Custody Scenarios: WWJD (What Would Julie Do?)

Emily: [00:00:00] so I went online and I found some stories and questions people had. So these are not Julie's clients. 

Julie: I didn't, I don't even know the 

Emily: so just to be clear,

Julie: I'm on

Emily: not some, like, we're not revealing any, secret information here. This was all publicly posted. So, I thought I'd just read some of them and just see what you think and what they should do and all that kind of stuff.

Okay, so the first one. My husband and his ex wife share custody of their two children, age 9 and 11. They have a clearly written legal agreement, and in regards to vacation, it states that if either parent wishes to take the children over 250 miles, then the other parent must consent. She sends a text yesterday saying, just an FYI, we're in Florida for the weekend, and I didn't tell you sooner because I wanted to surprise the kids, just wanted you to know.

He responded, I'm not the kids and I wouldn't have told them, you can't take the kids four states away and let me know when you get there. She hasn't responded and he called and she won't answer. [00:01:00] Unfortunately, this behavior isn't surprising. She's extremely selfish and entitled. Last year we took the kids on vacation out west and discussed it with her months in advance and she wasn't going to let us go.

Everything on our end is a battle and the rules don't apply to her. How do we move forward?

Julie: So I don't think you're going to like my answer. I think this is too micromanaging. To have a provision in there that says you can't go more than a certain number of miles, it's too micromanaging. That's just my opinion. Look, it's a common courtesy to say, we're going here. So let me back up a second.

So vacation provisions in Pennsylvania are They are always an issue because the way that we write them is typically the party shall be entitled to two non consecutive weeks of vacation with certain amount of notice to the other, and then each party shall maximize their own custodial time to the best of their extent.

What the f you know, what does that mean? So vacation's always an issue. However, here's, here's the issue. Here's my point. Is that If it's your time

Emily: and 

Julie: your

[00:02:00] vacation, don't micromanage the other person, honestly. I mean, this is an issue not just with vacation or how far you travel. 

So in other words, you've week on week off. And so and so's going to Florida on their time. It's not vacation. It's their time. But it's common courtesy to say, hey, I'm getting on a plane, and I'm going here, and this is where we're going to be. That's different than micromanaging it and giving the permission.

The permission is the place that I feel gets micromanaging, which then creates resentment because the one side feels controlled, and then the one side feels as if they're not getting the information, and this person's not following. And a small issue. is exactly where you are, which is frustrating, feeling as if one person isn't listening and one person is doing all the right or wrong, whatever.

My two cents on custody orders is don't micromanage because you don't want to be micromanaged.

Emily: be micromanaged.

Julie: If you don't want the micromanaging, which I would presume you don't, then don't expect to micromanage the other person.

Are they right? No. They're not right. That doesn't mean that you go and fight [00:03:00] that battle. I would say, look, you didn't give me notice. Maybe this isn't working. Let's take away the notice. But let's agree that if you take them more than 250 miles, you give us a heads up. That to me is the right answer.

Emily: I saw a few posts about this with vacation because like you said, it's always an issue so I'm sure it

Julie: And it, oh, and vacations override the regular time, and holidays override all of the above.

Emily: So can one of the parents really say, no, you can't take the kids there?

Julie: So that's a, that's a great question, because this is a It happens all the time. I didn't give my consent. It's not, I mean, unless it says in there, like this said, it's not consent. They are entitled to it. It is their time. You are entitled to vacation so long as you comply with the provisions and the notice.

And even if you don't, let's just say it says you have to give 20 30 days notice and you give 29 days. Look, are you in contempt potentially? Sure. But does that mean that you're not entitled to your vacation? No. It doesn't say. If you give [00:04:00] these things, then you get, it says you shall give notice and you shall get vacation.

So my answer is no, it should not, it's not, it's not request, it's not permission. I had a case just recently where the father believed that. And I was like, of course, my client, he says I can't go. I'm like, he doesn't get that right. It's your time. You're entitled to it. And then he had a very inexperienced lawyer send me a letter that said he doesn't consent.

And I was like, okay, like not, and she's like, let's get on a call. I'm like, there's no call. There's no call to be had. She's entitled to it. 

Let's get back to what I always say. It's about the kids. The kids want to go on vacation with their parents. The kids want to go to Florida.

The kids want to go to the Grand Canyon. Like it's punishing the kids to look at it any other way. So that's my, that's my answer on that. No, you're not. It's not a consent. They get it. It says it. They get it. And don't be a dick and say, well, you gave me 29 days notice. Okay. Give everybody a little 

Emily: And you should trust the other parent in most cases to be able to take the kids out of state.

