Author name: Larry Sarezky

Donald Trump relishes serving his audiences a fact-free cocktail of misogyny, racism, victimization fantasies, conspiracy theories, and a brutish “us-against-them” mentality.

One of The Donald’s favorite expressions of that toxic brew is “libel-bullying”: serial threats of legal action against those who criticize or disagree with him. Trump has promised to prosecute Hillary Clinton for… we’re not sure exactly what; and vowed to take legal action against a myriad of other folks including his dozen sexual assault accusers, numerous media outlets, super-PACs, and the creator of unflattering (though hilarious) sculptures of him. And to foster this riot of libel bullying, Trump has promised that as president he will (somehow) “open up” the libel laws.

Even after a Trump defeat, the fires he’s stoked are unlikely to magically extinguish. Trump’s historic refusal to vow adherence to the election results, a not so veiled reference to physical violence against Hillary Clinton, claims that the election that hasn’t yet taken place was rigged, and an incessant drumbeat of the “Crooked Hillary” fantasies spawned over the years by Fox News and right-wing radio, have inspired some of his followers to threaten armed insurrection if Clinton is elected. All of which signals a whole lot of anger out there.

Already, evidence is mounting of a “Trump Effect” that is pouring the candidate’s vitriol from the 2016 campaign cauldron into the daily lives of school children. Last month, for example, National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García launched an NEA campaign to combat the Trump Effect with these words:

“Since Trump entered the race for president last year, educators have witnessed a steady increase in bullying and harassing behavior that mirrors his words and actions on the campaign trail.”1

A report by the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center entitled “The Trump Effect//The Impact Of The Presidential Campaign On Our Nation’s Schools” contains findings consistent with those of the NEA.2

It seems likely that some of the parents of these children as well as others among the more strident Trump supporters will need a vent for the rage he has ignited. Short of armed insurrection, it seems likely that many will channel their anger into their personal lives. And what better repository for such combativeness than divorce, which for many folks represents the battle of their lives?

Protracted high-conflict divorces can spell personal and financial disaster for divorcing spouses, and inflict enduring psychological harm upon their children. And given the nature of allegations exchanged in high-conflict divorces, Trump’s libelbullying raises the specter of a new wave of post-judgment libel litigation that will further delay the closure and healing that divorcing parents and their children so desperately
need.

As a divorce lawyer, I feel I owe it to my clients to try to prevent the Trump Effect from contaminating the divorce process. Even Donald Trump might have learned that the one thing that process does not need is more conflict.

A Trump presidency, or even a narrow loss (that the litigious Mr. Trump would almost certainly contest) would perpetuate animosity and belligerence throughout our society, including our family court system. To try and prevent that, we must hope for, and work toward a massive repudiation of Trump’s demagoguery.

That doesn’t mean staying home on Election Day or casting a third-party protest vote. It means voting for Hillary Clinton and encouraging others to do the same—whether you live in a red, blue or purple state—in order to render the repudiation of Trump’s corrosive effect ubiquitous and undeniable.

To learn more about managing conflict and protecting children in divorce,
check out Larry Sarezky’s new amazon #1 best selling book
Divorce, Simply Stated at amazon.com

1 http://www.nea.org/home/68560.htm
2 https://www.splcenter.org/20160413/trump-effect-impact-presidential-campaign-our-
2 https://www.splcenter.org/20160413/trump-effect-impact-presidential-campaign-ournations-
schools

This is the third of the eight myths that parents David and Laura Sherwood voice in #TalktoStrangersFilm to rationalize their custody litigation. They both express confidence in their ability to protect their children, 12-year-old Emily and 9-year-olds Nicholas (02:45) from emotional harm.

In fact, David doesn’t consider the custody litigation a “battle” (03:02). As the story develops, however, we see how the custody evaluation process itself takes a toll on children. Even where parents are not overly antagonistic toward each other, the custody evaluation process itself can humiliate, frighten and compromise kids.

