February 7, 2023 • 50 mins
This week The Three Wisemen of Divorce sit down with forensic psychologist and family consultant in complex family law cases, Robert A. Simon, Ph.D. If you are involved in a divorce with kids, especially litigation, you may have to endure a forensic custody evaluation. Dr. Simon provides his thoughts and insights about how to prepare for and navigate the forensic custody evaluation and how adversarial family law litigation often causes unintentional and unnecessary damage to kids.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (00:00):
Okay, so it's time to it's time to stop
(00:02):
cussing.
Shawn Weber (00:03):
No, it's okay because we've learned that
irreverence is good for ouraudience.
Although we are we don't aren'twe don't have an explicit rating
so I'd have to beep you.
But
Robert Simon, Ph.D (00:16):
on any given day that might actually be fun.
Shawn Weber (00:23):
Welcome to the three Wiseman of divorce, money,
Psych and law podcast, sit downwith the California divorce
experts, financial divorceconsultant, Mark Hill, marriage
and family therapist, PeteRousseau's and attorney Shawn
Weber, for a frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co parenting and thedifficult decisions, real people
(00:45):
like you face during these toughtimes. We know that if you are
looking at divorce orseparation, it can be scary and
overwhelming. With combinedexperience of over 60 years of
divorce and conflict management,we are here for you and look
forward to help by sharing ourunique ideas, thoughts and
perspectives on divorce,separation, and co parenting.
(01:11):
All right, gentlemen, it We'rehere again for another year. And
we have a guest with us today. Agood friend of mine, and I know
of yours as well, Mark and Pete.
Dr. Robert Simon. Robert, it'sgood to have you.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:29):
Thank you.
It's good to be here. And goodto be with three of you.
Shawn Weber (01:33):
So how long have we known each other? Robert? I
think it all the way back to2003. I want to say has it been
that long? Has it been 20 years?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:42):
I think probably close to
Shawn Weber (01:44):
Yeah,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:44):
you were newly out of newly out of law
school. And very fresh andquite, you know, enthusiastic
and getting ready to begin yourcareer and do good things. And
look what happened?
Shawn Weber (02:01):
And look what happened? Well, you know, but
you're you're you're a forensicpsychologist and a family law
consultant in complex family lawcases. And
Robert Simon, Ph.D (02:11):
right,
Shawn Weber (02:12):
you've become well known in this regard. With the
national internationalreputation, you've I've been
impressed just kind of watchingyour career as you've shared
your knowledge with others. And,and you and I worked closely
together when I used to back ina previous life when I used to
litigate you actually helped mewin cases. Yeah, we did. We did
(02:32):
some good and probablydestructive work together. Well,
you know, it's interesting, thatlast case that we were on, I
think you might remember it wasa move away, and you sat second
chair. That was one of the caseswe won. But then the outcome was
not good for the family. When itwas all said and done. What was
that winning the battle andlosing the war? Yeah, if the war
(02:55):
if the war was the well being ofthe family and the people in the
family? Yeah, it was one ofthose cases, it made me think,
you know, I don't want tolitigate anymore, because I
noticed the destruction that itcauses. Yeah.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (03:07):
Right.
Shawn Weber (03:09):
And, but But you have done a good job over the
years of I always think you do agood job of keeping forensic
psychologists honest. You hearthey follow the procedures and
follow the rules.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (03:24):
You know, Shawn, I think a lot of the work
I do and litigation, which I dowith some ambivalence, because I
think litigation can be so toxicto families think it will look
up the litigation. Yeah, I thinkwhen it's going to be done, it
needs to be done as cleanly. Andas, as civilized away as it can.
(03:52):
And I think that when expertscome in, people like me, come in
and advise the court about whatthey believe is in the best
interest of children, I thinkit's really important that the
court gets the kind of input.
That's high quality input. Andso a lot of what I do when I
consult on cases, and when I doget involved in litigation in
the here and now is to make sureor try to make sure that the
(04:15):
case plan is as Child and Familycentric as it can be that it
does no unnecessary damage. Andthat if the court has say
appointed a child custodyevaluator or an expert to advise
the court, that the work of thatperson is presented to the court
in a fashion that makes it clearwhat's good about the work and
(04:40):
what's unique about the work.
Shawn Weber (04:45):
So what should people expect? I mean, we've got
a lot of people in our audiencethat are that might be facing a
forensic psychological custodyevaluation or something to that
effect. What should they expect?
What should they be preparedfor?
Peter Roussos (05:00):
Can I can I tweak the question a little bit?
Please? Maybe even more Ellamentally? What is a custody
evaluation? Why do they happen?
Why are they
Robert Simon, Ph.D (05:13):
necessary?
Excellent, excellent question.
Sometimes the simple basicquestions really need to be
asked and they need to be askeda lot. So accustomed it's a
custody evaluation is apsychological assessment process
of a whole family. It's a, whatwe call it forensically informed
(05:34):
process. The evaluator is notdoing clinical work. They're not
a therapist, they're not thereto actively help the family
solve problems. They're actuallyto gather information about the
family about the children aboutthe parents formulate a sense of
(05:55):
a parenting plan, a childsharing plan, and any and
ciliary auxiliary services thatthe family may need that support
the best interest of thechildren and present that to the
court. That's what a custodyevaluation essentially is. And
it is used in cases where thecourt needs more information,
(06:21):
more complex information, moredetailed information, more
nuanced information, than it canreadily get through testimony,
and things like that. The courtshave limited time, judges are
not mental health experts, theyoften feel they sometimes feel
that they need the input of acompetent, specifically
(06:44):
specially trained type of mentalhealth professional. And so we
do these evaluations inCalifornia. The rules for these
evaluations are are spelled outin our rules of court and our
family code. There are variousguidelines promulgated by
professional organizations thatadvise how these should be done,
(07:05):
and things like that. Now,they're a custody evaluation.
Thankfully, it's not needed inevery child custody case, where
they're needed is in cases wherethe nature of the conflict
between the parents is such thatthe court feels it needs more
complex information, often ofits psychological nature,
(07:30):
psychological functioning of theparty's parents understanding of
children's needs of theirability to meet those needs.
Sometimes there are concernsabout mental health issues and
parents or drug and alcoholabuse and parents or abusive,
neglectful kinds of parentingpractices, or what I see a lot
(07:54):
of is where the real problem maynot necessarily be with mom or
dad and our dad, but with therelationship between them. Where
the parents are involved in sucha toxic dynamic with one
another, that they wouldn't beable to agree with each other,
(08:15):
for example, that today isTuesday. And by the way, we're
recording this on a Tuesday. Soand it's situations like that
the courts will sometimes use anevaluation now, in my
experience, it can happen fairlyoften that the courts will
(08:37):
decide to use a custodyevaluation when they've
exhausted other methods, or whenthe judge just feels frustrated,
and be wrapped and doesn't quiteknow what the heck else to do.
And so they kick it over tosomeone like me, and they say,
you advise me about what Ishould do. Now, what the
evaluator does is to makerecommendations. We don't make
(08:59):
the judge still does that.
answer your question?
Peter Roussos (09:04):
It does. Robert, as you were talking, I found
myself I had this thought thathe that most people I think
think of a child custodyevaluation is being an
adversarial process. Do you seeit that way?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (09:27):
Yes, yes, it is. It's very much an
adversarial process in that momtries to tell us all the things
about dad that's not good. Dadtries to tell us all the things
about mom. That's not good. Theways in which their CO parent is
being hard to get along with ismaking mistakes with the
(09:50):
children is using court judgmentin their own lives is drinking
too much. Smoking too much weedwhatever it happens to be So it
becomes very adversarial. Andlet's remember that a custody
evaluation this ordered in thecontext of usually a hotly
litigated child custody case,which is, by definition, highly
(10:15):
adversarial. Because I've hadthe opportunity to be involved
in divorces on a wider basis, inother words, be a part of
helping the parties negotiate,for example, the property, which
was I will tell you that there'snothing as divisive as
litigating about children,literally about money or
(10:37):
property or things can be can'tsay and difficult. But it is
child's blessing. And forgivethe metaphor compared to the
details about custody, that it'sa Bloodsport for the plan become
a blood sport for parents. And Iwant to say something that might
(10:58):
be controversial. But I believeit's true. And that is that
often the level of conflictbetween the parents is checked
up by the people advising them,who are those people, their
friends, their family, and theirattorneys. That is
Shawn Weber (11:19):
so true. I've seen a lot of folks, you know, I used
to litigate, people would say,oh, I want to get a
psychological evaluation,because it's going to show that
my ex spouse, these got thiswrong with him, or she's got
that run with her. And I used totell people, you know, you got
to be careful about that.
Because you know, you might getwhat you want, you might get a
forensic evaluation, and thenthat's a double edged sword. And
sometimes,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (11:42):
well, you think about it this way, you
know, I mean, Mother Teresa,doesn't usually marry it till
the hunt that we've all order.
