I’m a father who just got a favorable judgment from GAL for 50/50, opposing council not accepting it

Family Law Forum Child Custody
1

After months of GAL process with myself, my family, and children, I have been vindicated from untruths, and the GAL recommended 50/50 custody (2,2,3). Opposing counsel is not accepting it, and I’m being asked to seek conciliation or go to trial. For some context, I asked for 50/50 and was met with great resistance and salacious memorandums and affidavits. This was 18 months ago. My children (15,13,11) have been very vocal in wanting shared parenting time. I was never asked to conciliate then. I asked for ARC counsel for my children to get representation, but it was determined a GAL would be a better choice. I’ll leave out my thoughts on that. Nonetheless, the GAL came back and recommended 50/50, and now I’m told conciliation or trial, or, 5k or 70k. My problem is that I was forced to use the well-respected, court-appointed process in the GAL. I don’t understand why the judge can’t just make an order based on the recommendation of the GAL. The retaliation from this is insane. The stipulations range from ‘if I do get any more parenting time and write even one mean email to the mother, my time gets revoked’ to ‘the kids don’t really mean what they say because I have such a strong hold on their choices.’ Mind you, I see them for 4 hours during the week and every other weekend.

My initial thought is, Fuck You. I want to go to trial and have opposing counsel tell the GAL to her face (the report was 75 pages and took 40 hours) that her work just wasn’t good enough to stand on its own.

My attorney wants me to do conciliation for two reasons: 1. she doesn’t know I have fuck you money to throw at this, and 2. she is a company attorney, wants to play nice, and uphold her father’s legacy in the family court system. Why she isn’t telling me she’ll push for the GAL recommendation is beyond me.

Any advice for me out here?
I won the GAL.

What would you bet would happen if I went to trial?

Also, my current wife (of 7 years) and I decided that if the GAL went south, we were done fighting for this and would not put the kids through any more stress.

But since it went in my favor, I’m hoping it would account for something. They are saying I’m a horrible mean person and I shouldn’t have access to my kids. The GAL thought otherwise.

What would you suggest?
I appreciate the time to read this over and offer your thoughts, hopefully based on experience.

Thank you.

2

You seem to be a bit confused about this process. The GAL is just someone who represents your kids’ interests and reports their opinion and findings. There is no ‘judgment’ in this context, nor is this a thing you win or lose.

Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is more informal than court, but results in a neutral third party presenting a non-binding settlement proposal. Even if you go through that process, the opposing party can refuse to accept those terms and still force you to go to court.

3

If you don’t like the advice you’re getting from your lawyer, talk to a different lawyer. But it very well could be that your lawyer is recommending conciliation to show the judge that you’ve jumped through all the hoops the judge wants you to jump through before they make a final decision. This is your lawyer’s area of expertise, not just regarding this area of the law but the courts and judges in your area. Don’t be so quick to dismiss their legal advice.

But the GAL recommendation is merely that—a recommendation. It’s not the end of the process.

4

Family law attorney, not your attorney, consult an attorney.

Your lawyer is very unlikely playing nice for some personal motivation. My reputation with a court matters, but in the sense that I care about making sure people know I’m honest and professional. Under-the-bussing my own clients would get me a bad reputation. If other attorneys think I can be coerced or pressured into shitty settlements, I will lose the professional respect I need to represent my clients, not maintain it.

Much more likely is that your attorney is trying to do what almost all attorneys are trying to do: help you understand that trials are enormously costly, rarely turn out how either party wants, traumatizing, and stressful. It may also be the case that you are required to do alternative dispute resolution before you will be even allowed to have a trial. In my state, the courts sign mediation orders that REQUIRE parties in domestic relations cases involving children to participate in mediation or ADR prior to trial. Failure to do so can result in set-overs of the trial date and even sanctions.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, settlement is a better outcome for both sides and significantly cheaper. Disassociate your ego from this process. Look at what mediation/ADR really means and is likely to actually get you. What are your goals for parenting time, custody, and child support? What is your attorney advising you is a possible or likely outcome at trial? Are those results within reach at an ADR? If so, then there’s no reason besides pride not to participate.

5

I don’t understand why the judge can’t just make an order based on the recommendation of the GAL.

That would deny both you and your ex their procedural and due process rights, and the resulting decision would almost certainly be appealed and remanded back to the court for re-trial. There is no skipping steps, unless the disputing parties reach a settlement—which has clearly not happened here. The GAL only acts to represent your kids, and not to rule on the case overall.

At trial, neither party addresses the other. All parties address the court. There will be no triumphal confrontation between lawyers: the GAL will present their recommendations, your and your ex’s lawyers will present their respective positions on those recommendations, and then the judge will rule.

We cannot predict the judge’s decision, as we are not privy to the facts of the case nor to the inner workings of the judge’s mind. Your lawyer likely has some insight; if they are recommending conciliation, it’s for good reasons, but you might have to probe them a bit to understand what those reasons are.

6

Kiran said:
@Sky
Thank you.

One really good reason is if there are multiple small issues, and some of them can be worked out prior to trial, it’s much easier in the long run. Many judges require some sort of mediation prior to trial to at least attempt to narrow the number of contested issues.