and let the court make of that what they will. And I think that's the powerful thing. You don't want to go in looking like you're advocating for yourself to have your child. You go in and say the things that you think of course you know about what's happening with your child. And then that evidence then becomes part of usually what a family report writer can look at. And they're quite skilled at working out if a little kid says, I hate mummy or I hate daddy. They're quite skilled and identified, fine, if it's like a paraded response. The one that happens most often is they're talking about things that they can't possibly remember. In one case, the little girl wasn't even born. When, so they've obviously been told something by a parent, you know say. There's a lot of unpacking in that, but just being mindful, if you go in and say, little Johnny doesn't want to see their parent, you know, it can be, it can ruin your case just because you've got a show and give the evidence to the court otherwise, sometimes judges jump on that alienation train. We've got an episode called Hand Over Hell. So if you are having trouble with getting them to the other parent, what you can do about it, we've got that parental alienation being used as a weapon. By abusers episode, you can go listen to and hopefully some of those can help you and if you are going to do a family report, which is one of the ways that they can find out that information, go and listen to that episode as well. - Yes. - All right, and big hugs to anyone going through that. I know there are people that kids are rejecting them because they're just not coping with the divorce process or they've got teenagers who just want to stay in one house and not the other. We know there's a lot of hurt and pain going on there, but sadly, we're seeing so much false alienation accusations and it's really quite horrible and we wanted to warn you all about it. Now lastly, number 10, and this covers everybody right from the get-go, just before you've even left, failing to act reasonably when given a chance, really upsets judges. So mum, give me some examples. Why do people really need to make sure they're always acting reasonable? - Yeah. I think those tips, like when you said that when the judge says, surely you can reach an agreement on that. Most people take their hint and go outside and sort it out. If you don't, then the courts that they can look at you and think this person is not wanting to resolve the case, they may get the idea that you're having fun doing the case and wanting to drag it out to talk to the other person or whatever. You need to be able to have a good look at yourself. You need to be flexible. And as you say, make appropriate concessions to things when it becomes obvious. A lot of people with lawyers say they get really pressured and court to reach agreements. And I can see why sometimes the lawyers do that. - And mediation. - And mediation. But you know if it's not good, if it's not reasonable for the child, you can resist those things. But when the judge does it, it's tricky. - But if they haven't heard all the evidence. - If it's basic stuff that gets put in front of the judge and says, "Oh, we had to do this and we needed to change this date." And they can flatly refuse. And or they were supposed to return the car on this date, but there was a cyclone. So they just said, I didn't need to return it 'cause the date went past. Or that example you gave where they said, "Handover wasn't McDonald's at this specific suburb and the McDonald's shut down." So they just then assumed they didn't do handover anymore. - They didn't, I don't think they assumed they didn't. They just stopped and thought they were playing hardball by the orders, but thereby that they were not child-focused. And that kind of behavior really is a red rag tour ball for judges. - Mm-hmm, and they don't come home with you guys. They haven't been in the relationship. - Thank goodness. - Yeah, that's how the judge following your home just to watch see how it's all going in your house. - But gosh. - But in these things, this is where that person's true nature came to the fore. They might have been able to walk the walk and talk the talk and then the lawyer might have tied it up their affidavit. So it didn't sound so aggressive. But then the first opportunity, they thought they were just very clever and it really went badly for them. Laura, we forgot to mention dressing appropriately. - Oh, well, of course. - Yes. - I mean, and I mean it, and acting appropriately. Because there is a lowering of standards in clothes. I mean, depends who you are, but don't turn up at the court in your leisure wear, your exercise clothes. I do remember someone in a divorce about 30 years ago turned up in her tennis outfit. And the whole court, the whole everyone in the court room got a lecture about appropriate attire. - The best thing to remember is the family court from what I've seen is like maybe 40 years behind in fashion and in understanding of, I don't know, it just gives the right. - The way that, just the way that the people behave, the way you have to bow the judge and all that stuff. It's kind of like 1940s, 1950s behavior. So just to imagine you're going to back in the past, you're not gonna turn, like even just not wearing stockings was a bit of a scandal, like 10 years ago, wasn't it? - It took a while. Yep, I've always worn stockings to court until I noticed the Chief Justice in one of the state Supreme courts wasn't. I thought, right, I'm out of here for that. But it wasn't probably, well, let me see, about 20 years ago, a certain judge refused to listen to a woman, a lawyer who had trousers on. And so when you think about it, this is a very old system. And the gowns that the barristers wear and the weeks that they sometimes wear, they're from the 1700s, right? And so this has built on tradition and it's an easy thing to do. Just put something nice on where a jacket if you've got one. Don't wear anything skimpy, just take it seriously. - And I think, like we said, it's the, think of the judges like a parent who's been dealing with naughty kids or a school principal. And they're human, they're all different. They all have their own personalities, whether