One of my friends says onesdon't marry 10s and 10s. Don't
marry ones. So if if mom thinksthat dad is all of this? Oh, I
mean, the chances are that mom'sgot a little about two. Here's
the deal. You, in general, Iwill tell you after doing this
(12:09):
work for nearly 40 years, andhaving been involved in
literally 1000s of cases, eitheras a consultant or as an
evaluator, the really thegreatest risk to children, when
their parents split up is theconflict between the parents,
aside from abuse, neglect, andreally, really bad parenting,
(12:35):
right? The greatest risk tochildren is conflict between the
parents about children and towhich they're drawn. That's the
bullseye. And in a child custodycase that gets a an evaluation,
it's more likely than not thatthey're at the bullseye. So the
issue is not the issue as ourfriend Bill, it says, there
(12:56):
really is no women. Because whathappens is, it's a dad win. So
that is to say, the evaluatorsees things more through dad's
lens and mom's lens or believesthe dad should have the majority
of custody time or whatever dadshould be able to move with the
(13:17):
kids, whatever it happens to be,in these high conflict
relationships with the moms anddads, now that mom's been
beaten, it's time to even thescore. So round one almost
always gives way to round two,which gives way to round three
until the kids age out or tellboth their parents to pound
sand. So I'm not telling youthat there's no place for child
(13:41):
custody evaluations there. I'vebeen lucky enough to do cases
over the years, where there arecertain non negotiable issues
like for example, a coupledivorces, let's say dad is in
the military. And they've beenliving in our hometown of San
Diego, but dad now as a Marine,or a navy person, because that's
(14:04):
what we have in San Diego, getsa billet and has to move to
another location. You know, thatcan be an unresolvable dilemma,
that doesn't necessarily onlytake place in the context of a
couple that's at high conflict.
(14:24):
It's a circumstance that comesabout and has to be resolved,
and they may not be able toresolve it and an evaluation can
be in that sense, helpful. Andnot highly, highly divisive. If
in the run up to the evaluation,the peanut gallery, friends,
family attorneys, keep itcivilized. But for the most part
(14:46):
custody evaluations aren't thatway. They are evaluations done
on the minority of families thatagain, as I said before, we're
the parents won't agree thattoday's Tuesday
Mark Hill (15:00):
Wondering occurred to me, as I've been listening to
Robert, is that, you know, I'mthe financial guy. So I'm trying
to put a financial slant on thisas we go through it. And the one
thing that occurs to me is thatthe issue sometimes comes down
because the amount of time witha parent has an impact on child
(15:23):
support, you can. And we'vetalked many times when we've
tried to go to alternativedispute resolution about the
problems with buying and sellingchildren in negotiations in
divorce. How often is it afinancial motivation that you've
seen driving this because Idon't, I remember a case I did
(15:45):
two years ago, where the dadwanted 5050. But the minute he
got the kids, he would hire ababysitter and go out with his
girlfriend. So again, that was afinancial motivation.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (15:57):
From my perspective, from my vantage
point, let me say, I rarely knowwhether there's a financial
motive, because let me put youthis way, Mark. It, if, if mom
says to me, I want to go from6040 to 7030, because I need a
couple extra 1000 bucks a month.
She's just on herself. Andright. Now, I know that her
(16:20):
motive is not exactly what youmight want to call child
centered. And it's unlikelythings go well for her. And most
people have the common sense notto tell us that and their
attorneys to tell them that. Andwe as about valuators, don't
deal with the money. So I don'toften know that for certain. I
can smell it sometimes. Right? Ican sniff it. But I in advising
(16:46):
the court, if it gets there, Ican't tell them that I think
that's what's going on. BecauseI am not going to be collecting
data about that. If somebodytells me that, and it comes to
me, I can use it. But I'm notgoing to say to a parent, how
much of your motivation isfinancial. Understood. But I
(17:09):
think I think the financialmotivation is in the background.
For me in my in my experience isin the background in a minority
of cases, but a substantialminority. What's more in the
foreground, our desires tovanquish the other parent. I'm
(17:34):
right, you're wrong. And here'swhat happens. So you know what I
mean, even when when parents aremarried, even when parents are
successfully married, they willdisagree about parenting when
somebody says it's okay for thekids to see this kind of a
movie, the other parent says I'mnot comfortable with it. Or
(17:54):
these are friends I'm not okaywith the I'm okay with those
friends are a few of thesethings like that. So parents,
because they're successfullymarried don't necessarily agree
about therapy. Anyway, when theyseparate, those differences
become exaggerated. And whatbegins to happen as the
adversarial mindset between theparents develops is that they
(18:17):
will view the differencesbetween them through a negative
lens, versus we're justdifferent. Okay, I like to tell
the parents, if you look at anormal bell shaped curve, that
plus or minus two standarddeviations from the mean isn't
normal parenting, okay. And ifyou know the bell shaped curve,
(18:41):
the plus or minus that thirdstandard deviation is a very
small percentage. So if I've gota parent at plus two standard
deviations, and I've got oneminus two standard deviations,
they are both still in thenormal range, but they're,
they're separate. Subjectively,they're very, very far apart.
And what they tend to do themthis is take a very negative
(19:04):
view of what the other person'sdoing, or what we see a lot. And
I know all of you do, too. If anevent happens, say in the home
of a parent, and the otherparent doesn't have complete
information about it, they willassume the worse. And the
assumption morphs into a fact.
(19:27):
And then the level of conflict,the nature of weapons that are
used in this war escalates. Sothis is part of what I've
learned over my many years ofdoing this work. And more
recently in my career as I'vegotten older and perhaps
(19:47):
certainly don't have the tastefor the battle, but also have
become much more alert to thenegative consequences of the
family. I tried to Instead ofusing my skills in a manner that
divides a family, I try to usemy skills in a manner that it
(20:09):
least tries to establish evensmall areas of common ground
where we can we can grow that.
Mark Hill (20:17):
So Robert, I've heard so many clients say to me, I'd
be better off in front of thejudge as soon as they hear the
terrible things he slashed, see,did I know I'm gonna get
everything I want? Well, howwould you respond to a client
that speaks in those terms?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (20:34):
Well, puking. And, by the way, if we
weren't being recorded, I wouldput it more more, we can BLEEP
you. And let me tell you why Isay that. It's not because I
don't think judges are earnest,sincere, compassionate men and
women, I believe that a vastmajority of our judicial
(20:57):
officers deeply care. Butthere's a number of things going
on here, let me start with thebiggest one. The judge doesn't
know these children, the judgedoesn't love the children. Okay.
But Judge cares about thechildren in an abstract way, the
same way that any of us do. Butif the train comes, and we're
(21:22):
all on the railroad track, I'llpush my kid out of the way, but
I ain't pushing your kid out ofthe line, I'm running to save my
own backside right. So thejudges a stranger in a black
robe, doing the best he or shecan with very limited
information to make the kinds ofdecisions that parents with lot
(21:44):
more information struggle with.
Also, let's remember, our courtsystem is underfunded,
desperately underfunded, andunder resource. They do not have
the time, the knowledge, thepersonnel, the bandwidth, to
deeply consider the nature ofwhat's going on, that is
(22:06):
involved in these decisions. Andthen finally, is this one, this
is really what tipped me over,in terms of my becoming much
more committed to that thispeacemaking model that I'm using
now is that when we give toothers, we have the ability to
(22:27):
make the decisions that areproperly ours to make. When we
ask a judge to essentially makeparenting decisions. We give up
our efficacy. We give up ourpower, we give up our sense of
can do. And to a system, asystem, which is a an important,
(22:50):
you know, is a thing. It's not ait's not even an organism that's
alive, it's a thing. It's agovernmental entity, we give up
our sense of efficacy, we giveup our sense of personal power,
we give up our sense of beingable to make the kinds of
choices that parents want to beable to make about their kids,
(23:10):
to assist them. And the more wedo that the more we believe in
our powerlessness, the morefrustrated we become more likely
that frustration spills overinto conflict. It's a self
perpetuating cycle.
Shawn Weber (23:25):
It's so true, what you're saying, you know, I've
served as a privatelycompensated temporary judge
before on a few custody cases.
And I found that what happens isI I get if it's not clear what
the facts are, you getfrustrated, and then you get
angry with the parties. Yeah,it's just a normal human
reaction. And I found myselfbeing very angry at people. You
(23:46):
know, which, which I think iswhat happens to these judges
when they get these cases. Andthe facts aren't clear. It's a
He Said, She Said kind of athing and the initial reaction
is pox on both of your houses.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (24:02):
Or, or let me just split the difference.
Sure. A little over here, alittle over there. Yeah, the
four of us. I know that the fourof us are all fathers, we're all
parents. Some of us are activelyraising children. Now some of us
are retired from activelyraising children. Me being
(24:23):
actively raising children mark.
