Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Attorneys Elizabeth Stephenson, Sarah J. Hink, and Tyler E. Kaestner of New Direction Family Law talk with mental health professional Fauzia Faizi Shah about complex PTSD and narcissistic personality disorder and how these dynamics commonly surface in separation, divorce, and custody cases. Shah describes narcissistic traits and tactics such as gaslighting (changing someone’s reality), love-bombing and trauma bonding, boundary violations, manipulation, isolation, strength-shaming, and the repeating abuse cycle, and explains how victims may appear depressed or use substances as coping while the narcissistic partner thrives. The conversation focuses on protecting children, who may become “performers” for narcissistic parents, and on educating judges through seasoned evaluations and parenting capacity assessments, recommending supervised visitation when appropriate, therapy for children and the targeted parent, and legal boundaries like structured communication and parenting coordinators. Shah shares that her forthcoming book and online resources address complex PTSD, neurobiology, attachment, and healing.
00:00 Kids as Performers
00:47 Podcast Introductions
01:29 Book on Complex PTSD
02:26 Spotting Narcissism
03:49 Gaslighting Explained
04:31 Trauma Bond Cycle
06:16 Abuse and Control
07:29 Leaving and Safety
07:54 Evaluations and Court
14:15 Co Parenting Challenges
16:07 Protecting the Children
18:01 Courtroom Facades
21:41 Custody Battle Tactics
22:53 Coping Not Crazy
23:32 DV Mental Health Toll
24:04 Why It Feels Normal
24:56 Neurobiology And Attachment
26:32 Lawyer Strategy And Therapy
27:35 Breaking Trauma Bonds
29:45 Are Narcissists Increasing
30:35 Resources And New Book
31:37 Complex PTSD Explained
32:47 Boundaries And Legal Shields
34:33 Final Warnings Love Bombing
Creators and Guests
Host
Producer
What is Ex-it Strategy?
Your no bullsh$t guide to divorce with experienced attorneys from New Direction Family Law and guests and professionals who have been there. Unfiltered discussions to help you move from victim to victorious and from bitter to better.
85 - Exit Strategy
===
Speaker: [00:00:00] All right. Other than Tyler introducing himself, is there a topic that we're talking about?
Speaker 2: Just the importance of, like, kn- shopping for an attorney where your case is, where you're living. Okay. We're, we're attorneys- Mm-hmm ... but we're not
Speaker: your attorney. Mm-hmm. That's the name of this one. Yeah. Yeah. Let me lower this a little bit
Speaker 2: so it's not blocking your face.
'Cause it just, it blew my mind how different it was learning about. I just... I know. You'd think it's all...
Speaker: Like, custody would be all the same pretty much. But- Kind of.
Speaker 2: It's more like the procedural part ... and I think more, and
Speaker: divorces- Yeah ... are all screwed up. I mean, not screwed up. We're all different. Maneuver, state to state.
Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. There's- You can talk through this. Okay. There's analogs. Yeah. Yeah. Welcome to The Exit Strategy- There's analogs ... your no bull guide to divorce- Uh-huh ... with the experienced attorneys from- What were we talking about recently? I feel like there was some- ... New
Speaker 2: Direction Family Law.
Speaker 3: That's how we got him here.
There's no question what we were talking about Unfiltered discussions to help you move from victim to victorious- Oh, boy ... and from bitter to better. Mm-hmm.
Speaker: Hello, everyone. It's Elizabeth Stephenson with New Direction Family Law, and my partner in crime. Sarah Hinck. Ditto. New Direction
Speaker 2: Family Law. We're attorneys.
We're- We're not your attorney if you're not in North Carolina. That's right. [00:01:00] Or- And that is a big topic of today's episode. Today's episode. And we have a new attorney to our office. Woo-hoo. Tyler Kestner. And he came from a different state. That's sad. So we've learned a little bit about how states are different in the procedural, in the law aspect of it.
But first we're just gonna know Tyler. Tyler, introduce yourself. Yeah. Tell us a little bit about you. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Hi. Um, my name's Tyler Kestner. Um, I'm originally from Florida, went to Florida State University, then went up to, uh, Pennsylvania to go to Villanova Law. Um, practiced in Pennsylvania for a couple years, and then just recently moved with my wife, uh, over here to Raleigh.
And so did the fun process of transferring all my legal, uh, bar licensing and so forth. Got that squared away and, um, happy to be here with you all. We're so
Speaker: excited. Yeah. And just like a lot of us- And you may have seen him on our TikTok channel- Oh ... and our YouTube channel, 'cause he was fabulous in that video.