Julie: Well, there are times [00:05:00] when people are not trusted and that's a different situation. Right. It's different if you have a trust issue where you can say there's drug and alcohol issues or mental health issues and there should be some restrictions and obviously every place is different where we are.

Chester County, Pennsylvania, you can be in a different state in 20 minutes, especially here in Westchester. And I'm speaking obviously of Delaware. So it's state doesn't always matter. It can be mileage. There are times that's appropriate, but more often than not, yes, you're right. You have to be able to trust the other parent and it has to be a legitimate reason not to trust them.

Emily: Sounds like it was probably a trip to Disney World that...

Julie: Yeah. And what are you going to say? You can't surprise the kids in the morning with their ears and say, I mean, come on. Yeah, exactly.

Emily: Okay, here's another one. My son's biological father has not been a part of my son's life for approximately four years. Prior to this, I gave him every opportunity to be a parent.

He tried to kill me in front of my son. I had a PFA. Overdosed in front of my son, and has put him in dangerous, compromising situations in the past. Now BioDad has filed for partial custody. He's asking for [00:06:00] every weekend and days during the week when he feels like it. My son doesn't know him, nor does he want to.

He's terrified of him. I'm looking for full custody, no visitations. I understand that I may not get that, so if anything, it will be hourly supervised visits. A month, I'm hoping, with a court appointed official. I never alienated my son from his father. I did what my son wanted and he did not want to see his bio dad.

Now bio dad has a girlfriend with child. Bio dad left us alone until he got in a relationship. Bio dad only wants custody because he's in a new relationship and the new girlfriend can't understand why my son does not want to see him. My question is, will a judge really force my son to see a man he doesn't know?

I do have a lawyer, a very good one at that. I do not believe it'll be beneficial to have a bio dad in the picture. My son has a father figure in his life. This is not me being spiteful. This is me protecting my son. I am so afraid that he is going to hurt my child more than he already has. It took me years to build our life after bio dad destroyed it.

He spent a lot of time in prison. He loves drugs more than life. And even when we were together, he did not do any of the work that a father should. [00:07:00] There's absolutely no bond between bio data and my son. I understand that a lot of people believe that both parents should be involved, but under these circumstances, it'll do more harm than good.

Julie: So I almost wanted to interrupt you like 10 times to answer some questions. So I might miss some things, but did this, did this person say how old the child was now?

Emily: No.

Julie: All right. Well, so. Regardless of age. And again, I'm just starting with where my mind went is it should never, and it is never, the child's choice.

And I say that doesn't mean they don't get input. Please understand the difference. It's not a burden to put on your child. Do you want to see your mother, father? That's too much. The weight of the world is on that child when you ask them that because they are going to be put in the middle. They want to please you.

And how horrible this guy sounds. It's still his parent. So number one, it shouldn't be their choice. In Pennsylvania, one of the factors in custody is the child's

Input, basically, based on their maturity and judgment. [00:08:00] So It's not to say their opinion cannot matter or their judgment cannot matter, but it is a one out of 16 factors, at least here in Pennsylvania.

So first and foremost, it should never be the child's choice.

The next part is, and I know there was a succinct question at the end, is 

Emily: Um, 

Julie: yes, the, the courts are typically going to encourage Parents, period, biological parents obviously have rights to their child, unless the rights have been terminated.

What do I think would make most sense in what this, in this hypothetical? , 

a

judge when I was in criminal... court when I was a DA he said all the time to the defendants I'm going to give you enough rope to hang yourself with. And I remember as a DA wanting to, you know, see a tough sentence, I would get frustrated at times.

But what I realized he was doing, and I do it all the time in this field, is he's giving people the right to either prove you right or prove themselves right. So what I mean by that is that, , this guy sounds like a bad dad. There's a lot of them out there. And people do. Change to some [00:09:00] extent. So what I would suggest is to start with reunification counseling.

This person has not seen his child and this child has not Seen the parent in at least four years. I think she said So what I would suggest to the court is let's get the child and father in reunification counseling, where the reunification counselor would talk with the child independently, with mother, independently to get her input and her information, and talk to father.

And when that reunification therapist feels as if it makes sense, to move the child and father forward. Then we take that lead. Because that person's right, he doesn't know this person and vice versa, this father doesn't know the child.

And then that's giving him enough rope. So if dad wants to do the right things, you know, if the counselor says, you need to write a letter to your son and explain, and if he does it, you know, or, or, you know, whatever the hoops are, if this person jumps through them, well, then maybe that's going to show your son 

that look, his dad.

I don't know if you've made mistakes, [00:10:00] but he's working towards it and he loves you because ultimately, I hear that this person saying they're not alienating and I don't doubt that they're not. I think there's obviously a lot of hurt. And so this person sounds like they're trying to protect their child.