Yes. The way I like to say it isthe kids are on their own and
the Bank of dad is closed, atleast mostly closed
Mark Hill (24:32):
by Father said children grow up but they don't
always grow away.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (24:36):
They're young. And, you know, if you
think about when when you'reraising your own children, how
certain decisions that need tobe made decisions have to have
some gravity to that are reallyhard to make. And you have a lot
more information and a lot moreknowledge about who your child
(24:57):
is and what's going on in theirlives. Do you hope the judge has
a, a grain of sand on the beachamount of knowledge compared to
what you have in his having tomake these decisions about
somebody else's child. Okay, andlet's remember this too, about
the judge, the judge is human.
So the judge is not perfect.
(25:20):
Yep. And the judge may not feelwell, that day, that judge may
have had an argument with his orher spouse that morning, or may
be having some other personalissues that week that are
affecting their presence there,their attention, their their
(25:40):
mindset, their even their, theirsense of how happy they are to
be doing their job. Right. Andso, when you when somebody says,
I'm just gonna go take a chancewith the judge, I remember
growing up and thinking thatjudges somehow were these
omniscient, more perfect peoplethan we are. I've gotten to know
(26:01):
as we all have many, many judgesover the year. They are every
bit as flawed as everybody else.
They just happened to be given atitle called judge. But
omniscience is not a part oftheir job description, any more
than it is for any of us as acustody evaluator, in some ways
people see me as the quasijudge, I'm going to be advising
(26:21):
the judge. Right? And what Itell them is you're going to
have an imperfect person, do animperfect evaluation and present
it to an imperfect judge. Okay,that's 123 strikes, how many
does it take to be out? So whenpeople want to do when families
want to do a custody evaluation,I'm always careful to try to
(26:45):
educate them about the realitiesof it, so that their
expectations are realistic. It'sanother method to getting to an
outcome, but it is by no meansmagical, perfect. And we
psychologists that do them areonly human beings. And none of
us have absolutely flawlessskill sets. We all make mistakes
every time. Every case.
Peter Roussos (27:08):
Robert, it sounds like the the model that you've
developed. One of your goals isto create a more collaborative
child custody process is what itsounds like. So I wondered if
you could speak to what does ittake for a child evaluation,
(27:29):
custody evaluation process to bemore collaborative, and I'm
thinking about how that getsincorporated into the work that,
that Shawn and Mark and I aredoing visa vie, non adversarial
family law? Settlement, youknow, disputes.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (27:44):
Yeah, yeah.
And so the way that the modelthat I've, I want to say I've
developed but I am developing,and I say I am developing,
because it's a work in processI'm learning. And other folks
who are using this model arelearning with each new case. And
we're sharing what we learnedand the mistakes that we're
(28:05):
making, right and the successeswe're having, but mostly we
learn from our mistakes. And itincorporates a consensual
dispute resolution process intothe evaluation. So the parties
stipulate, agreed going in, thatafter the evaluator has
collected the data, andformulated that analysis of what
(28:30):
they think is likely a bestinterest set of recommendations
that the evaluator will sit downwith parents and their lawyers
share that and assist them innegotiating an outcome to the
best of their ability. I callthe consensual dispute
(28:51):
resolution rather thanmediation. And I'm a big I'm a
big believer in mediation.
Because in the law, mediationhas a very specific meaning. And
it includes that nothing thattakes place in mediation is
everything's confidential.
Whereas during the consensualdispute resolution process, if
(29:12):
I'm seeing a particular parentbehave in a certain way towards
their CO parent, or, or certainkinds of information come to
light in that process, and Ithink, maybe important to
include in my database, should Ihave to make recommendations
that I use that information, soit also keeps the party
(29:34):
smartest, they know that theycan't go in there and behave
poorly, and not have thatreflect on them potentially down
the line. It also means thatfrom the very beginning, the
kinds of things I'm trying tolearn about include not only
(29:54):
this the standard typical stuffthat we Learn in custody
evaluation. But I'm trying tolearn about how the parents see
each other much more carefullyhow they make decisions or don't
make decisions together. Andwhere there is common interest
(30:15):
common ground and some overlap,albeit, maybe, maybe there's
overlap that they don't see thatthey have, because they have got
a different spin or color on it.
And my job is to make it moremutual. So but you have to pick
your your cases very carefully.
There are certain issues thatthis kind of process is not
(30:38):
suitable for. And there arecertain lawyers who are not
going to buy in, because theywant to go to court and
litigate. That's what they'retrained to do. That's what they
believe is the path. And in somecases, that the relationship
between the two attorneys is sopoor, that part of what goes on.
(31:01):
And folks, I want you to knowthat this does happen, that
sometimes the conflict betweenthe parents gets jacked up,
because the attorneys are tryingto beat each other, as opposed
to really, truly represent theirclient.
Peter Roussos (31:20):
And the story that comes to mind for me is I
had a case this is years ago,when I was still taking court
ordered therapy cases was I hada, I was seeing a mother, the
mother in a case. And at whatpoint I asked her, you know, how
long had there been process beengoing and what did it cost them?
(31:43):
Her legal bills at that point intime, were half a million
dollars. They didn't have alight at the end of the tunnel.
And it was a situation where thethe parties hated each other,
and the attorneys hated eachother. That's right. And it was
this perfect storm?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (32:03):
Well, Peter, you know, when I hear you
describe that kind of asituation, I just feel a
combination of deep, deepsadness and rage, and rage.
Because we the professionalsshouldn't be a part of the
problem, we should always try tobe a part of the solution. And
(32:26):
if look, I've been involved incases as immediate, where it's
really clear that the mix isn'tgood. I'm not the right person
for the job, I gotta get out,because my presence is likely to
make things worse, not better.
Right. So I'm not either I'm notgetting along with one of the
attorneys or I don't like one ofthe attorneys or one of the
(32:48):
parents is rubbing, neither youkind of get out. Because it's
not our job to make thingsworse. What we want to do is be
the kind of people when we gocamping that always leave the
campground cleaner than when wefound it. I talked about it as
being very, very aware of afootprint relieve on the family,
the image I like to give peopleis the family is protonated on
(33:11):
the ground on their stomachs.
And we're just walking on theirbacks, you know, and, you know,
maybe even wearing boots, youknow, and leaving these and if
and if it's if you weren'tstiletto heels, you might be
leaving that real impression.
And we're walking on the backsof the family leaving footprints
all over them. We don't oftensee ourselves as a part of the
(33:34):
system, but we are when we acton a family, we change the
family and we own a part of thechange. I think that's such
Shawn Weber (33:44):
a key point, Robert, because, you know,
there's a certain level ofemotional intelligence that you
have to have when you're doingthis work, to be able to not
become part of the problem, havethat self awareness to be able
to see, okay, I'm beingtriggered personally, I am
becoming part of the problem, Iam too enmeshed. And there's
(34:04):
some attorneys out there andsome psychologists frankly, and
some financial people that don'thave that gene, if you will, to
be able to be self aware.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (34:18):
We're all people, right? We have egos.
Some of us operate more from egothan others. And we, we we like
to see ourselves as trying tobenefit people. So it's hard for
us to wrestle with the fact thatsometimes what we're doing is
actually harming right. But theother thing is to recognize that
(34:44):
no matter how skilled we are,we're never more powerful than
the family ever, ever, ever,ever. And so it's our job to
always remind the family thatwe're here to facilitate In the
process, assist them in reachingtheir goals, but not take
(35:06):
ownership of the outcome, andnot insist that it look a
certain way. It's theirdecision. And at the end of the
day, we can't make it for them,we have to bail, they'll ask us
to what should I do? What shouldI do? Tell me what to do. And
I'll do it, then it's mydecision. And these are your
kids. No, thank you. So, so, youknow, having done this work now
(35:31):
for nearly 40 years, and reallyfeeling free, very grateful,
deeply, deeply grateful for thecareer that I've had, and the
work that I've been blessed withby this universe to do because I
think that working with familiesand trying to impact the lives
of children is calling. And it'sa privilege, it's a privilege,
(35:57):
we have to be mindful of ourfootprint on the family. And we
have to be mindful that thetools we have are very few. And
they're blunt tools. They'reblunt tools. I mean, if somebody
needs it, if I'm a forensicpsychologist, and I'm writing a
parenting plan, and what thefamily needs is to have a
(36:19):
splinter very carefully pulledout, all I really have is a
rusty knife. Okay. And so wehave to be careful about
recognizing that our tools arefew, the crude, and that at the
end of the day, if we canempower the family. Now we've
really done great work.
Peter Roussos (36:42):
Can I ask Shawn and, Robert, you referenced the
case that you worked, where yousaid you won the battle but lost
the war. And I'm I'd like tohear more about how you're
thinking about that.
Shawn Weber (36:54):
It was one of those cases where you know, you feel
really good as an attorney, whenyou hear the judge quoting your
trial brief in their statementof decision, and we I literally,
with with Roberts help, frankly,we won every issue. We
overturned an evaluation thatdidn't go our clients way. And I
(37:18):
remember there was a moment,Robert, when you and I were
preparing for this and we'rereading the evaluators work, and
we're like, you know, I wonderif they were right about this.