Speaker 3: Yes. Instagram. Oh, so they say. So they say. I won't read the comments. Yeah.
Speaker 2: That recent topic about AI. Yes. Ugh. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah, I mean- Good stuff. If you have any questions about that, it's infiltrating every part of your life. Yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Be careful. Be careful. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: So- We're [00:02:00] real, though. We are real.
Speaker 2: We are real.
Speaker: We, we're not AI.
Speaker 2: We're not AI. We're not AI generated. No. God, no. We, we'd be a lot more correct and perfect if we were. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. But we were having a... And that's something I learned about Tyler. You know, we were talking about the procedural parts of practice and how they're different in Pennsylvania and versus here.
And it's just like, if you're listening, so we get calls from people out of state- True ... 'cause they listen to the podcast somehow. And I'm like, "No. I cannot help you." But it's important. Mm-hmm. So tell us the, the biggest differences that you've picked up since practicing in North Carolina.
Speaker 3: Oh, boy. Um, so we'll start with, on divorce, um, I guess, just literally how you get divorced- Right
or when you can file. So in Pennsylvania, um, you can file at any time. And then once you file, you either have to wait a minimum of 90 days, and then both parties could consent. Um, and then if you still had, like, financial matters or so forth, those would still continue. Mm-hmm. Um, but so you may not be ready at 90 days, but minimum time would be 90 days.
Speaker: So do you have to be separated though, I would assume, before you file?
Speaker 3: Well, so there's would be a separate prong [00:03:00] would be to be separate and apart for one year, uh, before. But you would file and then have a year of separation. Um, or you don't necessarily need to wait after the separation. Gotcha. And then also separation is different because here, as I'm learning, you need to be literally, physically- Two different
two different residences. Mm-hmm. In Pennsylvania, you can be in different bedrooms, you could be in different floors of the house. Um, the, what matters is kinda like a totality of the circumstances. Like, are you holding yourself out as separated? Yeah. Did you tell your family? Did you tell your kids? And you're just doing this for, like, financial reasons why, while we're separating everything else out.
No, it's so different.
Speaker: Now wait, bec- so would you have to pay alimony if you're separated and you're living in the same house?
Speaker 3: So if you're living in the same house, uh, courts would typically not enter child support, spousal support, alimony, anything like that. Okay. The idea being that- Sharing expenses
you're still sharing the expenses. So it just
Speaker: gets your to- your clock running, basically for divorce. Just gets your clock
Speaker 3: running. So and then, you know, people would weaponize that 'cause it's like- Mm-hmm ... "Well, I'm not leaving. I don't have to pay child support." [00:04:00] Hell yeah. Yeah. I'm not
Speaker 2: leaving. And that's why, like, you gotta be careful using AI and Googling out there because you might pick up a different state's rules and- Absolutely
you know, you think- Correct ... you are separated, but you're not.
Speaker: Right. People think, well- Or North
Speaker 2: Carolina- Right, yeah ... you think you're separated and- But you're not.
Speaker 3: Yeah. 'Cause when I was in Pennsylvania, like one of the most common questions I got in consults was like, "Oh," like, "how do we be legally separated?"
Mm-hmm. And there's really not a legal separation concept in Pennsylvania. Interesting. But here there y- there very clearly- There is, yes ... is this period- Mm-hmm ... of where you need to be physically separate. Right. So that is, that is very different. Which I never really
Speaker: understood because the whole point of us, as I understand it, waiting a year is we're in the Bible Belt is what- Mm-hmm
we used to be called. So they're, they're thinking that within that year- Yeah ... you know, we'll reconcile. Come to Jesus. Come to Jesus. Yeah, if you guys would come to Jesus meeting- In the Bible Belt ... it do. Well, up in the godless
Speaker 3: North- Yeah Yeah ... yeah, they're just like, "Just 90 days." Yeah. "The three months. It's all you need."
Yeah.
Speaker 2: But it's just,
Speaker 3: I don't know. I think it's ridiculous. But our
Speaker 2: legislator is, there's a bill proposed to shorten the year here in North [00:05:00] Carolina. There is. I think there is. Yeah. And- You might see my
Speaker 3: face on that too ...
Speaker 2: there was also one about, I think it's- Oh, what it? There was a- You could still live together too
together.
Speaker 3: So yeah, so it's a comprehensive statute to, like, completely- Uh, amend the divorce statute, and it is, I believe, in the Senate. I was getting a little confused on the legislative history, so it's not yet passed the- You're new to this.
Speaker 2: You're new to this state Yeah, yeah. So it's
Speaker 3: going through the state legislature, but it would drastically revamp a lot of parts.