they like it or not, it does influence. And just the image you project, the language you speak, the words you write, it all builds a story, nonverbal story, the way you sit in the witness box, the way you sit in the peanut gallery, the eye rolling you do. - Oh my goodness, yeah. - So all of that affect your case. And mom, you've talked about one where someone was eye rolling and that lost the case for them. - For me, well, who is the lawyer, my client was wonderful. And I was cross-examining the other person. What I didn't see was my client's husband, 'cause it was the child wasn't their child, they were asking for custody of. And when I sat down, the judge said, well, Mr. Galvin, you wouldn't have seen it, but the whole time that Ms. Sachin such was, giving her evidence data. So I don't think that your client's husband could be supportive of a relationship. And they lost the case. So the judges don't know you. They've read your material. They know that's usually been filtered through lawyers. And then when you walk into the room, that's the first time they get to look at, oh, this is them. And so how you sit, do you rustle papers? Don't talk while it don't just talking. Stand up when the judge comes into the room. - And I guess all those things. - And just to add all to that, everything you've done from this start, you know, any, and it's kind of, I did talk about this recently, like in the old days. Imagine your Taylor Swift when you're going through divorce. Imagine every thing you do, every cafe you go to, every tweet you tweet, every text message, every passive-aggressive, every meme is going to be looked at and scrutinized and written in the media. But it's not the media that's going to be looking at it and it's not the public that's looking at it. It's a judge and it's their lawyers. And so think about it really hard and remind yourself that all the steps you take from the start to the end, hopefully you never go to court. But from the start to the end, you are following these principles. You know, you're doing one's best interest to the kids, you're doing the right things, you're following the central practice directions and you'll get out okay. You'll get what's fair and things will be good for you. And I think don't, don't be hard on yourself 'cause, look, Mum and I know exactly what it's like going through divorce. You do not have your S together. You are, you do not. You struggle to get the same pair of shoes on. You're not doing your hair properly. That's just the basics. But then when you add on to that, you're trying to also go to work. You're trying to look after the kids. You're trying to take care of your mental health. And so you're all over the place and then you're also meant to be following all of these rules. But I guess if you're a good-hearted person and you know what the judge and the family court cares about as well, you'll be okay. - Yes. - Absolutely. Keep your dignity, yes, you know, and be dignified. And it seems like sometimes, like you're saying, it's an impossibly high standard sometimes. But you know, we can do hard things. - We can. And hopefully you only ever have to do it once. Now, is there anything you would embroider on a question before we go? - I think, yes, you're on it. - Not, not your majesty. Don't be a majesty, but yes, you're on it. If it's a registrar, you could say yes, registrar, but they don't mind if you elevate their standing and call them your honor. - Yes. - That reminds me, if you are going through court and you wanna know about court etiquette, we've got an episode, I'll put the link to that. - And we have webinar coming up. We have a webinar coming up in a couple of weeks in the second week of Fairbubble Eve. So if you're listening to this and you'd love to come along and chat with us 'cause we'd mum does a little presentation and then we do some chatting after the shows over in the chat. If you'd love to come along and have a chat with us, if you're interested in just getting some more information to help you on your journey, if you wanna go on your journey with us, you can listen to the podcast and you can come along to the webinar, go to the website, thedivorcecourse.com.au and just click register your webinar. There are only limited seats, there are 100% gonna run out this time around because we have already been bombarded and we haven't started advertising yet. So if you want to come along to the webinar, grab your seat now and mum, you always want to say something about YouTube, so I'll pass it on over to you. - Yes, 'cause I'm a YouTube fan. - Yes. - But if you think this has been helpful to you in any way or if you think it might help someone else, please take a moment to like and subscribe and that way you can get us higher up in the search results and there may be someone who's just, who needs to hear the podcasts and needs to hear our talk. 'Cause we're reading your beautiful reviews. I read one the other day two month from a lady in Switzerland and she just said, even though the law is different, you're keeping me on an even keel and keeping me going and I was like, oh wow, someone in Switzerland is listening. So I'm so glad that we're helping people out there. I'm glad we're helping you keeping a level head. I hope this episode didn't scare you. I just think sometimes it's good for someone to sit down and go, right, here's what we've got to talk about. And here's what I wish I knew. And so, yeah, we're big, so, yeah. If you can pay it forward, that would be really nice. - Yes, just give us five stars. Don't even have to write a review, just give us five stars. They'll all get us up there. All right, thank you mum for your time. We'll see you next week. Remember guys, we're here every week and we'll see you again. Thank you mum. - See you next week. Bye Laura, bye everyone. Have a good week. - If you found this podcast helpful, we'd love it if you could write, review and subscribe. By doing so, you are spreading the word to help someone else just like you. Lim would like to remind you that this podcast is general advice only and you should always get legal advice in relation to your particular situation. And remember that the Australian laws may have changed since recording.