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?
First, if you are referring to a police report of a DUI citation and/or arrest, in most jurisdictions such records are public record, and thus available not only to your spouse, but to any other member of the public.
Second, if the question of whether you were cited and/or convicted of DUI arises in a divorce or child custody case because your spouse and/or the court has determined that alcohol or other substance abuse concerns are relevant to the child custody award or alimony award or other issues, then even if your DUI report were not already public record, it would likely be discoverable in the course of litigating the case and preparing for trial, so that both your spouse and the court would have that information available to them when arguing over which parent should receive child custody and/or how much time each parent should spend with the parties’ children, whether alimony should be tempered by your substance and/or spousal abuse history, etc.
Bottom line: records of a citation for, arrest for, conviction of, and or incarceration resulting from DUI are almost certainly discoverable in most divorce and child custody cases.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
First, if you are referring to a police report of a DUI citation and/or arrest, in most jurisdictions such records are public record, and thus available not only to your spouse, but to any other member of the public.
Second, if the question of whether you were cited and/or convicted of DUI arises in a divorce or child custody case because your spouse and/or the court has determined that alcohol or other substance abuse concerns are relevant to the child custody award or alimony award or other issues, then even if your DUI report were not already public record, it would likely be discoverable in the course of litigating the case and preparing for trial, so that both your spouse and the court would have that information available to them when arguing over which parent should receive child custody and/or how much time each parent should spend with the parties’ children, whether alimony should be tempered by your substance and/or spousal abuse history, etc.
Bottom line: records of a citation for, arrest for, conviction of, and or incarceration resulting from DUI are almost certainly discoverable in most divorce and child custody cases.
Can I kick my spouse or our children out of the house or even off the property without their consent when it becomes clear that my spouse and I are headed for divorce?
Can I kick my spouse or our children out of the house or even off the property without their consent when it becomes clear that my spouse and I are headed for divorce? What about if my spouse is being abusive or making threats? What about if my spouse is a substance abuser and doing dangerous things?
Well, believe it or not, there is a statute in the Utah Code that treats this very subject: Utah Code § 30-2-10, entitled “Homestead rights — Custody of children”. And here is what it provides:
Neither the husband nor wife can remove the other or their children from the homestead without the consent of the other, unless the owner of the property shall in good faith provide another homestead suitable to the condition in life of the family; and if a husband or wife abandons his or her spouse, that spouse is entitled to the custody of the minor children, unless a court of competent jurisdiction shall otherwise direct.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
How does the court view mothers that abandon their family during a divorce?
Generally, with disbelief, at first. Why? A few reasons.
One, to its credit, our culture still holds the concept and institution of motherhood in high esteem, so most people (and judges are people) believe that mothers are good, devoted caregivers. Most mothers are just that. So it is not easy to accept what our senses are conveying when a mother behaves contrary to our cultural expectations. We tend to see mothers as we want to see them, not as they always are.
Two, few bad mothers are honest with the court about being bad mothers. So the false face that most bad mothers present to the court is (primarily, but not solely, because of point number one) not only hard to detect as false, but easily accepted or acceptable as genuine.
One way bad mothers divert attention from their faults and misconduct is by blaming the fathers for those faults and misdeeds. Just as we tend to put mothers on a pedestal in our culture, we unfairly tend to see and treat many fathers as second-class parents. The feeling is like, “Yeah, they are important to a child’s upbringing, I guess, but they aren’t as vital and important to a child’s development as a mother, so we give dads less of the benefit of the doubt.” This is so wrong for so many reasons, but nevertheless it happens so often.
If kids are abused or neglected, bad mothers blame the guiltless fathers with a high rate of success in court. For example: violence perpetrated by men can be more severe than violence perpetrated by women, so if a child is a victim of domestic violence, it’s easy to assume Dad is the perpetrator (interestingly, FBI statistics show women commit just as much, if not more, domestic violence than men). If Dad has a full-time job, it’s easy to presume that Mom is the full-time caregiver, not a lazy slob who drinks herself numb every day and lets the kids run amok until Dad gets home to restore order and attend to the children’s need.
Three, even when a bad mother’s defects are unavoidably and undeniably exposed, many courts possess surprisingly great supplies of sympathy and forgiveness that they would rarely or not so readily extend to a father. It so often gets framed like this, for example: a mother who abuses drugs or alcohol is a victim whose substance abuse is a cry for help. A father who abuses drugs is a narcissist who lacks self-discipline. A mother with crippling mental health issues is deserving of our concern and rehabilitation. A father with crippling mental health issues is a danger against which the children need protection. I’ve personally witnessed many cases where mom was abusive and/or neglectful and dad was not, yet mom was awarded primary physical custody of the children because the court felt so strongly that the kids “need their mother,” that somehow mom had earned the right to be the custodial parent by virtue of being a woman, and that mom could and would overcome her shortcomings (not because there was credible evidence that she can and wanted to overcome those shortcomings, but because the court had to make such a finding to justify the award of custody to the worse of the two parents).
To be clear, I am not telling you that courts cannot identify bad mothers or that they cannot or will not shield children from bad mothers. Many people—moms and dads alike—when discovered for the mediocre, even dangerous, parents they are, are not awarded child custody and/or are subject to supervision around their children. It can and does happen. But that is not what discussed here. In response to the question of which parent among mothers and fathers gets undeserved breaks more in divorce cases, it is mothers hands down. Now you know some of the main reasons why.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What are the dirty tricks your spouse and his/her lawyer can do to attack you during a divorce?
Understand that while the tone of this answer to your question is a little—a little—tongue in cheek, it’s still true.
Dirty tricks that often work whether you are a man or woman:
falsely accuse your spouse of substance abuse (drugs, alcohol)
falsely accuse your spouse of being mentally ill
falsely accuse your spouse of having an extramarital affair
falsely accuse your spouse of child abuse (both physical and sexual)
this works best for women, but it’s starting to gain ground with men too
Dirty tricks that work mostly for women:
falsely accuse your spouse of spouse abuse, both physical and sexual (virtually nobody will ever believe a wife abuses a husband unless a busload of nuns with time and date-stamping video cameras witness it too and testify to it)
falsely accuse your husband of “pornography addiction”
falsely accuse your spouse of never being home, being an absentee parent, never caring for wife and children, you get the idea
falsely accuse your spouse of being “controlling” (whatever that means, but it works, so who cares what it means, eh?)
falsely accuse your spouse of 1) failing to provide you and your children of adequate financial support and 2) never giving you access to spending money and 3) wasting, dissipating, and diminishing marital assets
Dirty tricks that work mostly for men:
falsely accuse your spouse of parental alienation (this rarely works, but when it does, it works better for men than for women; falsely accusing a father of parental alienation doesn’t get much traction)
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277