But what I think is Maybe being lost, is that bad or not? That's his father, and so he ha, he should have the right, he being your child, as well as father, to try to move forward. And look, if he fucks up, because 99 percent of the time they do, I'm not doing this, I'm not doing this counseling bullshit, then guess what?

You're back where you were, but he proved himself, not you. So that's hard to do. I mean, a lot of clients don't like that answer, but let them prove themselves. to the court. You don't need to make him the bad guy. He's either going to be the bad guy, and then you're like, look, I gave him the option, or he's going to show himself to have improved, and that'll be a benefit to your child.

With regards to another thing that that person said, I can't ever think of a [00:11:00] situation. that a court is ever going to give a parent every weekend. That's the downtime, right? And we were talking before we jumped on here about our kids and we're going, you know, sunup to sundown. So no parent, is ever going to get every weekend.

I mean, I shouldn't say ever, but it's unlikely. So no, you're not going to go from zero to every weekend or every other weekend. Reunification counseling is a first step. And then maybe supervision, and then maybe some unsupervised daytime visits, like every other weekend for a few hours and, and steps, right?

Looking forward, but always being where your feet are. So right now I would say that would be reunification. What was the direct question she asked? I don't remember 

Emily: Will a judge really force my son to see a man he doesn't know?

Julie: see A judge will, and or hearing officer, depending where you are, will enter an order that's going to require something. They're not going to say, you're never seeing your dad again. And I think, again, take that burden off the child. In other words, hey child, [00:12:00] this This, this judge said you have to.

That's not okay for the kid. So the answer to me would be the judge or hearing officer should or could say something in that range of what I'm saying, supervision or, and or reunification counseling. And then you as the parent, as hard as it's going to be from what this person has gone through, because it sounds like this person's gone through hell, is to find a way to put that hurt.

And compartmentalize it to the best you can and try to support your child because he, whether or not, he, he might say to you, I don't want to see him because he's trying to please you. He wants, he wants to please you as his parent, but he might have his own curiosity. So you're, the answer is a judge will order something more often than not.

And your job is to support him and take that off of him. Hey, your dad has asked to see you. This is what is happening. You don't have to say you agree and you don't have to blame the judge, but hey, look, your dad had asked to see you and we're going to do this through baby steps. This is what the next step is.

And I'm here to [00:13:00] support you and it's going to be okay. And you have to say it even if you can't believe it because your kid needs that. And again, he, he will likely hang himself as, as the great judge Gavin taught me is that they usually do. And if they don't great. 

Emily: And I think maybe in her mind, and like you said, I think she's scared because it sounds like it was a scary situation.

She probably thinks it's like, okay, dropping her son off at the dad's house and saying see you in a couple of days. But your point is that they're going to get to know each other before they're alone together. 

Julie: Yeah.

and sometimes reunification counseling stops without the child and the parent ever moving forward.

Reunification counseling doesn't mean it moves forward. It means that the counselor's job is to see where these parties are and if it's appropriate. I have a case where father and, reunification counselor.

Emily: And, gosh, it's been now almost two years, and the reunification counselor

Julie: Checks in with this child, I think it's every like month or so and has been steadfast that this child's not ready. It sounds as if there's a lot of trauma with this [00:14:00] relationship, probably some PTSD, and that's understandable from what you, you read to me.

I think the answer is that when you're in those fight or flight situations, you go to the end. What if, what if, what if, what if, what if, what if, well, what if, to me, when you say what if, that is anxiety. Understandably so. 

Let him go to that reunification counselor and explain. All the things. Yeah. And then hear your child say, look, I, yeah, of course, at some point I've had questions about my dad, but I'm not comfortable. Don't you do it. You protect him and you advocate for the reunification and the protection in the bubble.

But don't you divide the two. And while it doesn't sound like that is her intention. It can come off that way, and that, sometimes it's just a matter of semantics. Sometimes it's just a matter of how you say things, and this is one of those situations where it's probably how you say 

it.

Emily: Oh, that's interesting. I didn't know about reunification counseling.

Julie: So courts are always going to try to find tools before they're going to do anything else. So like, the last resort, and this isn't a question, but people come in and say, [00:15:00] he's doing X, Y, and Z, whatever, or she's doing X, Y, and Z, I want to take custody. Okay, well, the last resort is taking physical custody.

The court is going to find other tools, whether it's a parent and coordinator if your jurisdiction has it, or co parent counseling, or therapy between the parties, or anger management, whatever, before they're starting to take custody time.

. And, well, look, we're not, we're talking about what I would call normal situations. We're not talking about extreme situations where there's abuse.