They didn't have any therewasn't sound forensic ly what
they done. It was mostly hunchesand things like that, that we
got pretty good at attackingwhen they showed up at court
when you have a forensic show upat court with hunches, that's
(37:40):
pretty easy to skew Even abroken clock is right twice a
day. Right. Right. And so thiscase, they were right. You know,
and what happened was, I don'twant to say too much because I
might divulge the identity ofthe person but we won. But that
what ended up happening in thefamily dynamic was not good for
this child in the long run. Youknow,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (38:02):
I have? I have a case that is pretty well
known because it actually wentup on appeal and made public law
where the question was, shouldthe child relocate to Northern
California with one of herparents that rebated Southern
California with the otherparent. And I, without going
(38:26):
into a lot of the detail, Irecommend child stay in
California in SouthernCalifornia with one of her
parents because the other parentwas truly wholly unsupportive of
her relationship. The parentthat wanted to relocate was
completely unsupportive of thechild's relationship with a
parent that was staying here andhad a history of this kind of
(38:49):
what we call alienation witholder children in the same
family. So I made therecommendations I made. The kid
remained in Southern California,what I missed completely, was
the fact that so the war was thebattle was won. The dad in this
case won the battle. But the kidcould not adjust to life in
(39:14):
Southern California with herfather. Because, as I understand
it, mother kept tracking her upand agitating her and wouldn't
let her settle in. Okay, and shehad to Therefore go and live
with her mother, in order to beable to kind of settle in and
begin to live our life again,even though the way that the
(39:37):
mother had handled the child'srelationship with the father was
problematic in my view. Sothat's an example of it. Yeah.
The technical but technicallyright outcome, but the
holistically wrong outcome. Thisthis case, sometimes that I just
got a ruling on a case todaywhere I was an expert witness
(39:59):
were in Another state where thefather had perpetrated all kinds
of domestic violence andalienation against the mother
involving two teenage boys. Weproved all that up at trial of
the judge had absolutely rightbut leaving the kid with their
father, because they'll neversettle in with their mother.
(40:19):
Another example of winning thewinning the battle and losing
the war. Yeah. Sorry, good. Ice.
And by the way, these storiesare not unique to our four
practices, right? This,unfortunately, is an existential
reality of families and divorce.
(40:39):
And what I find is, a lot of usthat do this work, and we do it
with our hearts, have realtrouble getting our heads around
the fact that those outcomeshave to be left to be what they
are. We didn't break it. And wejust don't have the tools to fix
it. It's to come. We don't knowhow to fix we don't.
Mark Hill (41:00):
Years ago, I had an attorney back when I was
routinely doing thecollaborative divorce trainings,
I had an attorney say that shegot our invitation right after
Christmas, and it saved hercareer. She said just before
Christmas, she had a court, herclient one everything. She was
(41:22):
elated. This was my greatestvictory. She looked over at the
husband who was not her client,his hands are down in his face,
he is crying, she looks to herclient thinking she's gonna see
joy because they've won. Andshe's got the same result head
in hands crying, and she seesone of the adult children.
(41:46):
Obviously not involved in thecustody dispute, but she sees
one of them crying in theaudience, one of the adults, and
she's like, I have just heardthis fantasy winning my biggest
victory. And when she got theinvitation to the collaborative
training, she said that was alight and a way out.
Shawn Weber (42:03):
Yeah, that happens a lot. You know, there was that
marvelous film, marriage story.
Have you guys seen that withAdam Drescher? Yeah. And pattern
with a one of the attorneys ispatterned after one of our
friends in LA. But
Robert Simon, Ph.D (42:20):
to it was to
Shawn Weber (42:21):
La attorneys it was patterned after really was that
the other one was pattern two.
Okay, the male and the female.
Yeah, interesting. But there'sthis the courtroom scene I think
is so powerful. Where you seethese two parties sitting, you
know, it's Scarlett Johanssonand Adam, driver of the parents
and the, the attorneys are goingat it, and you don't even see
the judge? Hardly. You just hearthese attorneys kind of going at
(42:45):
it with each other. And you see,it's marvelously portrayed, how
the parents are just becomingpart of the furniture. They're
not really, they've lost alltheir power, they're totally
disempowered. And then there's alater scene where you see the
two of them after thepsychological evaluation has
happened. Where you see the thefather played by Adam Driver
(43:08):
just completely melt down. Andit's because these people
completely lost their controltheir power. I always tell
people stay in charge, you know,if you believe my office from
from a mediation, and you haveto go to a stranger in black
robes, you're now no longer incharge.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (43:25):
Well, you lose your sense of personhood.
Yes. Really? Do you feel like a?
And I've been through it. And Imean, I, as you all know, I've
been divorced and you know, thehappy ending my kids mother
night, our very close friends.
And, you know, it's, it's and mykids are in their 30s. And it's
(43:45):
good for them still. But, youknow, I look, I don't want to
say that. All court based ondivorce litigation, custody,
litigation is bad, that it'sthat it's a bad thing. Always,
always, always, it's not alwaysa bad thing. There are cases
(44:08):
where the parents simply can'tagree. And you've got to get
somebody to call the balls andstrikes. You've got to get to an
outcome. Also, particularly incases where there is a lot of
psychological violence,something that we call coercive
control, where a parent hasessentially lost their sense of
(44:31):
effect effectiveness in theworld and efficacy. Getting a
very strong advocate to presenttheir case in a court of law can
be very empowering and healingfor that parent. So as is the
case in almost everything onthis earth, there are no
absolutes.
Shawn Weber (44:49):
That's
Robert Simon, Ph.D (44:51):
for most parents, for most people,
divorcing It is harder in someways. Try to do it in a
businesslike way. Because itrequires you to quash and take
(45:11):
some of the hurt and the angerand that dynamic and process
that elsewhere. You know, Ithink about it this way,
sometimes, even when divorcefeels like what you need or
want, it's still a tearing and arefund. It's a terrible,
devastating loss. And often inorder to withstand the loss and
(45:34):
go through what it takes totrial, travel through that loss
and get to the other side, whatit what buoys you and keeps you
from feeling. completely crushedis your rage and your anger. It
can it can make you feel alittle bit more alive, a little
(45:55):
more powerful, a little moreanimated. And so that anger is
part and parcel of divorce.
Because anger is a part ofcoping with us. And our job is
family law professionals is tohelp people process that in a
healthier way. But alwaysremember, at the end of the day,
that the they are the clientsare more powerful than we are
(46:19):
and are bound and determined tomake a mess of it. They're going
to
Shawn Weber (46:26):
Okay, well, let's leave it there. That's That's
some good, good stuff. You know,I think the moral of story is
there's no absolutes absolutelyendorse that statement. You, you
lose control. If you go intocourt, sometimes you have to.
But if you can do it outside ofcourt, that sounds like a better
option. And it sounds like youknow, when you're going into a
(46:50):
situation where you're workingwith a forensic psychologist,
what would you what would yousay is the last word for that,
Robert?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (46:59):
Make sure that the forensic psychologist
that you choose to have involvedin your case, recognizes the
pluses and minuses of the legalsystem and their own limitations
and approaches it approaches it.
From my very human perspective.
(47:20):
First in a technicalperspective, second.
Shawn Weber (47:23):
Well said, Well, Robert, if somebody needed to
get a hold of you, what shouldthey do? If they wanted to hire
you?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (47:31):
They they can email me and they can call
me. And I don't know how youguys handle that information in
your podcast, but I'm certainlyglad to provide that
Shawn Weber (47:43):
we'll definitely put a link to your website on
our podcast description. Yourwebsite is Dr. Hyphen simon.com.
That's Dr. Dash simon.com.
Correct? That is correct. Okay,great. And then Mark, if
somebody needs to get a hold ofyou to work on a financial
issue, what should they do?
Mark Hill (48:02):
Go to my website, act divorce.com EAC, di V O RC
in.com.
Shawn Weber (48:09):
And Pete, if they were to want to work with you
licensed in marriage and familytherapist, as they're working
through their divorce, whatshould they do?
Peter Roussos (48:17):
And also through my website, which is Peter
Russo's dot com P e t e r o u ss o s.com.
Shawn Weber (48:26):
And if folks have a dispute that they need resolving
I'm the guy they should callit's Weber dispute
resolution.com Weber with one Bdispute like we had a fight
resolution like we solved it.comGood.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (48:41):
Gentlemen, thank you for including me in
the in the podcast and thediscussion today. I've really
enjoyed just kind of, you know,joining the three Wiseman
Shawn Weber (48:51):
today, we're glad to have you along as a fourth
way.
Peter Roussos (48:55):
Thank you guys.
Take care. Bye bye.