Obviously, we’d prefer to see even parents litigating custody or access try to shield their kids from their antagonism, and to agree upon what information to share with the kids in order to keep the kids’ anxiety somewhat under control. The Sherwoods fit this description; it’s just that their thinking, based on their belief in the myths of custody litigation, is misguided. So, parents acting “well” in the context of ongoing custody/access litigation is no guarantee that children will not be on the road to emotional harm, as Emily and Nicky may well be.

One could argue that no parent who unnecessarily subjects children to the custody process is acting properly. Unfortunately, this too describes the Sherwoods, whose issue is whether physical custody will be shared equally (David’s position) or divided in a more “traditional” way, with the kids living primarily with Laura. This issue is one that can be fairly easily settled, and thus should be. Neither the film nor its accompanying parents’ guide are intended to address situations where court intervention is necessary, such as where there is abuse or parents with untreated emotional or addiction issues.

We also want the professionals involved to exhibit sensitivity to the plight of the children and to their vulnerabilities. In the film we see an attorney for the minor children, a court-appointed evaluating psychologist and a Court Services Officer, all of whom acquit themselves well. But again, adults acting well will not ensure that children won’t be harmed by the process.

Whether or not the custody litigation is considered a “battle,” children are its casualties.

Wait… WHAT???

Parents contemplating child custody or access battles often grasp for reasons to justify subjecting their children to an ordeal that may be more about the parents’ warfare than the children’s welfare. Many of those parents use popular myths about child-related litigation to rationalize placing their kids on the custody battlefield.

Where children are at risk for abuse or neglect, family court orders may well be necessary to protect them. Parents resorting to the courts for those purposes don’t need myths—or any excuse at all—to justify keeping their children safe. It’s the parents who litigate children’s issues because they’re unwilling to do the heavy lifting required to resolve them, who find solace in custody myths.

One of the most popular of those myths is that children’s innate resilience enables them to bounce back from all that divorce throws at them. Like many myths, it parlays a limited observation—that children can be resilient—into a kind of universal truth.

Some children are in fact characteristically quite resilient. Others are able to muster emotional hardiness in certain situations. But all children are not resilient in all circumstances.

It’s not unusual for children to bounce back from adversity. Indeed, good parents encourage and teach children to do just that. What good parents don’t do is create unnecessary challenges that children are entirely unprepared to handle.

Research performed five years ago at Duke University suggests that some children have a “resilience gene” that makes them better able to deal with parents despite an excess of strife. Other research has demonstrated that most children can be taught resilience skills.

But what about children who don’t have the ideal genetics or the necessary skills to deal with battling parents? For those children, the high level of parental conflict typically experienced during custody battles can cause serious and enduring emotional harm. That’s why parents—and their counsel—should try everything reasonably possible to avoid subjecting children to the trauma of custody/access battles.

My short film, Talk to Strangers is the story of two such children, 12-year-old Emily Sherwood and her 9-year-old brother Nicky. As their parents’ custody litigation winds its way slowly through the system, we see little sign of resilience in either child. What we see instead is a steady deterioration of the kids’ quality of life.

At the beginning of the story the children’s mother, Laura Sherwood declares that the siblings’ close relationship will be a “big help” to them during the custody case. Initially, this appears to be a reasonable prediction. Flashbacks reveal the siblings horsing around in Nicky’s room, and Emily cheering her brother’s heroics on the football field. Indeed in the first conversation we see between the siblings, Emily offers Nicky reassurance regarding his upcoming meeting with counsel to the children.

“You know how to handle grown-ups,” Emily bestows her pre-adolescent wisdom upon Nicky. “Just agree with them until they go away!”

But the anxieties and compromising situations spawned by the custody case take their toll on Emily and Nicky’s relationship. Emily becomes increasingly irritable and unavailable to Nicky, refusing to answer his questions about the divorce, and ultimately locking him out of her room.

Nicky loses track of his schoolbooks, demonstrates regressive behavior by slipping into his mother’s bed following nightmares, and quits football after forgetting plays because his mind got “all filled up” with a list of questions about his future that he carries in his pocket.

The literature is replete with those types of behavioral changes among children experiencing prolonged, high-level parental conflict. Such changes can signal risk of significant emotional disorder that parents embroiled in high-conflict divorce are often too preoccupied to notice.

Children’s amazing resilience protects them during divorce. Really?