So it would reduce that one year to six months- Mm-hmm ... um, of living physically separate. Right. And then there is a addition in the paragraph which would, like, kinda define separation where, like, for financial reasons-
Speaker: Right ... um,
Speaker 3: if you're still living together, basically- That's right ... it would not break up that six months.
Speaker: And then there was something about it had a DV. Didn't have a DV provision in there, too- DV, domestic violence ... that you did not have to wait the year.
Speaker 3: You didn't have to wait at all- At all ... if you- That's right ... if you're a victim of domestic violence ... if you're the victim of domestic violence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which our attorneys' brains are just like- We have an issue about that.
Don't do that ... all of us are just like, "Well, what do you mean by domestic violence?" Uh, that's been charged. A criminal [00:06:00] charge? A DVPO? Like, you have to define these things, and people weaponizing it, you know- Yeah ... claiming that there's DV when there's not just to get a quick divorce.
Speaker: Like- But here's the, here's the important part of that is, as you can see, even if you came to us a year ago and had initial consult with us- Mm-hmm
things might change. If you said- Yeah ... that you didn't separate and you wanna separate, you might wanna check back in with if you went and saw someone before if things have changed or not. Yeah. That'd be a huge change. Yes. And it sounds like it mimics
Speaker 2: other
Speaker 3: states. The sort of states. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think the six months is kinda like a...
It's a good middle ground. Middle ground. I agree. 'Cause 90 days might be really too quick, and, like, did we fully resolve all the issues? Did, were we, you know, putting everything on the table or so forth? Yeah. But, um- I agree with that. Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, I agree. Okay, so that's divorce. What else?
Speaker 3: Um, so custody, there's just, like, kinda technically different elements.
I would say broad picture procedurally it's analogous. Um, but, you know, just how we have conferences. Like, we have a lot of Zoom conferences still, uh, at least in the counties that I practiced in in Pennsylvania. And then that's another thing is, [00:07:00] like, county to county, all these things change, too. Yeah.
Yeah. Have different characteristics. Same here. Yeah. Yeah, so, uh, a lot of counties still do virtual, uh, you know, those initial, uh, custody,
Speaker 2: uh, conferences. Do you have, like, you know, like, we have temporary as our first
Speaker 3: step. It's sort of same day. And they weren't even,
Speaker 2: like, hearings, though, but they're, like, magistrate run or- Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the analog- What? Yeah ... to a temporary hearing would be an initial custody conference and, uh, a conciliation conference. And you'd be with a conciliation officer who's not a judge. Is that like our mediators? They are
Speaker 4: lawyers.
Speaker 3: Um, not real- It's like a lawyer acting as a quasi judge. It really is like a kinda like a magistrate.
They're not even a magistrate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they are a lawyer. Um, in most cases they are family law lawyers, so they know what they're doing. Well. But it is interesting because, like- I, I had a conciliation officer who like six months before I had cases against. So now I'm presenting to her. Yeah. So yeah, so it is just a lawyer that is gonna enter that initial custody order.
So, so- And then- ... they,
Speaker: they act like a ju- Like, it's not like if y'all [00:08:00] don't agree, I can't do anything. Is she like an arbitrator sort of or a judge? She can make a decision?
Speaker 3: Or- Yeah. So if there's no agreement, um, she just kinda has to make it status quo until a judge can like- Oh ... make formal findings of fact.
So that's where it's like, yeah, there's no hearing, there's no findings of fact, there's no proving anything. It is just... And this would be situations where if one parent has kind of, you know, say, alienated or kept the child- Correct. Yeah ... and then the other parent has found a new residence and they're like, "They're not letting me see the kid," the conciliator is sometimes very limited in what they can do- I know
and say, "Well, you know, uh, kind of my hands are tied procedurally- Right ... and what... or m- my powers here." Something
Speaker 2: like that, be like, "Let's get some, let's get some stuff rolling."
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm too impatient for that. And so that's on, that's on Zoom, so there's like no evaluation of like the personality and body language, and people are showing up, like Zooming from their cars on the thing.
They don't understand what they're doing. They- What's the point? What is... Well, what's the point?
Speaker 2: The point is things are really different- ... in different states, different counties. And that's why if you're listening in a [00:09:00] different state other than North Carolina, we can't help you. I'm not barred in any other state than North Carolina anyways.
Well, people, you
Speaker: know, people move. You know, we're the, I think we're the fifth most populous state people moving to that have out of state Pennsylvania orders, you know. Yeah. But so- Mm-hmm ... but they're- Uh-huh ... but so you bring your order here, they're going, the court, you have to register it and do all that, but we have to enforce your out of state.