Shawn Weber (49:00):
Thanks for listening to another episode of
the three Wiseman of divorce,money, Psych, and law. If you
like what you heard, be sure tosubscribe. Leave us a review and
share with others who may be ina similar place. Until next
time, stay safe, healthy andfocused on a positive bright
future. This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(49:24):
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
Okay, so it's time to it's time to stop
(00:02):
cussing.
Shawn Weber (00:03):
No, it's okay because we've learned that
irreverence is good for ouraudience.
Although we are we don't aren'twe don't have an explicit rating
so I'd have to beep you.
But
Robert Simon, Ph.D (00:16):
on any given day that might actually be fun.
Shawn Weber (00:23):
Welcome to the three Wiseman of divorce, money,
Psych and law podcast, sit downwith the California divorce
experts, financial divorceconsultant, Mark Hill, marriage
and family therapist, PeteRousseau's and attorney Shawn
Weber, for a frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co parenting and thedifficult decisions, real people
(00:45):
like you face during these toughtimes. We know that if you are
looking at divorce orseparation, it can be scary and
overwhelming. With combinedexperience of over 60 years of
divorce and conflict management,we are here for you and look
forward to help by sharing ourunique ideas, thoughts and
perspectives on divorce,separation, and co parenting.
(01:11):
All right, gentlemen, it We'rehere again for another year. And
we have a guest with us today. Agood friend of mine, and I know
of yours as well, Mark and Pete.
Dr. Robert Simon. Robert, it'sgood to have you.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:29):
Thank you.
It's good to be here. And goodto be with three of you.
Shawn Weber (01:33):
So how long have we known each other? Robert? I
think it all the way back to2003. I want to say has it been
that long? Has it been 20 years?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:42):
I think probably close to
Shawn Weber (01:44):
Yeah,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (01:44):
you were newly out of newly out of law
school. And very fresh andquite, you know, enthusiastic
and getting ready to begin yourcareer and do good things. And
look what happened?
Shawn Weber (02:01):
And look what happened? Well, you know, but
you're you're you're a forensicpsychologist and a family law
consultant in complex family lawcases. And
Robert Simon, Ph.D (02:11):
right,
Shawn Weber (02:12):
you've become well known in this regard. With the
national internationalreputation, you've I've been
impressed just kind of watchingyour career as you've shared
your knowledge with others. And,and you and I worked closely
together when I used to back ina previous life when I used to
litigate you actually helped mewin cases. Yeah, we did. We did
(02:32):
some good and probablydestructive work together. Well,
you know, it's interesting, thatlast case that we were on, I
think you might remember it wasa move away, and you sat second
chair. That was one of the caseswe won. But then the outcome was
not good for the family. When itwas all said and done. What was
that winning the battle andlosing the war? Yeah, if the war
(02:55):
if the war was the well being ofthe family and the people in the
family? Yeah, it was one ofthose cases, it made me think,
you know, I don't want tolitigate anymore, because I
noticed the destruction that itcauses. Yeah.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (03:07):
Right.
Shawn Weber (03:09):
And, but But you have done a good job over the
years of I always think you do agood job of keeping forensic
psychologists honest. You hearthey follow the procedures and
follow the rules.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (03:24):
You know, Shawn, I think a lot of the work
I do and litigation, which I dowith some ambivalence, because I
think litigation can be so toxicto families think it will look
up the litigation. Yeah, I thinkwhen it's going to be done, it
needs to be done as cleanly. Andas, as civilized away as it can.
(03:52):
And I think that when expertscome in, people like me, come in
and advise the court about whatthey believe is in the best
interest of children, I thinkit's really important that the
court gets the kind of input.
That's high quality input. Andso a lot of what I do when I
consult on cases, and when I doget involved in litigation in
the here and now is to make sureor try to make sure that the
(04:15):
case plan is as Child and Familycentric as it can be that it
does no unnecessary damage. Andthat if the court has say
appointed a child custodyevaluator or an expert to advise
the court, that the work of thatperson is presented to the court
in a fashion that makes it clearwhat's good about the work and
(04:40):
what's unique about the work.
Shawn Weber (04:45):
So what should people expect? I mean, we've got
a lot of people in our audiencethat are that might be facing a
forensic psychological custodyevaluation or something to that
effect. What should they expect?
What should they be preparedfor?
Peter Roussos (05:00):
Can I can I tweak the question a little bit?
Please? Maybe even more Ellamentally? What is a custody
evaluation? Why do they happen?
Why are they
Robert Simon, Ph.D (05:13):
necessary?
Excellent, excellent question.
Sometimes the simple basicquestions really need to be
asked and they need to be askeda lot. So accustomed it's a
custody evaluation is apsychological assessment process
of a whole family. It's a, whatwe call it forensically informed
(05:34):
process. The evaluator is notdoing clinical work. They're not
a therapist, they're not thereto actively help the family
solve problems. They're actuallyto gather information about the
family about the children aboutthe parents formulate a sense of
(05:55):
a parenting plan, a childsharing plan, and any and
ciliary auxiliary services thatthe family may need that support
the best interest of thechildren and present that to the
court. That's what a custodyevaluation essentially is. And
it is used in cases where thecourt needs more information,
(06:21):
more complex information, moredetailed information, more
nuanced information, than it canreadily get through testimony,
and things like that. The courtshave limited time, judges are
not mental health experts, theyoften feel they sometimes feel
that they need the input of acompetent, specifically
(06:44):
specially trained type of mentalhealth professional. And so we
do these evaluations inCalifornia. The rules for these
evaluations are are spelled outin our rules of court and our
family code. There are variousguidelines promulgated by
professional organizations thatadvise how these should be done,
(07:05):
and things like that. Now,they're a custody evaluation.
Thankfully, it's not needed inevery child custody case, where
they're needed is in cases wherethe nature of the conflict
between the parents is such thatthe court feels it needs more
complex information, often ofits psychological nature,
(07:30):
psychological functioning of theparty's parents understanding of
children's needs of theirability to meet those needs.
Sometimes there are concernsabout mental health issues and
parents or drug and alcoholabuse and parents or abusive,
neglectful kinds of parentingpractices, or what I see a lot
(07:54):
of is where the real problem maynot necessarily be with mom or
dad and our dad, but with therelationship between them. Where
the parents are involved in sucha toxic dynamic with one
another, that they wouldn't beable to agree with each other,
(08:15):
for example, that today isTuesday. And by the way, we're
recording this on a Tuesday. Soand it's situations like that
the courts will sometimes use anevaluation now, in my
experience, it can happen fairlyoften that the courts will
(08:37):
decide to use a custodyevaluation when they've
exhausted other methods, or whenthe judge just feels frustrated,
and be wrapped and doesn't quiteknow what the heck else to do.
And so they kick it over tosomeone like me, and they say,
you advise me about what Ishould do. Now, what the
evaluator does is to makerecommendations. We don't make
(08:59):
the judge still does that.
answer your question?
Peter Roussos (09:04):
It does. Robert, as you were talking, I found
myself I had this thought thathe that most people I think
think of a child custodyevaluation is being an
adversarial process. Do you seeit that way?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (09:27):
Yes, yes, it is. It's very much an
adversarial process in that momtries to tell us all the things
about dad that's not good. Dadtries to tell us all the things
about mom. That's not good. Theways in which their CO parent is
being hard to get along with ismaking mistakes with the
(09:50):
children is using court judgmentin their own lives is drinking
too much. Smoking too much weedwhatever it happens to be So it
becomes very adversarial. Andlet's remember that a custody
evaluation this ordered in thecontext of usually a hotly
litigated child custody case,which is, by definition, highly
(10:15):
adversarial. Because I've hadthe opportunity to be involved
in divorces on a wider basis, inother words, be a part of
helping the parties negotiate,for example, the property, which
was I will tell you that there'snothing as divisive as
litigating about children,literally about money or
(10:37):
property or things can be can'tsay and difficult. But it is
child's blessing. And forgivethe metaphor compared to the
details about custody, that it'sa Bloodsport for the plan become
a blood sport for parents. And Iwant to say something that might
(10:58):
be controversial. But I believeit's true. And that is that
often the level of conflictbetween the parents is checked
up by the people advising them,who are those people, their
friends, their family, and theirattorneys. That is
Shawn Weber (11:19):
so true. I've seen a lot of folks, you know, I used
to litigate, people would say,oh, I want to get a
psychological evaluation,because it's going to show that
my ex spouse, these got thiswrong with him, or she's got
that run with her. And I used totell people, you know, you got
to be careful about that.
Because you know, you might getwhat you want, you might get a
forensic evaluation, and thenthat's a double edged sword. And
sometimes,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (11:42):
well, you think about it this way, you
know, I mean, Mother Teresa,doesn't usually marry it till
the hunt that we've all order.
