3 ms·
Man, did I see that in action. In a California divorce my ex's statements about "emotional labor" were admitted at face value, I had to spend over $400k demonst
by jeffbee 3y ago
Man, did I see that in action. In a California divorce my ex's statements about "emotional labor" were admitted at face value, I had to spend over $400k demonstrating that she was actually just a layabout who physically abused the children. I initially had a rookie female judge who was openly hostile to men in court, who was later reassigned out of family court, but not before she had cost me an insane amount of money. Also I had to pay both sides' attorneys even though my spouse was in control of half the assets. Insanely bad system and I've been told that California's is one of the more neutral.
- kmeisthax 3y agoThe flipside of this is that most judges and lawyers do not want to work family court, for various understandable reasons. My guess is that, much like Reddit mods, there's a subset of judges who are willing to tolerate family court bullshit in order to push their agenda, and they're the ones who wind up staying. This is on top of the more general issues caused by gating access to justice behind a bunch of really expensive professionals with student loans to pay off, of course.
- yieldcrv 3y agowhen they say California is more neutral, that just means the wife can be a sex worker who smokes weed and that won't automatically invalidate her character, claims, or cause child protective services to descend upon your lives. and its bad that other states would without more information, I just wouldn't take that to mean California is anything progressive with regards to men, which maybe makes your experience make more sense.