Parental Interference, Internet Critics, and Italian Margaritas: A Rebuttal - Ep 36

In Episode 36 of Cases & Cocktails, Bryan and Janice Eggleston respond candidly to online comments from a prior episode about parental interference. This topic struck a nerve with many listeners. With an Italian margarita in hand (made with El Tesoro Reposado, lime, orange juice, and amaretto), the duo takes a fiery and funny approach to addressing common misconceptions, emotional reactions, and misinterpretations surrounding co-parenting and custody orders.

A Clear Line Between Emotion and Legal Strategy

Bryan and Janice begin by drawing a crucial distinction between empathy and emotion. As Janice puts it, “Just because I don’t show emotion doesn’t mean I don’t care. It means I’m doing my job.” Attorneys, they explain, must stay focused and objective—especially when guiding clients through one of the most emotional periods of their lives.

This theme sets the tone for a deeper conversation: family law is highly emotional, but courts operate on facts, evidence, and law, not feelings. Clients hire attorneys to carry the legal burden so they can focus on navigating their emotional one.

Revisiting the Debate on Parental Interference

Much of this episode is a rebuttal to online comments about a previous discussion on parental interference. The Egglestons clarify that the issue isn’t a parent investigating abuse claims—it’s when one parent unilaterally discourages or blocks visitation without legal cause. If there are real concerns, the remedy is straightforward: go to court, not rogue decisions.

Bryan puts it bluntly: “You don’t get to decide the court order no longer applies just because you disagree with it.” Family courts exist because parents couldn’t agree—and a judge decided in the child’s best interest. Violating that order undermines the entire legal process and can have lasting consequences.

“Periods of Possession” and the Language of the Law

Another hot-button issue: terminology. Specifically, the phrase “periods of possession.” Some commenters took issue with what they felt was a cold, outdated term. Janice responds with humor and honesty: “We didn’t make up the language—it’s in the Texas Family Code.” As legal professionals, they must use the terminology recognized by the courts, even if it lacks warmth.

The segment reminds listeners that legal language doesn’t always align with emotional sensibilities, but that doesn't diminish the care or intention behind it.

The Child's Voice vs. The Parent's Role

One recurring comment suggested that if a child doesn’t want to visit the other parent, they shouldn’t have to. Bryan and Janice agree that a child's opinion matters—especially in abuse situations—but also stress that children need structure and guidance. Simply letting a child dictate custody without cause leads to chaos and undermines both parents' roles.

They explain how children often exploit co-parenting dynamics when one household is more permissive. This “divide and conquer” tactic can wreak havoc on court orders and family structure. The solution? Co-parents must find ways to present a united front, even when apart.

The Courts, Complexity, and the Realities of Custody

The final segment tackles perhaps the most accurate online comment: “Custody cases are complex.” The Egglestons couldn’t agree more. With only a few hours before a judge makes life-altering decisions, there are no perfect solutions. Judges must use discretion, and families must adapt to new realities.