One of my friends says onesdon't marry 10s and 10s. Don't
marry ones. So if if mom thinksthat dad is all of this? Oh, I
mean, the chances are that mom'sgot a little about two. Here's
the deal. You, in general, Iwill tell you after doing this
(12:09):
work for nearly 40 years, andhaving been involved in
literally 1000s of cases, eitheras a consultant or as an
evaluator, the really thegreatest risk to children, when
their parents split up is theconflict between the parents,
aside from abuse, neglect, andreally, really bad parenting,
(12:35):
right? The greatest risk tochildren is conflict between the
parents about children and towhich they're drawn. That's the
bullseye. And in a child custodycase that gets a an evaluation,
it's more likely than not thatthey're at the bullseye. So the
issue is not the issue as ourfriend Bill, it says, there
(12:56):
really is no women. Because whathappens is, it's a dad win. So
that is to say, the evaluatorsees things more through dad's
lens and mom's lens or believesthe dad should have the majority
of custody time or whatever dadshould be able to move with the
(13:17):
kids, whatever it happens to be,in these high conflict
relationships with the moms anddads, now that mom's been
beaten, it's time to even thescore. So round one almost
always gives way to round two,which gives way to round three
until the kids age out or tellboth their parents to pound
sand. So I'm not telling youthat there's no place for child
(13:41):
custody evaluations there. I'vebeen lucky enough to do cases
over the years, where there arecertain non negotiable issues
like for example, a coupledivorces, let's say dad is in
the military. And they've beenliving in our hometown of San
Diego, but dad now as a Marine,or a navy person, because that's
(14:04):
what we have in San Diego, getsa billet and has to move to
another location. You know, thatcan be an unresolvable dilemma,
that doesn't necessarily onlytake place in the context of a
couple that's at high conflict.
(14:24):
It's a circumstance that comesabout and has to be resolved,
and they may not be able toresolve it and an evaluation can
be in that sense, helpful. Andnot highly, highly divisive. If
in the run up to the evaluation,the peanut gallery, friends,
family attorneys, keep itcivilized. But for the most part
(14:46):
custody evaluations aren't thatway. They are evaluations done
on the minority of families thatagain, as I said before, we're
the parents won't agree thattoday's Tuesday
Mark Hill (15:00):
Wondering occurred to me, as I've been listening to
Robert, is that, you know, I'mthe financial guy. So I'm trying
to put a financial slant on thisas we go through it. And the one
thing that occurs to me is thatthe issue sometimes comes down
because the amount of time witha parent has an impact on child
(15:23):
support, you can. And we'vetalked many times when we've
tried to go to alternativedispute resolution about the
problems with buying and sellingchildren in negotiations in
divorce. How often is it afinancial motivation that you've
seen driving this because Idon't, I remember a case I did
(15:45):
two years ago, where the dadwanted 5050. But the minute he
got the kids, he would hire ababysitter and go out with his
girlfriend. So again, that was afinancial motivation.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (15:57):
From my perspective, from my vantage
point, let me say, I rarely knowwhether there's a financial
motive, because let me put youthis way, Mark. It, if, if mom
says to me, I want to go from6040 to 7030, because I need a
couple extra 1000 bucks a month.
She's just on herself. Andright. Now, I know that her
(16:20):
motive is not exactly what youmight want to call child
centered. And it's unlikelythings go well for her. And most
people have the common sense notto tell us that and their
attorneys to tell them that. Andwe as about valuators, don't
deal with the money. So I don'toften know that for certain. I
can smell it sometimes. Right? Ican sniff it. But I in advising
(16:46):
the court, if it gets there, Ican't tell them that I think
that's what's going on. BecauseI am not going to be collecting
data about that. If somebodytells me that, and it comes to
me, I can use it. But I'm notgoing to say to a parent, how
much of your motivation isfinancial. Understood. But I
(17:09):
think I think the financialmotivation is in the background.
For me in my in my experience isin the background in a minority
of cases, but a substantialminority. What's more in the
foreground, our desires tovanquish the other parent. I'm
(17:34):
right, you're wrong. And here'swhat happens. So you know what I
mean, even when when parents aremarried, even when parents are
successfully married, they willdisagree about parenting when
somebody says it's okay for thekids to see this kind of a
movie, the other parent says I'mnot comfortable with it. Or
(17:54):
these are friends I'm not okaywith the I'm okay with those
friends are a few of thesethings like that. So parents,
because they're successfullymarried don't necessarily agree
about therapy. Anyway, when theyseparate, those differences
become exaggerated. And whatbegins to happen as the
adversarial mindset between theparents develops is that they
(18:17):
will view the differencesbetween them through a negative
lens, versus we're justdifferent. Okay, I like to tell
the parents, if you look at anormal bell shaped curve, that
plus or minus two standarddeviations from the mean isn't
normal parenting, okay. And ifyou know the bell shaped curve,
(18:41):
the plus or minus that thirdstandard deviation is a very
small percentage. So if I've gota parent at plus two standard
deviations, and I've got oneminus two standard deviations,
they are both still in thenormal range, but they're,
they're separate. Subjectively,they're very, very far apart.
And what they tend to do themthis is take a very negative
(19:04):
view of what the other person'sdoing, or what we see a lot. And
I know all of you do, too. If anevent happens, say in the home
of a parent, and the otherparent doesn't have complete
information about it, they willassume the worse. And the
assumption morphs into a fact.
(19:27):
And then the level of conflict,the nature of weapons that are
used in this war escalates. Sothis is part of what I've
learned over my many years ofdoing this work. And more
recently in my career as I'vegotten older and perhaps
(19:47):
certainly don't have the tastefor the battle, but also have
become much more alert to thenegative consequences of the
family. I tried to Instead ofusing my skills in a manner that
divides a family, I try to usemy skills in a manner that it
(20:09):
least tries to establish evensmall areas of common ground
where we can we can grow that.
Mark Hill (20:17):
So Robert, I've heard so many clients say to me, I'd
be better off in front of thejudge as soon as they hear the
terrible things he slashed, see,did I know I'm gonna get
everything I want? Well, howwould you respond to a client
that speaks in those terms?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (20:34):
Well, puking. And, by the way, if we
weren't being recorded, I wouldput it more more, we can BLEEP
you. And let me tell you why Isay that. It's not because I
don't think judges are earnest,sincere, compassionate men and
women, I believe that a vastmajority of our judicial
(20:57):
officers deeply care. Butthere's a number of things going
on here, let me start with thebiggest one. The judge doesn't
know these children, the judgedoesn't love the children. Okay.
But Judge cares about thechildren in an abstract way, the
same way that any of us do. Butif the train comes, and we're
(21:22):
all on the railroad track, I'llpush my kid out of the way, but
I ain't pushing your kid out ofthe line, I'm running to save my
own backside right. So thejudges a stranger in a black
robe, doing the best he or shecan with very limited
information to make the kinds ofdecisions that parents with lot
(21:44):
more information struggle with.
Also, let's remember, our courtsystem is underfunded,
desperately underfunded, andunder resource. They do not have
the time, the knowledge, thepersonnel, the bandwidth, to
deeply consider the nature ofwhat's going on, that is
(22:06):
involved in these decisions. Andthen finally, is this one, this
is really what tipped me over,in terms of my becoming much
more committed to that thispeacemaking model that I'm using
now is that when we give toothers, we have the ability to
(22:27):
make the decisions that areproperly ours to make. When we
ask a judge to essentially makeparenting decisions. We give up
our efficacy. We give up ourpower, we give up our sense of
can do. And to a system, asystem, which is a an important,
(22:50):
you know, is a thing. It's not ait's not even an organism that's
alive, it's a thing. It's agovernmental entity, we give up
our sense of efficacy, we giveup our sense of personal power,
we give up our sense of beingable to make the kinds of
choices that parents want to beable to make about their kids,
(23:10):
to assist them. And the more wedo that the more we believe in
our powerlessness, the morefrustrated we become more likely
that frustration spills overinto conflict. It's a self
perpetuating cycle.
Shawn Weber (23:25):
It's so true, what you're saying, you know, I've
served as a privatelycompensated temporary judge
before on a few custody cases.
And I found that what happens isI I get if it's not clear what
the facts are, you getfrustrated, and then you get
angry with the parties. Yeah,it's just a normal human
reaction. And I found myselfbeing very angry at people. You
(23:46):
know, which, which I think iswhat happens to these judges
when they get these cases. Andthe facts aren't clear. It's a
He Said, She Said kind of athing and the initial reaction
is pox on both of your houses.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (24:02):
Or, or let me just split the difference.
Sure. A little over here, alittle over there. Yeah, the
four of us. I know that the fourof us are all fathers, we're all
parents. Some of us are activelyraising children. Now some of us
are retired from activelyraising children. Me being
(24:23):
actively raising children mark.
Yes. The way I like to say it isthe kids are on their own and
the Bank of dad is closed, atleast mostly closed
Mark Hill (24:32):
by Father said children grow up but they don't
always grow away.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (24:36):
They're young. And, you know, if you
think about when when you'reraising your own children, how
certain decisions that need tobe made decisions have to have
some gravity to that are reallyhard to make. And you have a lot
more information and a lot moreknowledge about who your child
(24:57):
is and what's going on in theirlives. Do you hope the judge has
a, a grain of sand on the beachamount of knowledge compared to
what you have in his having tomake these decisions about
somebody else's child. Okay, andlet's remember this too, about
the judge, the judge is human.