Physical abuse, sexual abuse, severe emotional abuse because unfortunately people can be bad parents. That doesn't mean that they lose their custody.

Unfortunately, it's hard. It's hard to watch, so I can imagine it's even harder. Well, look, I mean, in some ways I've lived through it myself, but it's not easy. And I, I can see it and how these individuals suffer, for lack of a better word. But I will say the people that have trusted the process, as hard as it is, they've always come back and said, I'm so glad I did this because now I know it's okay.

[00:16:00] Or now I know it's not

okay. And they gave that person the chance, for lack of a better term.

Emily: Okay, ready for another

Julie: Mm hmm.

Emily: Divorced for six years, custody agreement has been 60 percent me, 40 percent ex since. Kids are now 15 female, 13 male, 9 male. Since the split, ex always told the kids at 12 they could decide where to live and has been planting seeds in their heads that I'm a bad mom.

For the past year, he's been listening to the kids complaints about my rules and instead of having my back, taking the kids sides and criticizing my consequences. Twice this year, he's taken me to court for emergency relief for full custody on grounds that I'm abusive. Both times, the judge dismissed them, but he's moving forward with a custody trial.

CYS was sent to my home. Investigation showed no evidence of anything and dropped. It's to the point I've installed cameras inside my home to protect myself, and if I even touch my kids, they scream at me and take my hands.

Julie: off of them.

Emily: I've lost all control of my kids as a result. They don't respect me and our home went from a house of joy [00:17:00] to a house.

I'm walking on eggshells trying to avoid any conflict. I'm to the point where I'm financially drained from legal fees. X has unlimited cash flow to continue to fight me. I have all kids in therapy as well as myself. Facing the tough decision of granting him full custody so that this insanity ends and my kids aren't in the crossfire of this.

My heart is breaking, but it's the only way I can see the conflict ending. I don't want the kids to feel like I've abandoned them. Anyone have a similar experience and can offer some advice or 

Julie: encouragement.

I, I legit got chills in part because I have a case right now that is ongoing that is this case almost to a T.

I actually am a little worried it might be the same case, although the kids ages are different. So I think I'm good.

Emily: These are from Pennsylvania 

Julie: well, so I'm glad to know that because I was going to say the first thing first is that there is no age in Pennsylvania in which the children can choose.

Even at 17, that doesn't mean the child chooses. However, practically speaking, more often than not, that's going to obviously be a bigger factor at 17 than at 12 and 11 and whatever the ages were at 15. Let's presume money is not an issue [00:18:00] because I think that's obviously a big part of this.

What I am hearing is a case that is screaming for an alienation and custody evaluation. An alienation evaluation is going to be specific. It's different than a custody evaluation. So a custody evaluation... Custody evaluation is going to be someone who's going to interview potential therapists, school personnel, parents, observe the parents with their children, speak to the children at a time, if it's appropriate, grandparents, et cetera.

And they're going to come to court and say, this is what I suggest the custody schedule should be and presumably legal custody if there's a dispute. Great. That is helpful at times. The custody plus alienation, you know, so if I, I know we're not being videoed, but if I could do it on a, on a linear scale, say 1 to 10, 10 is going to be where the custody evaluation stops.

Well, the parent alienation evaluation can go all the way to 50. And 10 to 50 is going to be what type of behavior is a parent or both parents doing to undermine, to alienate, [00:19:00] to triangulate, to parentify the children, you know, all of those issues. And then importantly, how to fix them, right? Because the custody evaluation, they're going to do psyche valves, they should do some type of psyche valve DSM testing on the parents, but they're not necessarily going to go as deep.

And this sounds like a father who is alienating the children and likely believes, I don't know if, I know that she said she's, she's at the point where maybe she gives up full custody. There's a lot of parents that think I am their parent. I should have 50 50 custody. That means I'm equal. You can be an equal parent without equal time. And I say that because sometimes that just is what's best for the kids. Equal time doesn't always mean it's best for the kids, but in any event, so. This is a case that screams for that alienation and custody evaluation because it sounds to me that these children have turned into litigants as opposed to children.

Children should be as unaware and uninvolved in custody [00:20:00] as possible. And so that would be the quote unquote. You know, best option, but those are very expensive, very, very expensive. So on that point, 

you 

know, if this individual has gone for custody twice and lost and is continuing what you're, what this person's saying, perhaps the request is that this evaluation occur and And he'd pay for it.

Typically there's shared costs, but you could, if, if this person went in and said, look, he's the one asking for it, 

Emily: I 

Julie: can't afford it, but we need an answer. And look, it's going to, it's going to help the judge because the judge isn't going to sit there and parse through.

