Tag: society

Artificial Fraudulence

Seth Godin stated it well when he wrote, “The ease with which someone can invent and spread lies [with advancing technology] is going to take most of us by surprise. It’s going to require an entirely new posture for understanding the world around us.”

This is especially true in family law.

We will soon reach the point (some are there already) in family law where a spouse or parent can create fake email, text, and audio and visual “records” of spousal and child abuse, substance abuse, infidelity, assets and debt, property damage, diminution and dissipation of assets, scientific data, etc. that is all but indistinguishable from the genuine article. The level and volume of fakery will be impossible for all but the wealthiest of litigants to discern (and even then, if a duped judge is too proud or to biased to acknowledge and remedy the fraud, all the proof in the world won’t protect the innocent). When truth is practicably impossible to verify in the legal process, truth becomes meaningless to the process.

I don’t know how best to address this problem (it may already be too late). Unless the profession takes immediate and wise action, the liars will make such a mockery of the legal process so fast and so pervasively that trust in the system will be irreparably destroyed (and with good reason). We may reach a point where society at large gives up on the notion of justice being a function of truth (reality).

One concern I have is members of the profession (both opposing counsel and judges) acting “offended” for outraged or “concerned” if somebody claims that deepfakes and other similar tactics are being engaged. I’m concerned that someone who may in the utmost sincerity raise legitimate concerns about the authenticity and veracity of certain evidence being ridiculed as paranoid, a vexatious litigator, unprofessional, etc. Not out of a genuine belief, but in the hopes that shaming or even persecuting the whistleblower will result in the claims being retracted so that the hard work of getting to the truth can be avoided and or so that the desired outcome is not impeded by the facts. When that happens, then who will judge the judges, and by what standard?

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is the divorce rate so high in the United States?

Why is the divorce rate so high in the United States?

Until now, I would answer this question by stating that some of the main reasons for the high divorce rate in the United States were a failure to understand the purpose of marriage and family, what a successful marriage and family demands of a couple and family members, and a culture that increasingly diminishes the importance of selflessness and service to one’s fellow man (both within and without the family unit).

There are statistics that indicate the divorce rate is falling in the United States, but not because more people are staying married, but because more people are simply forgoing marriage altogether (fewer divorces because there are fewer marriage to end in divorce). Why?

Well, in my opinion, it’s for the same reasons the divorce rate is so high and the following additional reasons: 1) government policies that both discourage marriage and incentivize remaining single and having children out of wedlock; 2) a culture that teaches girls and women that men are worthless, that marriage is tantamount to domestic slavery, and that women not only have no need for a man in their lives, but that having a man in their lives is a sign of weakness and a betrayal of the gains women have made in society and the workforce; and 3) obsolete alimony policy and laws that lead many men to conclude that marriage is not worth the risk, if a marriage ends in divorce.

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is it difficult for a father to get child custody?

Why is it difficult for a father to get child custody?

Because there is a pernicious and false belief in far too many of the courts (not, notably, in society at large) that generally:

  1. mothers are better parents than fathers;

and thus

  1. children need the care of their mothers more than the care of their fathers;

and thus

  1. children should spend most of their time in the care of their mothers but have “a relationship” with their fathers by seeing them every other weekend, once a week, and on alternating holidays.

All other “reasons” for presuming that sole or primary custody of a child or children should be awarded to the mother derive from these three false premises, which premises/presumptions are extraordinarily difficult for a father to overcome, even if all he seeks is an award of joint equal child custody.

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should people be allowed to file “alienation of affections” law suits?

Allowed to? Yes. I believe that if one can prove that an otherwise happy marriage was destroyed by a homewrecker, one should have a legal cause of action for alienation of affection. But I am in the minority. And indeed, some (though few) states still allow alienation of affection law suits. In fact, Kevin Howard sued in August 2017 under North Carolina’s alienation of affection law and was awarded $750,000 in August of 2019.

Would I advise it generally? No. Alienation of affections cases are becoming increasingly unpopular. Most states have outlawed a cause of action for alienation of affections. Those states that who retain the cause of action make it hard for people to prevail. When people call me asking whether it would be a good investment to sue for alienation of affections, I tell them no. Odds of success are low, costs of litigation are high. Alienation of affections cases are unpopular with courts. In today’s world there are more satisfactory and cost-effective ways to deal with alienation of affections than suing.

To prove alienation of affection in Utah (where I practice family law), the plaintiff must establish that the defendant

  1. wilfully and intentionally alienated the spouse’s affections
  2. resulting in the loss of the comfort, society and consortium[1] of the spouse, and
  3. (to justify punitive damages) a charge of malice.

Now how easy do you believe it would be to prove that somebody willfully and intentionally “stole” your unwilling spouse away? The defendant will argue that your spouse chose to step out on you (and then likely provide the court with a a laundry list of reasons for doing so, whether good or bad, whether true or false), not that your spouse was duped into leaving a perfectly happy marriage. This is what makes alienation of affection cases so difficult to win.

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

[1] The marital alliance between a Husband and Wife and their respective right to each other’s support, cooperation, aid, and companionship. Loss of consortium is an actionable injury for which money damages may be awarded. The loss of the love, sexual relations, and services of a spouse are being considered tangible injuries. (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As a lawyer, where did you think most problems in society stem from?

Indulging self-interest without regard to, and at the expense of, the God-given rights of others and the needs of the public at large. More concisely stated: disregard for the Golden Rule.

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , ,

What happens if marriage is abolished, since there are too many divorce rates and cheating affairs?

If that happens, then we will then have taken another step—and a big one—on the road to hell.

Although the old joke, “the leading cause of divorce is marriage” may be humorous, it’s terrible logic. Abolishing marriage would not “solve” divorce problem, it would just lead to more of the ills that befall a society where marriage and family are not valued and protected.

Utah Family Law, LC | | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!