So the judge is not perfect.
(25:20):
Yep. And the judge may not feelwell, that day, that judge may
have had an argument with his orher spouse that morning, or may
be having some other personalissues that week that are
affecting their presence there,their attention, their their
(25:40):
mindset, their even their, theirsense of how happy they are to
be doing their job. Right. Andso, when you when somebody says,
I'm just gonna go take a chancewith the judge, I remember
growing up and thinking thatjudges somehow were these
omniscient, more perfect peoplethan we are. I've gotten to know
(26:01):
as we all have many, many judgesover the year. They are every
bit as flawed as everybody else.
They just happened to be given atitle called judge. But
omniscience is not a part oftheir job description, any more
than it is for any of us as acustody evaluator, in some ways
people see me as the quasijudge, I'm going to be advising
(26:21):
the judge. Right? And what Itell them is you're going to
have an imperfect person, do animperfect evaluation and present
it to an imperfect judge. Okay,that's 123 strikes, how many
does it take to be out? So whenpeople want to do when families
want to do a custody evaluation,I'm always careful to try to
(26:45):
educate them about the realitiesof it, so that their
expectations are realistic. It'sanother method to getting to an
outcome, but it is by no meansmagical, perfect. And we
psychologists that do them areonly human beings. And none of
us have absolutely flawlessskill sets. We all make mistakes
every time. Every case.
Peter Roussos (27:08):
Robert, it sounds like the the model that you've
developed. One of your goals isto create a more collaborative
child custody process is what itsounds like. So I wondered if
you could speak to what does ittake for a child evaluation,
(27:29):
custody evaluation process to bemore collaborative, and I'm
thinking about how that getsincorporated into the work that,
that Shawn and Mark and I aredoing visa vie, non adversarial
family law? Settlement, youknow, disputes.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (27:44):
Yeah, yeah.
And so the way that the modelthat I've, I want to say I've
developed but I am developing,and I say I am developing,
because it's a work in processI'm learning. And other folks
who are using this model arelearning with each new case. And
we're sharing what we learnedand the mistakes that we're
(28:05):
making, right and the successeswe're having, but mostly we
learn from our mistakes. And itincorporates a consensual
dispute resolution process intothe evaluation. So the parties
stipulate, agreed going in, thatafter the evaluator has
collected the data, andformulated that analysis of what
(28:30):
they think is likely a bestinterest set of recommendations
that the evaluator will sit downwith parents and their lawyers
share that and assist them innegotiating an outcome to the
best of their ability. I callthe consensual dispute
(28:51):
resolution rather thanmediation. And I'm a big I'm a
big believer in mediation.
Because in the law, mediationhas a very specific meaning. And
it includes that nothing thattakes place in mediation is
everything's confidential.
Whereas during the consensualdispute resolution process, if
(29:12):
I'm seeing a particular parentbehave in a certain way towards
their CO parent, or, or certainkinds of information come to
light in that process, and Ithink, maybe important to
include in my database, should Ihave to make recommendations
that I use that information, soit also keeps the party
(29:34):
smartest, they know that theycan't go in there and behave
poorly, and not have thatreflect on them potentially down
the line. It also means thatfrom the very beginning, the
kinds of things I'm trying tolearn about include not only
(29:54):
this the standard typical stuffthat we Learn in custody
evaluation. But I'm trying tolearn about how the parents see
each other much more carefullyhow they make decisions or don't
make decisions together. Andwhere there is common interest
(30:15):
common ground and some overlap,albeit, maybe, maybe there's
overlap that they don't see thatthey have, because they have got
a different spin or color on it.
And my job is to make it moremutual. So but you have to pick
your your cases very carefully.
There are certain issues thatthis kind of process is not
(30:38):
suitable for. And there arecertain lawyers who are not
going to buy in, because theywant to go to court and
litigate. That's what they'retrained to do. That's what they
believe is the path. And in somecases, that the relationship
between the two attorneys is sopoor, that part of what goes on.
(31:01):
And folks, I want you to knowthat this does happen, that
sometimes the conflict betweenthe parents gets jacked up,
because the attorneys are tryingto beat each other, as opposed
to really, truly represent theirclient.
Peter Roussos (31:20):
And the story that comes to mind for me is I
had a case this is years ago,when I was still taking court
ordered therapy cases was I hada, I was seeing a mother, the
mother in a case. And at whatpoint I asked her, you know, how
long had there been process beengoing and what did it cost them?
(31:43):
Her legal bills at that point intime, were half a million
dollars. They didn't have alight at the end of the tunnel.
And it was a situation where thethe parties hated each other,
and the attorneys hated eachother. That's right. And it was
this perfect storm?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (32:03):
Well, Peter, you know, when I hear you
describe that kind of asituation, I just feel a
combination of deep, deepsadness and rage, and rage.
Because we the professionalsshouldn't be a part of the
problem, we should always try tobe a part of the solution. And
(32:26):
if look, I've been involved incases as immediate, where it's
really clear that the mix isn'tgood. I'm not the right person
for the job, I gotta get out,because my presence is likely to
make things worse, not better.
Right. So I'm not either I'm notgetting along with one of the
attorneys or I don't like one ofthe attorneys or one of the
(32:48):
parents is rubbing, neither youkind of get out. Because it's
not our job to make thingsworse. What we want to do is be
the kind of people when we gocamping that always leave the
campground cleaner than when wefound it. I talked about it as
being very, very aware of afootprint relieve on the family,
the image I like to give peopleis the family is protonated on
(33:11):
the ground on their stomachs.
And we're just walking on theirbacks, you know, and, you know,
maybe even wearing boots, youknow, and leaving these and if
and if it's if you weren'tstiletto heels, you might be
leaving that real impression.
And we're walking on the backsof the family leaving footprints
all over them. We don't oftensee ourselves as a part of the
(33:34):
system, but we are when we acton a family, we change the
family and we own a part of thechange. I think that's such
Shawn Weber (33:44):
a key point, Robert, because, you know,
there's a certain level ofemotional intelligence that you
have to have when you're doingthis work, to be able to not
become part of the problem, havethat self awareness to be able
to see, okay, I'm beingtriggered personally, I am
becoming part of the problem, Iam too enmeshed. And there's
(34:04):
some attorneys out there andsome psychologists frankly, and
some financial people that don'thave that gene, if you will, to
be able to be self aware.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (34:18):
We're all people, right? We have egos.
Some of us operate more from egothan others. And we, we we like
to see ourselves as trying tobenefit people. So it's hard for
us to wrestle with the fact thatsometimes what we're doing is
actually harming right. But theother thing is to recognize that
(34:44):
no matter how skilled we are,we're never more powerful than
the family ever, ever, ever,ever. And so it's our job to
always remind the family thatwe're here to facilitate In the
process, assist them in reachingtheir goals, but not take
(35:06):
ownership of the outcome, andnot insist that it look a
certain way. It's theirdecision. And at the end of the
day, we can't make it for them,we have to bail, they'll ask us
to what should I do? What shouldI do? Tell me what to do. And
I'll do it, then it's mydecision. And these are your
kids. No, thank you. So, so, youknow, having done this work now
(35:31):
for nearly 40 years, and reallyfeeling free, very grateful,
deeply, deeply grateful for thecareer that I've had, and the
work that I've been blessed withby this universe to do because I
think that working with familiesand trying to impact the lives
of children is calling. And it'sa privilege, it's a privilege,
(35:57):
we have to be mindful of ourfootprint on the family. And we
have to be mindful that thetools we have are very few. And
they're blunt tools. They'reblunt tools. I mean, if somebody
needs it, if I'm a forensicpsychologist, and I'm writing a
parenting plan, and what thefamily needs is to have a
(36:19):
splinter very carefully pulledout, all I really have is a
rusty knife. Okay. And so wehave to be careful about
recognizing that our tools arefew, the crude, and that at the
end of the day, if we canempower the family. Now we've
really done great work.
Peter Roussos (36:42):
Can I ask Shawn and, Robert, you referenced the
case that you worked, where yousaid you won the battle but lost
the war. And I'm I'd like tohear more about how you're
thinking about that.
Shawn Weber (36:54):
It was one of those cases where you know, you feel
really good as an attorney, whenyou hear the judge quoting your
trial brief in their statementof decision, and we I literally,
with with Roberts help, frankly,we won every issue. We
overturned an evaluation thatdidn't go our clients way. And I
(37:18):
remember there was a moment,Robert, when you and I were
preparing for this and we'rereading the evaluators work, and
we're like, you know, I wonderif they were right about this.