Well,
Speaker 2: first we have to interpret it. Well, I get, I get orders- Yeah ... from other states, I'm like, what were they thinking? What are they thinking? What does this mean? Right. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right. The formatting's off and, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 2: like just different legalese is involved, and it's hard to really understand. You would sort
Speaker: of think that there would be...
I mean, there is the, what, the Uniform Act, but it's not, it's more about procedure- It's more just- ... and jurisdiction and stuff ... jurisdiction ... not about how you sort of do custody.
Speaker 2: I mean, things are different judge to judge in the same county. Yeah. Well, true.
Speaker 3: Right. Yeah. Which is crazy-making. It is
Speaker 2: crazy. I mean,
Speaker 3: even just what you call like a consent order, it would be like more like an agreed order or a stipulation.
Mm-hmm. So just even what you call things- Call things. Yeah. It's different ... is, is quite different as well. Right. So.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. Any other big like differences that you picked up on?
Speaker 3: Um, another one comes to mind is child support. [00:10:00] So in Pennsylvania there's no retroactive child support. I mean, that's just a huge difference.
That's crazy. That's a huge difference. Mm-hmm. It's based purely on the date of filing. So that's where like if you have the spouse that's not leaving the house, even though you've told them- Right ... "I want a divorce. I filed. I've tech- I have legally announced my separation to the world." Right. Mm-hmm. But they won't leave.
You can't get child support. You can't get a custody order while they're in the house.
Speaker: If you were a stay-at-home mom and he won't leave and he doesn't pay for anything, you're kind of screwed, right?
Speaker 3: Yes, I have that, I have that a lot. Oh my gosh. Where the less financially You know, advantageous party, um, was kind of stuck there.
Yeah. And then their... You know, we had an episode about narcissism, their narcissist husband- Mm-hmm ... who decided, "Oh, you want a divorce? I'm not paying for anything." Right. And then it's like, what do you do? Well, you have no control. Yeah. That's true. You have to leave, but, but you can't- Can't ... have the means to.
Well, you don't have
Speaker 2: the means to leave. Is there a way to kick people out up there?
Speaker 3: Uh, the, uh, oh, domestic violence protection order- Mm-hmm ... which in Pennsylvania we would call, um, something [00:11:00] different. I've actually forgot the technical name for it. We
Speaker 2: don't need it anymore. We don't need it anymore.
Speaker 3: A PFA, protection from abuse order.
But you have like, you know, we
Speaker: have like divorce, the, m- which is the stupidest name, divorce from bed and board, which you can file when people are still together and- Mm-hmm Yeah ... get one person out, you know? Yeah. We have a case.
Speaker 2: I was like, yeah. Yeah, break some crap. I was like, what is
Speaker 3: this? Yeah. We, we would not have that.
We have that. There's no, there's no other way besides getting a protection from abuse order, DVPO, uh, analog domestic violence order, um, to remove them from the house. Mm-hmm. But otherwise, they can stay there as long as they have a legal right to be there. Oh. I thought we, I thought we were backwards.
That's
Speaker: terrible. Damn. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I've had, I had multiple cases where the parties lived together throughout the entire divorce process- That's crazy ... up until we got the order. We got a quadro to separate the funds, and then they finally got their funds and were able to move. They were able to move out.
Or they finally sold the house and were able to move. So yeah, they lived together literally through a year and a half of divorce proceedings. That'd be really interesting. I was gonna say- Yeah ... the
Speaker: homicide rate would go up exponentially. Yeah. Luckily, luckily I
Speaker 3: didn't have
Speaker: that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. [00:12:00] That's crazy to me.
Yeah. That
Speaker: is sort of cra- Do y'all do, did, um, did you do... No, we do child support if you're under, what, four, it's 400,000. What is it, 40,000 a month now- Mm-hmm ... of your income. Do it by guidelines. Mm-hmm. It's just based on here's your income, here's your income. Mm-hmm. Who pays for health insurance and childcare, and spits out a number.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So we did have a, a worksheet basically, or a, uh, statutorily defined, uh, equation- Right. Right ... as to what it would spit out. But even that is different as well. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 4: So
Speaker 3: in Pennsylvania, they would go based on your net income and calculate child support based off net income. Well, that's what they should do
Speaker: anyway, I think.
Really. I act-
Speaker 3: That actually I really agree with. Anyway. 'Cause what am I sup- Like, I'm paying taxes on that. Why
Speaker: would I get- So that's what I thought ... child support off that? I've got money in my pocket.
Speaker 3: Yeah. What are you talking about? So they would do, uh, net income, monthly net income to calculate your child support.