We're not therapists. And, and frankly, you could say, look, if it turns out that I'm the problem, you can reapportion it. Like, in other words, the judge could later say, okay, well, Dad, you paid 100%, but now it should be 50 50. I don't know. But it sounds like this person knows that they are not doing anything wrong, and maybe that's an option.

And he, he sounds as if that's the type of case where the judge would consider it. It's not common because he's been pushing [00:21:00] this, and he's taken her to court and lost repeatedly. 

In my world, it almost always is unfounded because the allegations such as what she is saying are not abuse, period.

Emily: disciplining 

Julie: Yeah. Yeah. And in Pennsylvania you are allowed to use, not saying she is, but you are allowed to use physical force. 

Emily: In Discipline

Within

Julie: within reason. Yes, and I always tell my kids and like I'm allowed to hit you. Not that I do I don't hit my kids never have never will but I can't enjoy it In other words, like I have to be have a reason I have to be I'm not hitting you because I'm an ass I'm hitting you because and I would never and I'm not judging you if you do that's up to you, but

It's just, you know, to clarify, like, yeah, you can.

You can hit your kids. I'm not saying you should. Again, let me clarify that. But it is 

allowed 

Emily: Pennsylvania. Right. But it sounds like maybe she's grabbing them if they're running away from her or something like that.

Julie: It sounds like maybe she's grabbing them if they're running away from her or something like that. Or another one. All the dad filed a PFA, which would have ruined her job, when mom [00:22:00] grabbed the child's cell phone from the child because the child was doing something wrong. And that turned into the Temporary PFA, because of course it was written in a way that was inflamed, and it was horrible.

This poor woman and thankfully we won, and all the right things happened, but it was hell on earth for this person, and as a teacher she would have lost her job, and what that would have looked like, God forbid we hadn't won. No pressure. 

Everybody can say, Oh, I would never until you're in that situation.

So maybe you can say I would never grab a cell phone from my kid, but your kids taking, you know, naked selfies, you might grab that phone from your kid. So 

and I 

guess I, you know, I'm not in that household, but I think that this person should just keep doing what they're doing. And I feel horrible because I, I have, I I'm going to court on Wednesday on a very similar situation.

And at some point, perhaps in these emergency hearings, perhaps she needs to ask through her attorney, like maybe dad should lose his time right now. Because sometimes the answer when there is severe alienation is that the person who is [00:23:00] alienating Lose time because how else do you fix it because putting the children in these situations and to use 60 40 which it's really never ever 60 40 by the way, but we'll go with it

It just literally can't necessarily divide that way.

But that's putting the 

Emily: kids 

too much 

in 

the 

middle.

Right. And they're, . 15, 13, and nine.

So they're old enough where I'm sure she does feel ganged up on,

Julie: My gosh 15 13 and 9 what I'm thinking about is how hard that will be to undo the damage in particular to the 15 and the 13 year old, the nine year old as well, but at least there's some more time with a 15 year old and a different case that I had where there was alienation of an older child.

And unfortunately, I got to the point where by the time we had this evaluation and we had the results, it was almost too late because the child was just too old.

It goes to the elephant issue, right? How do you move an elephant? How do you tell a 17 year old you have to do this? Especially after you've gone through years of alienation, when you've told a child, dad's horrible, or mom's horrible, and then all of a sudden you're supposed to fix it.

They've already been, I don't use, I don't know a different, I don't know a better term, but [00:24:00] brainwashed. 

So it's terrible. And I feel for this person. And is this the one who said she had a great lawyer?

I can't express enough how I, how costly I know attorney's fees are and hopefully this attorney is somebody that you can continue to trust 

Emily: he's obviously leveraging his financials.

Julie: Yeah. And that's not uncommon. It's a, yeah, it's not uncommon. It's, it's, you know, I'm sure there was financial abuse at some point in that relationship and it's probably continuing, but it's horrible.

And if every person, by the way, is judged on their worst parenting moment, whatever that is, 

Emily: then we 

all be screwed. Seriously. Okay, here's the next one. I'll save you the long story, they write. We are approaching our court date. My lawyer emailed me today and said the court wants us to try and conciliate on a schedule.

Other parent won't agree to a 50 50 schedule but is willing to give just under the 50 50. For example, they said they'd be willing to give me two weekday nights and four weekend nights a month but said absolutely not to 50 50. Very civil, no abuse or crazy accusations. My question is, should I settle? My lawyer said the [00:25:00] judge is very pro 50 50.

Anyone dealt with a situation like this. Kid is four years old, has been 50 50 situation for most of their life, and we live 10 minutes from each other. I just feel they are making this harder than it needs to be. If you're willing to give me almost 50%, then why not 50%? My lawyer thinks they don't want 

Julie: to lose 

Emily: tax credits.