They didn't have any therewasn't sound forensic ly what
they done. It was mostly hunchesand things like that, that we
got pretty good at attackingwhen they showed up at court
when you have a forensic show upat court with hunches, that's
(37:40):
pretty easy to skew Even abroken clock is right twice a
day. Right. Right. And so thiscase, they were right. You know,
and what happened was, I don'twant to say too much because I
might divulge the identity ofthe person but we won. But that
what ended up happening in thefamily dynamic was not good for
this child in the long run. Youknow,
Robert Simon, Ph.D (38:02):
I have? I have a case that is pretty well
known because it actually wentup on appeal and made public law
where the question was, shouldthe child relocate to Northern
California with one of herparents that rebated Southern
California with the otherparent. And I, without going
(38:26):
into a lot of the detail, Irecommend child stay in
California in SouthernCalifornia with one of her
parents because the other parentwas truly wholly unsupportive of
her relationship. The parentthat wanted to relocate was
completely unsupportive of thechild's relationship with a
parent that was staying here andhad a history of this kind of
(38:49):
what we call alienation witholder children in the same
family. So I made therecommendations I made. The kid
remained in Southern California,what I missed completely, was
the fact that so the war was thebattle was won. The dad in this
case won the battle. But the kidcould not adjust to life in
(39:14):
Southern California with herfather. Because, as I understand
it, mother kept tracking her upand agitating her and wouldn't
let her settle in. Okay, and shehad to Therefore go and live
with her mother, in order to beable to kind of settle in and
begin to live our life again,even though the way that the
(39:37):
mother had handled the child'srelationship with the father was
problematic in my view. Sothat's an example of it. Yeah.
The technical but technicallyright outcome, but the
holistically wrong outcome. Thisthis case, sometimes that I just
got a ruling on a case todaywhere I was an expert witness
(39:59):
were in Another state where thefather had perpetrated all kinds
of domestic violence andalienation against the mother
involving two teenage boys. Weproved all that up at trial of
the judge had absolutely rightbut leaving the kid with their
father, because they'll neversettle in with their mother.
(40:19):
Another example of winning thewinning the battle and losing
the war. Yeah. Sorry, good. Ice.
And by the way, these storiesare not unique to our four
practices, right? This,unfortunately, is an existential
reality of families and divorce.
(40:39):
And what I find is, a lot of usthat do this work, and we do it
with our hearts, have realtrouble getting our heads around
the fact that those outcomeshave to be left to be what they
are. We didn't break it. And wejust don't have the tools to fix
it. It's to come. We don't knowhow to fix we don't.
Mark Hill (41:00):
Years ago, I had an attorney back when I was
routinely doing thecollaborative divorce trainings,
I had an attorney say that shegot our invitation right after
Christmas, and it saved hercareer. She said just before
Christmas, she had a court, herclient one everything. She was
(41:22):
elated. This was my greatestvictory. She looked over at the
husband who was not her client,his hands are down in his face,
he is crying, she looks to herclient thinking she's gonna see
joy because they've won. Andshe's got the same result head
in hands crying, and she seesone of the adult children.
(41:46):
Obviously not involved in thecustody dispute, but she sees
one of them crying in theaudience, one of the adults, and
she's like, I have just heardthis fantasy winning my biggest
victory. And when she got theinvitation to the collaborative
training, she said that was alight and a way out.
Shawn Weber (42:03):
Yeah, that happens a lot. You know, there was that
marvelous film, marriage story.
Have you guys seen that withAdam Drescher? Yeah. And pattern
with a one of the attorneys ispatterned after one of our
friends in LA. But
Robert Simon, Ph.D (42:20):
to it was to
Shawn Weber (42:21):
La attorneys it was patterned after really was that
the other one was pattern two.
Okay, the male and the female.
Yeah, interesting. But there'sthis the courtroom scene I think
is so powerful. Where you seethese two parties sitting, you
know, it's Scarlett Johanssonand Adam, driver of the parents
and the, the attorneys are goingat it, and you don't even see
the judge? Hardly. You just hearthese attorneys kind of going at
(42:45):
it with each other. And you see,it's marvelously portrayed, how
the parents are just becomingpart of the furniture. They're
not really, they've lost alltheir power, they're totally
disempowered. And then there's alater scene where you see the
two of them after thepsychological evaluation has
happened. Where you see the thefather played by Adam Driver
(43:08):
just completely melt down. Andit's because these people
completely lost their controltheir power. I always tell
people stay in charge, you know,if you believe my office from
from a mediation, and you haveto go to a stranger in black
robes, you're now no longer incharge.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (43:25):
Well, you lose your sense of personhood.
Yes. Really? Do you feel like a?
And I've been through it. And Imean, I, as you all know, I've
been divorced and you know, thehappy ending my kids mother
night, our very close friends.
And, you know, it's, it's and mykids are in their 30s. And it's
(43:45):
good for them still. But, youknow, I look, I don't want to
say that. All court based ondivorce litigation, custody,
litigation is bad, that it'sthat it's a bad thing. Always,
always, always, it's not alwaysa bad thing. There are cases
(44:08):
where the parents simply can'tagree. And you've got to get
somebody to call the balls andstrikes. You've got to get to an
outcome. Also, particularly incases where there is a lot of
psychological violence,something that we call coercive
control, where a parent hasessentially lost their sense of
(44:31):
effect effectiveness in theworld and efficacy. Getting a
very strong advocate to presenttheir case in a court of law can
be very empowering and healingfor that parent. So as is the
case in almost everything onthis earth, there are no
absolutes.
Shawn Weber (44:49):
That's
Robert Simon, Ph.D (44:51):
for most parents, for most people,
divorcing It is harder in someways. Try to do it in a
businesslike way. Because itrequires you to quash and take
(45:11):
some of the hurt and the angerand that dynamic and process
that elsewhere. You know, Ithink about it this way,
sometimes, even when divorcefeels like what you need or
want, it's still a tearing and arefund. It's a terrible,
devastating loss. And often inorder to withstand the loss and
(45:34):
go through what it takes totrial, travel through that loss
and get to the other side, whatit what buoys you and keeps you
from feeling. completely crushedis your rage and your anger. It
can it can make you feel alittle bit more alive, a little
(45:55):
more powerful, a little moreanimated. And so that anger is
part and parcel of divorce.
Because anger is a part ofcoping with us. And our job is
family law professionals is tohelp people process that in a
healthier way. But alwaysremember, at the end of the day,
that the they are the clientsare more powerful than we are
(46:19):
and are bound and determined tomake a mess of it. They're going
to
Shawn Weber (46:26):
Okay, well, let's leave it there. That's That's
some good, good stuff. You know,I think the moral of story is
there's no absolutes absolutelyendorse that statement. You, you
lose control. If you go intocourt, sometimes you have to.
But if you can do it outside ofcourt, that sounds like a better
option. And it sounds like youknow, when you're going into a
(46:50):
situation where you're workingwith a forensic psychologist,
what would you what would yousay is the last word for that,
Robert?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (46:59):
Make sure that the forensic psychologist
that you choose to have involvedin your case, recognizes the
pluses and minuses of the legalsystem and their own limitations
and approaches it approaches it.
From my very human perspective.
(47:20):
First in a technicalperspective, second.
Shawn Weber (47:23):
Well said, Well, Robert, if somebody needed to
get a hold of you, what shouldthey do? If they wanted to hire
you?
Robert Simon, Ph.D (47:31):
They they can email me and they can call
me. And I don't know how youguys handle that information in
your podcast, but I'm certainlyglad to provide that
Shawn Weber (47:43):
we'll definitely put a link to your website on
our podcast description. Yourwebsite is Dr. Hyphen simon.com.
That's Dr. Dash simon.com.
Correct? That is correct. Okay,great. And then Mark, if
somebody needs to get a hold ofyou to work on a financial
issue, what should they do?
Mark Hill (48:02):
Go to my website, act divorce.com EAC, di V O RC
in.com.
Shawn Weber (48:09):
And Pete, if they were to want to work with you
licensed in marriage and familytherapist, as they're working
through their divorce, whatshould they do?
Peter Roussos (48:17):
And also through my website, which is Peter
Russo's dot com P e t e r o u ss o s.com.
Shawn Weber (48:26):
And if folks have a dispute that they need resolving
I'm the guy they should callit's Weber dispute
resolution.com Weber with one Bdispute like we had a fight
resolution like we solved it.comGood.
Robert Simon, Ph.D (48:41):
Gentlemen, thank you for including me in
the in the podcast and thediscussion today. I've really
enjoyed just kind of, you know,joining the three Wiseman
Shawn Weber (48:51):
today, we're glad to have you along as a fourth
way.
Peter Roussos (48:55):
Thank you guys.
Take care. Bye bye.
Shawn Weber (49:00):
Thanks for listening to another episode of
the three Wiseman of divorce,money, Psych, and law. If you
like what you heard, be sure tosubscribe. Leave us a review and
share with others who may be ina similar place. Until next
time, stay safe, healthy andfocused on a positive bright
future. This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(49:24):
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.