Um, we would still allocate for daycare expenses, medical health insurance- Right. Right ... expenses, extracurriculars. Um, and then you'd get that support order, and then, and then that's in place. It was easier to modify a child support order I think, um, in Pennsylvania as well though too. [00:13:00] So, um, what we had sometimes is that people agreed to one amount during the divorce proceedings, and then they just filed to modify after.
Right. Mm-hmm. Because we'd, you know, in our orders, we don't necessarily have findings of fact. We try to put it in, like, comments, like what each party thinks their- Wri- Their comments But they would agree to something and then say, "Ha, gotcha, I'm gonna modify that after." Yeah. Yeah, interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was looking at a Maryland court order recently, and there's no findings of fact.
And I was like- Mm-hmm ... was this a kent, consent? And they're like, "No, we had, like, multiple hearings." Mm-hmm. How do you do that? I don't know. I
Speaker: don't,
Speaker 4: yeah. I don't know. I don't know. You
Speaker: would have to have a substantial change in, you know, we have, we have to have a substantial change in circumstance. Mm-hmm.
So you have to know what the circumstances were- Mm-hmm ... at the time that order was entered, and if you don't know- But also,
Speaker 2: like, to appeal it, you have to have- The, some findings of fact ... findings of facts as to why you ordered what you did. As to what you did. And, like.
Speaker 3: So another difference, substantial change in circumstance is not available in Pennsylvania.
Interesting. You don't need a substantial change in circumstances, so that means I was getting consults to modify custody orders over- And over again ... they wouldn't give me Thanksgiving at 1:00, and I wanted 2:00. We [00:14:00] need to modify the entire order. Gee. I guess
Speaker 2: it keeps
Speaker 3: business going.
Speaker: Can I tell you- We could talk to legislature about that.
Oh. What a disaster.
Speaker 3: What a headache. Yeah. Oh, my gosh. So, I mean, it wouldn't always get granted, so what I would tell people is, you know, bank, like, three or four of those, and I hate to say small issues, but those little things. Right, right. Let's stack them up and then have a more substantial order. Yes.
Because once we open this, we're, we're opening it. We're opening it. Yeah. Yeah. And then it has to go through that same
Speaker 2: process- Assessment ... with that conciliation- Yep ... person. Oh, gosh.
Speaker 3: And so then that conciliator, if you didn't have an agreement to change anything, would just leave that last order in place, not really hearing anything, not taking any evidence, not considering anything other than what the two parties and their lawyers are saying.
That's true. Um, it would take, like, 45 minutes, and then they send you on and then schedule out for a hearing- It's crazy ... four or five months later.
Speaker 2: What about, uh,
Speaker 3: go ahead.
Speaker 2: Was it less litigious? I feel like we're maybe more litigious here. I feel like
Speaker 3: that would be more litigious. Yeah. Maybe I'm wrong. I think in, you know, my couple months now [00:15:00] getting integrated here that there have been A lot more court appearances because you go to court for more things here.
Mm-hmm. But more agreements, resolutions, mediation. We didn't have mandatory mediation in the divorce process. No, I think everybody should have that, for sure. So you'd file a divorce, and if you have equitable distribution, it's, you know, we have discovery, um, and then it's up to us to decide if we're gonna be able to come to an agreement.
If not, we're going to a conciliation officer again- Mm-hmm ... just like this officer mentioned.
Speaker: Well, do you have, like- like we have, you know, certified financial mediators that have been trained, and that's what ... They're family law attorneys. Do y'all have that? Even if you weren't mandated to go. Mm-hmm. A lot of people aren't, but you want them to go, and you talk them into it, we can go to mediation.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We- we- we couldn't force the other party to go to- Right ... any type of mediation- Well, we can't ... like that. Mm-hmm. Yeah, so, and I wouldn't ... I mean, they might have a financial advisor, but yeah, not like a kind of mediator like that. Yeah. Yeah. So you go to a conciliation officer. They'd give their opinion on what your finances are, and then it's like, well, do you want to adopt their opinion, or do we wanna continue to work on this?
And well, that never works out because [00:16:00] someone's always unhappy with that. No. Absolutely. So then you go to a hearing with the same conference officer basically, but it- but it is a hearing, and then you would have to appeal that to get to a judge. And try to change their mind? What's it take to be one of these-
Speaker: one of these officers?
Do you get elected? Do you get appointed? What,
Speaker 3: does it- It's-
Speaker: Voluntary Just like that.