Julie: Or, well, so I, really, we child support, so there's Custody, your child support depends on custody.

Tax credits, if you have a 50 50 schedule, and I'm not a tax professional, but the last I read is that if you have 50 50, the person who has the higher adjusted gross income gets the deducted child. So maybe, I don't know, but here's where, here's where my head goes. Number one, there are trends more and more and more towards 50 50.

That is just what it is. However, four is on the younger end. So, I mean, there's a chance for sure that it could be less than 50 50. One thing that pops into my head, and I can't tell if this 

Emily: is a 

bomb or 

death. 

Julie: doesn't matter, doesn't matter, but it sounds like the person is saying they're willing to give me less than 50 50, but [00:26:00] just shy of.

One option that popped into my head was, have they tried doing 50 50 in the summer? In other words, like a, not a trial period, but again, be where your feet are and that with four year olds are a lot different than five, six, seven, eight year olds. So maybe the answer is settle, but say only if I get 50 50 in the summer, because then you can show 50 50 when fine, 

Emily: and 

Julie: then you move 

it forward.

I can't ever tell someone to settle. I don't know the situation, but I can say it would depend a little bit on the judge. Unfortunately, it is judge specific and there are other ways to think about things before you jump to just black 

Emily: white, 

because 

this sounds 

a little black 

and white. 

That's what I was going to ask. Do people get hung up on the, on the 50%?

Julie: So technically, a lot of times, and keep in mind, shared physical custody does not necessarily mean 50 50. So you can say that you have shared physical custody even if it's not exactly 50 50. I think there's creative things to do.

If one person has primary during the school year, you could, I had this and it worked really well actually on a case that was pending trial. I offered I represented dad and instead [00:27:00] of like digging my heels in, I said, look, she has primary during the school year, give him primary during the summer.

And the other attorney was like, Oh, I wouldn't have thought of that. And it's working, it's working well. There are, you know, so, or there's options to say, okay, if this person has, you know, just shy of or primary by a hair 50, 50 in the summer. Or you can say, look, on the Martin Luther King days and the, you know, the Monday holidays, like extend the weekend on those so that person gets more time.

You can say, look, fine, if you're going to have primary all the time, maybe you get this 50 50 in the summer, but then I want more of the winter breaks and I want, so there's different ways to slice it up, but ultimately, eventually, from what this sounds like, it's going to end up being 50 50. The question is,

do you

want to push it now or do you want to show that you You as the group can do it and, and, and cut out the litigation and keep the fighting down.

And then see how to, to progress. But more often than not, so, you know, so this person could win because the courts are more 50 50. Tell me why it shouldn't be 50 50. That's not written [00:28:00] anywhere, but that can often be 

Emily: approach. 

Julie: Your attorney should be thinking of creative ways.

My client said, I do not want to go to trial, but we were pending trial. So I was, so he actually had said, just, just give up. And I said, I'm not going to give up because I think there's a way to fix this.

And I was right. And I'm not saying I was right. Like I was right, but I'm glad I did. I'm glad. And he's glad I did. Yeah. And it was quote unquote worth it. So, and he didn't have to go to trial and he had to pay to go to trial and he was thrilled, but ultimately think of different ways. It's not always 

Emily: all or 

Julie: nothing.

In a perfect world, and I can quote a judge up here in Chester County, perfect world, you get your custody order and you never look at it again because you don't need it. And actually I have a friend who I was just with last weekend and I said, Oh, you know, what's the schedule?

She goes, we don't have one. It just, what, what works? And I'm like, 

Emily: I 

was like, 

Julie: God 

bless 

you. 

But again, that's not necessarily the norm, and I'm not suggesting that you're wrong if you can't do that, but ideally 

that would be great. So 

it sounds like there could be some creative ways, and if you're not at 50 50 by the end of this, if you decide to settle and compromise and not get [00:29:00] there, then I think you're going to be there the next time you go.

Emily: Okay, let 

Julie: me 

Emily: here.

Julie: Okay,

Emily: Okay, this one is. We share equal custody, and for the past five years, both lived within 10 

minutes 

of 

our 

daughter's school. 

Suddenly, she bought a house an hour away. Me driving two plus hours is unrealistic and unsustainable for us. My wife and I have a newborn. We would get home past 7 p.

m. and have to wake up at 5. 30 a. m. to go back. Not only that, but my other kid needs to be picked up, dropped off, too. What can I do in this situation? I don't see anything about relocating in our custody agreement. I feel like this is intentional to push me away, and as soon as a day comes that I can't make the two hour drive, I'm going to hear, It's your choice that you don't want to 

see 

your daughter.

