I recently spoke with a gentleman who was interviewing attorneys. He told me he had spoken with several other attorneys (always a good idea), and particularly liked one who, after hearing the facts of this fellow's case said, "We're going to get her. We'll teach her a lesson."
STOP
Family Law litigation is not about teaching anybody a lesson. Not only does that do nothing more than abuse the court process, it completely misses the point and it is the quickest way to lose. That's three excellent reasons to not choose this path.
Teaching your ex a lesson does nothing more than abuse the court process because the court process is designed to provide people with a forum to resolve their differences. The key word there is resolve. In Modification cases it is particularly appropriate, "re-solve." Teaching your ex a lesson is not about resolving anything. If you have a legitimate dispute and you can't get it sorted out with your ex without court, then litigate it, but litigate to get it resolved, not to satisfy vendettas or hum the legal equivalent of na-na-na-na-na. There are too many people genuinely needing access to justice to tie the court up with feuds.
Teaching your ex a lesson completely misses the point because family law is about moving families forward. It is results oriented. It isn't a forum for the redress of past wrongs. Even Contempt actions are really about the future. While part of the remedy is getting back what you should have had in the first place (support, visitation) it is principally about changing conduct so that the act does not happen in the future. That's why there are sanctions such as attorney fees or incarceration. Modifications are exclusively focused on the future: what will the new child support be or what will the new custody award involve or how will visitation change? To the extent that one party is caught up in past grievances, wanting to re-litigate old issues or "teach their ex a lesson" they've completely missed the reason for Modification.
And teaching your ex a lesson is the quickest way to lose. Judge's have precious little time to give each case. They have mere minutes before they assess the nature of the case and its probable outcomes. If a Judge senses that a party is not forward looking but is litigating ancient hostility or retribution against their ex, that party will lose, immediately, having barely passed go.
In short, getting aggressive to "get" your ex or teach her a lesson is a no win scenario and a horrid waste of money.
After hearing what I just wrote, the fellow I was speaking with assessed, "Perhaps that attorney was just telling me what I wanted to hear. Thank you for telling me what I needed to hear."
I'm glad I can help him. Can we help you?
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp
Showing posts with label retribution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retribution. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Physics in human form explained.
"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." As best I recall, that is a principle in physics. I don't think it holds true in human relations.
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