Speaker 3: It's not elected. Um- Lottery ... I imagine it's a job application. That's like a-
Speaker: Yeah ... power trip. My goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's ... I, you know, if I was gonna stay in Pennsylvania, that would've been the long game. Well, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Let
Speaker: me do that.
The long game, absolutely. Yeah. What about alimony? Do you do it on a sp- on a calculator, or you ... Oh, yes. We ... Places do that. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 3: alimony did not have a specific calculator. Um, there were enumerated factors that the court basically had to consider- Right ... um, in determining length, duration, amount of alimony, and, um, I think the, kind of the length of alimony is a big difference that I'm seeing initially here.
Uh, in, in Pennsylvania, alimony orders were very short. Mm-hmm. Three, six months. Right, right. Maybe a year. Um, and I've- I've, you know, come across a couple cases that are, like, [00:17:00] lifetime alimony here. Right. Yeah. So I think that that's actually- Not often ... quite different.
Speaker: But especially back in the day, they used to.
Mm-hmm. Yeah. But if it's been a long marriage, they'll sort of br- sometimes they'll bridge you to retirement 'cause you may only have, like, 10 years. Mm-hmm. But we sort of start with the premise of half the length of the marriage. Yeah, that's like the rule of
Speaker 2: thumb. Yeah. It's not written down anywhere,
Speaker 3: but- It's till, until retirement age.
Speaker: Just
Speaker 2: half the length
Speaker: of the marriage. Half the length of the marriage. Yeah. But once you hit retirement, you know, the other person isn't making any ... They're making income, but it's- Mm-hmm ... plus you're getting half their retirement- Yeah ... so you may not need it. You kinda, you
Speaker 2: kinda start at half length of the marriage.
I know. And then, like, you know, up it or reduce it based on the other factors. Right. Like maybe getting Social Security, retirement. Right, right. Um, what have you. So did y'all have
Speaker: The famous alienation of affection.
Speaker 3: Not at all. Not a thing at all. Criminal conversation, alienation of affection. That's why I moved to North Carolina.
Yeah. And I was picking where- Yeah. You could make big money on that ... where I wanted to live. Yeah. Where, where's the
Speaker 2: spice? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Um, it was interesting. I would actually, uh, listen to the podcast. Oh. Uh-huh. And this is where I first heard really about that and, uh, y'all talking about that. [00:18:00] So after that, I, like, dove in and looked at it.
And told my wife about it. Yeah. And my wife's an attorney, too, so we're both, like, arguing it between us. So, like, this is a dangerous road. Let's not go down it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But and then he- Yeah ... he joins us, and he works on a lot of my cases. And one of our first cases, Tyler, was an alienation case. Alienation of affection.
Yeah. That's right. I remember. Which, uh, is, is settling, so that's good. Yeah. I'm
Speaker 3: like, darn. I know. No, happy- Oh, wait, it's settling? Happy for them. Yes.
Speaker 2: Happy for them. Which they should, if you can. They should settle. I agree. You know? Yeah, everyone's dirty laundry gets dragged out in that process. Yeah. Yeah. No one comes out happy or looking good.
Yeah. And, like, the stress, just end it. I agree. Just move on.
Speaker 3: Which that amendment that's coming through the North Carolina legislature- Right. Yeah ... would remove that entirely. I know. So that'll be a pretty big revolution in the law. I don't... Well, it should be. Always felt like- Like, personally,
Speaker 2: I support that.
I do, too. Professionally, I
Speaker: don't know. It's always good for leverage is what I have to say. That is true. It's
Speaker 2: good for leverage, and that's what happens. Not a case, that's what happened in our, our recent case. I just wanted to be in
Speaker: the ro- in the back room when they came up with the title criminal conversation.
Right. Because it's criminal. You can just imagine people leaning. Well, I know. [00:19:00] But are you... Like, I can just see, you know, the lady in bed or they're having an affair. There's probably not a lot of conversing going on
Speaker 2: during this. Yeah, no. Well, maybe not. Because it's still, it's still a crime in North Carolina.
It is a crime. You can get cr- charged under the criminal statute- You certainly can ... with, um, alie- or not, not with alienation, but with having an affair.
Speaker: Yeah. Or you still, like, it, yeah, I don't know if other states have that or not. It's like, yeah, you're separate. Mm-hmm. People ask me all the time, "Can I date?"
Yeah. Let's just be discreet. Mm-hmm. The DA is not gonna- No ... come after you for doing that, but it is a crime. You're right. It is a crime.
Speaker 2: That's when we can plead the fifth in those cases to not answer certain questions, which you can- And then the,
Speaker: the judge can infer that's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker: Yes, you did have that.
You did do that.