Julie: Has this, did it say that the move has happened?

Emily: She had already bought the house, but I don't know if the move had happened.

Julie: know

Emily: this is, so an hour distance from

the 

child? Two, two 

Julie: One hour 

Emily: way, 

sounds like?

Yeah, probably an hour away, yeah.

Julie: So, house to house. One hour to me is a relocation and if it's, it should be in, if we're in Pennsylvania, it should be in [00:30:00] your custody order at the bottom of every custody order.

You might not be looking in the right place because you might be looking in the actual body of it, but at the bottom of the signature page, it should say, that the relocation rules apply. Even if it doesn't, the 

relocation rules apply 

to 

a 

custody 

Emily: just across the board

Julie: Yeah, and I have a cus I have a relocation pending right now, and there was no custody order at the time.

We had to file a custody complaint, and now we have a relocation trial. So, we didn't So, yes, you need to have it. In any event, it is a relocation, and here's why. A relocation is not defined by time or miles, per se, in the statute. It is, how would the move affect The non moving parent. That's not the way it's written, but that's how I explain it.

So this is going to affect this person significantly. And it's a relocation. And a relocation has not only the best interest standards and the six, the 16 factors in the custody statute, but also 10 additional factors in the relocation. So to me, this is a relocation and therefore it should be. So, if this has [00:31:00] happened, now again, there's all timing issues and the statute specifically says if a person already moves, it does not give them a leg up.

I've lost a relocation when they already bought a house in a different state and they, and it was because the custody would not have been made up based on like how the parent could see soccer 

games and 

Emily: etc. 

Julie: If they have not moved yet.

You should talk to your attorney about what to do next. If they have moved I mean, this gets contentious, but you could technically, technically file a a written exe it basically, which is to return the child back to the jurisdiction. I mean, there's all sorts of things that can be filed. To me this sounds like a relocation and you should hire an attorney to talk about where it is, what to do next, and how to fix it. 

Emily: What kind of solution is there if the mom already bought the house?

Julie: So the courts should want to reinstate the norm status quo, presuming this is like in real time. In other words, like if this hasn't been a year and the kid's been there, okay, well now you 

kind of, that ship has 

sailed. 

Think about my case. My client had a, had a place here in Chester [00:32:00] County. She had bought a different state with her new husband and which I told her she should not have done, but what do I 

know, right?

And that was it. She, they ended up had to sell the house. They, they'd never even 

moved into it. So the court doesn't 

care. Yeah. 

And in that case, I remember the judge specifically saying, you, you, meaning my client has hit every single factor. You know, in the relocation, it's how it's going to benefit them emotionally, financially, et cetera.

But you're not going to be able to make up the other parent's time. And so she denied the relocation.

, the hard part about relocation too is, and I tell this to case clients all the time about custody in general, but relocation in particular, is you can put the same case in front of eight judges and four will grant the relocation and four will deny it.

Sometimes you just don't know. And in the case where I was referring to where that client, it was denied I think if I had been in front of almost any other judge, it would have been granted, but it wasn't and that is what it is. So she can move, but she can't move 

the kid,. 

Emily: I feel like 

I've done like three consults. Four consults. I know! 

Julie: point. 

Emily: This is so [00:33:00] fun!

This 

Julie: is 

what I, this 

is 

a consult. I mean, obviously a lot more in depth and, and I get more information and it's easier in some ways, but I hope that these thoughts are 

helpful to 

people. 

Emily: they are, because they're real situations.

Julie: This is not legal advice because I don't know every specific, but these are my thoughts on how I would advise someone if this was a hypothetical 

given 

Emily: me.

I think it also shows, because almost all of these you've dealt with something almost the same, so, you know, I know everyone probably thinks like, oh, this is the worst, or I'm in the worst situation, they've never seen something 

this bad, 

like you're seeing.

Julie: now all the time.

And I think that's a, that's a reason to hire a true family law practitioner because you know, my dad's a lawyer and he's. It's mid 70s, and back in his day, it was a jack of all trades, master of none. You did everything. Now, it's different, and I think it needs to be, so if you're having complex issues or really any family law issues, hire a family law practitioner, because there are idiosyncrasies that the general practitioner may or may not know. I always say, I I don't write [00:34:00] wills, even though my, you know, my husband's a 

Emily: state lawyer, 

Julie: I 

could probably figure out how to bequeath things to people, but I'm not touching that with a ten foot

pole! You know, I know what I know, and I know what 

I 

Emily: So,

I 

think probably family law is way more complicated than it used to be, and probably continuing to get more complicated because of the 50 50, like 

Julie: it used to just 

Emily: be more.