Speaker 3: And then having an affair doesn't matter in Pennsylvania. It's- Does it, does
Speaker: it matter for alimony or anything?
Speaker 3: It's a fact. Marital misconduct is one of the umpteen factors- Factors ... into alimony. I think that challenge should be So it's not defeating. Yeah. Yeah. In, um, in equitable distribution, in the divorce, in custody, it, I, that, it doesn't matter at all.
Yeah. So it feels almost, um, not as just for the person that's gone through that- I [00:20:00] agree ... rightfully so. I agree. Um, but, uh, but yeah, not a concept at all. I don't
Speaker 2: like how we have it here, that it's barred. Mm-hmm. You don't get alimony if you had an affair. Right.
Speaker 3: And then-
Speaker: I agree with that. I think you should, I think it should be if you did it, it could be a factor, and you have to depend it.
Yeah. Just like all the other factors. But if you did it and you're supporting, you're definitely paying. Yeah. That's what I think. But, like, the definitely
Speaker 2: pa- paying could be a dollar, too. Like, sometimes you get low income people- Well, true ... and they cheated, and I'm like, well, you're not gonna have, like, some windfall from his affair- Right.
Well, that's right. Yeah ... or her affair, you know? And then, like, I feel like abuse is worse. Like, he punched you in the face, but- That's not mandatory That's not automatic, already. I agree with that. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, that's my personal opinion on that. And that's not in the legislature, so I guess, I guess that won't be changing.
No. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, alimony- Old,
Speaker: old men up there, so Alimony is, like, we're still running the numbers even though it says that. Yeah. Unless it's a bar. That's what people need to understand, is that the factors. Which, what's your income? What's your shortfall? What do you have to pay her? Basically what it comes down to.
And it
Speaker 2: terminates when you cohabitate. Okay. So if you end up shacking up with that person you had an affair with anyways, then- It's gotta stop ... hope he's rich. You know? [00:21:00] Can help you there. True. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Another one that I'd like to highlight is, uh, subpoena process. That, that really blew my mind. In Pennsylvania, for a subpoena, first of all, discovery was not available in custody cases at all.
What? No discovery in custody. So I would often- Wow ... I'd get on these Zoom conferences, have no idea what the other person's gonna say. Right. Mm-hmm. I walked into, uh, a judge's chambers one time and I made my argument and I was like, "Yeah, my, my person's right." And then the opposing counsel's like, "That's funny.
Here's a stack of text messages. Look at those." That's crazy. Yeah, that is crazy. And I was like, "I, I, I can't say anything more." I gotta, I gotta go review these. It helps settle
Speaker 2: cases- And, uh- ... to have that information. Absolutely. Yeah. And my
Speaker 3: client was not truthful. Yeah. I mean, these messages are awful. Trial by ambush
Speaker: is never good.
No.
Speaker 3: No. So, but the subpoena process in, uh, divorce equitable distribution, we would have to send notice to the opposing party or counsel first, um, tell them that we intend to send a subpoena. There is a 20-day period- ... with which they can then object. Object. [00:22:00] Or file a protection order. Huh. Um, motion for protective order.
And then we'd have to hear that or they could waive that 20 days. And then after the 20 days, then we can send the subpoena. So
Speaker 2: would that be to any third party? You would have to, like- To a bank to get a record. To, to a
Speaker 3: bank, to their work, to, to a witness. If we, you know, wanted to call a witness, we'd have to notify the other party ahead of time.
Speaker: So you know, we have, like, if you file something here, if it's financial or it's property, under our local rules, and I think most local rules-
Speaker 4: Mm-hmm ...
Speaker: you're mandated to provide certain initial disclosures. It wouldn't, you know ... So I think what they've ... The, the part of that is so you don't have to go through all that, that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't, um, in child support, there would be a certain, we didn't call them initial disclosures- Right, right ... but, you know, provide your tax return- Right ... last six months of pay stub. But in the divorce equitable distribution process, it's, it's all just discovery. Okay. There's no initial disclosure.
Speaker 2: And 20-day waiting period. Yeah. Oh, I'd lose my mind. That would be crazy. You're just, like, firing them off. Hell yeah. Then, oh, you object? Too bad. Too bad. Yeah. Yeah. Good luck, buddy. Good luck on that.
Speaker: You said that. Yeah, the
Speaker 3: [00:23:00] first subpoena you asked me to send, I'm like, "Oh, okay, so I gotta send this to the opposing party."
I'm like, "No. You're like, "No." Why
Speaker 2: are you doing that? No. What are you talking about? No, no, no. No, no, no. Yeah. So I mean, I love doing that. Yeah. It's a discovery process. Interesting. Yeah, it's okay. It is so different, and that's why, yeah, people are out there using AI and, like, Googling. Like, you know they're getting the information.