Mom 

gets 

the kids.

Since 

Julie: I've been practicing the statute had very clearly changed that no parent gets a preference.

I think it gets more complicated with two working households, more divorce, there's just 

Emily: lot 

of reasons why it 

gets more

complicated.

Julie: I think the contention. is something that's continuing to increase.

I think people are very powerful behind keyboards. And 

Emily: that's 

another thing 

we'll talk 

about next.

That's 

Julie: time is that, you know, and how people talk to each other through text message and e mail and the things that you would never say to their 

face, you know, 

like, 

Emily: you would have to make a phone call.

Julie: Yeah, you would have had to say to 

Emily: person, you're a 

Julie: fucking 

asshole and I'll fucking see you next Tuesday and you know 99 percent of the time they're not saying that but they say it via text message and then what happens is it increases the [00:35:00] tension and it increases the fighting and increases the likelihood that they're gonna say you're a fucking father or you're a fucking mother and the kid, you might think, oh they know I'm not serious but they don't know you're not serious and so I can't necessarily say what has changed but it, it, it is.

Increasingly more contentious. And then I also find a lot of attorneys don't help. And I know I have a tough reputation, but I try, 

Emily: I 

try really 

hard 

to 

settle cases. Like they try to stir up the contention a little more.

Julie: try to stir up the contention a little more? I don't know if they try to stir up the contention, but I feel like people get a little, like they dig in too much on emotional reasons that I don't think we need to 

dig in for, 

right?

So, like, every day I have to remind myself, this is not my life. And I say that because I have to be, I have to separate, right? It's not my life. *And I think that's hard because it is a very emotional field. I'm not criticizing other attorneys, but sometimes it's like you got to separate, you got to define.*

*Maybe not neutrality isn't the right word, but you have to pull back and say, okay, *

Emily: *like you *

Julie: *have *

*to *

*be able to look *

at *both sides, *

*like go back to, you know, I go back to *[00:36:00] *criminal law and I explain this to clients. I'm like, look, I'm a really, I was a really good prosecutor because I was really good at seeing the defense side, maybe because I was raised by a person who do criminal defense, but you have to be able to see both sides.*

*Because when you see both sides, that's how you're going to get to the quote unquote right outcome. So if you're in the weeds with these people, and these people mean your clients, and you can't see any other option, and you're starting to fight their fight, that's not helping. Your attorney shouldn't be equally as invested in this as *

Emily: *you, *

*because it's *

*not *

*their *

*life.*

Right. *Even though you might form friendships and professional relationships and you do feel for *

Julie: *them.*

*oh my God,* 

Emily: *what they're going through. You still have to say, but this is still *

Julie: *the law *

*and*

*this topic.* *Yep. I've grabbed* *tissues with people and you know, like Absolutely. I, I have hugged every client. Yeah.*

*Almost every client. 'cause I feel for them. Yeah. But I have to say, I have to be able to say to them, look, you want this and I hear you, but this isn't gonna happen and here's why. And here's what we can do to help move you forward.* 

Emily: Yeah, and I think you're right. I think texting and then passive aggressive social media, 

Julie: getting into all 

Emily: all 

Julie: And you also know too 

much And you see 

that your 

ex [00:37:00] husband is out there dating Jenny 

Emily: from you know, At the beach, drinking on the beach, having fun, going to the club.

Julie: knowing is good. You don't need to know what your

ex is doing. 

Emily: their own time. 

Julie: Yeah.

and then you're feeling hurt and then you're seeing your kids with their new girlfriend and then there's the, oh, that's, they're taking over. Oh my gosh, I get it. I do. I'm not saying I

don't get it. 

Emily: like more drama than high school.

Julie: This is where I'm going, right? So, you know, sometimes like shut off the social media and be glad that your kids have parents that love them and have loved each other at one point and try to see like the positive, you know, try to find that gratitude.

When you find the anxiety, find the 

Emily: Isn't that what 

Julie: they say? 

Emily: they 

say? I don't

know, 

but that's a good note to end on.

Julie: There you go. All right. We'll talk 

next 

week. We'll 

Emily: good. we'll 

bring in my 

better 

half.

Oh, yes. Next podcast we're going to be bringing Mr. Potts, Esquire.

Julie: Esquire. Yes, who many have questioned how 

he is married to 

me and I'm sure some days he would ask himself the same question, but we'll get his input on a lot of things, including some estate 

Emily: planning

In divorce. In

Julie: divorce. When you get divorced, what happens [00:38:00] next with your 

Emily: planning and all that kind of stuff?

Yeah. Very exciting. 

Julie: All right. Thanks, Em. 

Emily: Julie. 

Julie: Bye.