Yeah, don't come in, don't come... Here's what I'm
Speaker: gonna tell you. Do not come into a consultation with your AI, Google AI- JD, don't do it- Mm-hmm ... 'cause it's not helpful. No. And don't tell me what your friend told you, and what they did, and what they went through, 'cause it's all different.
Speaker 3: It, it is so case by case.
Yeah. So, uh, I think that we often hear that too is like, "Oh, uh, my friend got, you know- Bought a house ... $100,000. Yeah, got the whole house. Like, here we go. Um, and then with the AI, uh, um, I... There's another video on this as well is like there's a case now where it says what you put into AI, the court is treating that- That's right
as like a third par- almost like a person. Third set. Mm-hmm. Which is, I mean, I hope that gets resolved- ... and returned on, um, further appeal. But, uh, for right now, yeah, what you put into AI, you gotta be careful because that could be discoverable information. Right. That's right. So all the [00:24:00] questions- Yeah ... that you ask are
Speaker: gonna be put up there.
I tweeted
Speaker 3: on my spouse, what do I do? Do. We can- Correct ... you know, get a discovery from Claude from- Yeah ... ChatGPT. Right. I'm
Speaker 2: ready to send those appeals. Absolutely. Who am I sending them to?
Speaker 3: And we don't have a 20-day waiting period- Yeah ... so we're doing it.
Speaker: So turn it over, Claude. And we can tell when
Speaker 2: people use it.
Like in one of my cases, the opposing party like did their discovery responses through their attorney- Oh, I get it ... in like AI format. I know. I was like, "I know." You get your emails, and you can tell it's AI. I know. It's like, stop. I'm like, "Why?" Then they try to use it in court, and I was like, "Excuse me." "No way."
And the judge was like, "No, no way. Get that out of here." And the judges are not pro-AI. They are not. I tell you that much. No. No, no, no. No.
Speaker: I'm too old to be pro-AI,
Speaker 3: but.
Speaker 2: No. And like g- get the gatekeeper orders that prevent them from- ... filing their nonsense.
Speaker 3: Did not have that in Pennsylvania at all. Yeah. That's an amazing tool.
Yeah. If
Speaker 2: you think you're gonna represent yourself by like filing a bunch of motions- Well- ... based on AI, like ChatGPT, and the judge is gonna say, "Good luck, buddy. You can't file a single more document without an attorney." Well, what I can tell you, you
Speaker: know, I'm a TikTok girl, TikTok girly, but there is now...
I'm on... Somehow I got on this [00:25:00] side of TikTok, but there are, there are party, pro se parties, and they do every day. They're going to the courthouse. They're filing something. They're doing their own. They're teaching people how to do it. Mm-hmm. It's like, girl, don't do that. Are they talking about the
Speaker 3: divorce coaches?
Speaker: They're not even divorced. They're just women- Yeah ... or parents going through this, and they're showing you how to file your own stuff and what you should do. And it's like, don't, please don't do that. You're gonna piss the judge off. It's the blind leading the blind. Yeah. Yeah. Oh my God. That's so scary. It is.
It's as scary as it can be.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But- Yeah. I don't know. It's a mess. Yeah. And
Speaker 3: AI, I think what we're kinda saying is like, it's gonna pick up... It might pick up Pennsylvania, so if you're in North Carolina and you say- That's right ... you know, if you don't specify, you know, even if you are doing it, if you don't specify where you are- Mm
um, it might pick up a generalized rule or try to like summarize 50 states' worth of family law. Exactly. Mm-hmm. Which, uh, I mean, just as we're laying out between these two states are drastically different. So I can't even imagine what a third state or a fourth state's gonna do, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Then pick up an incorrect case law.
That's right. Then you cite that. So that's when you get- And then you get sanctioned. Wow. Oh. That's why you need
Speaker: an attorney. [00:26:00] Attorneys. 'Cause you could- 'Cause you're gonna be held to the same standard I hear, you know, our judges always say, "I'm holding you to the same standard." Mm-hmm. Yeah. You know? So true.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So if you're in central North Carolina, hit us up. That's right. If you're, if you're not- If you're in Pennsylvania, do not hit us up. Yeah, yeah. Maybe we can shoot you some recommendations. Other than that, you're nations. Yes, yeah. Definitely. But that's about it. Yeah.
Speaker: Exactly.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Tyler. Tyler. Ain't That Some Shit.
Ain't That Some Shit. Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah. Perfect. That was good