Author name: Larry Sarezky

http://www.aaml.org/about-the-academy/press/press-releases/american-academy-matrimonial-lawyers-distributes-award-winnin

Chicago, IL, November 3, 2015 — The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) has announced plans to distribute the Telly Award-winning film, Talk to Strangers, in association with its writer/director, Connecticut attorney and filmmaker Larry Sarezky. The 25-minute dramatic film tells the story of a sister and her younger brother struggling to navigate the child custody evaluation process typically used in family courts throughout the United States.

Powerfully depicting the ordeal through the eyes of the children themselves, the film features an original score co-written by Sarezky and Grammy-winning composer Brian Keane. The result is uniquely inspirational and serves as a cautionary message to parents and lawyers on the brink of traumatic child custody battles. Accompanying the film is a guide written by Sarezky with contribution from the AAML to help parents avoid those battles and other high conflict divorces.

“This film is undeniably moving and offers an invaluable portrayal of the ways in which a custody battle directly impacts children who are caught in the middle,” said James T. McLaren, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “The AAML does not typically endorse outside products, but we felt so strongly about Talk to Strangers that we sought out filmmaker Larry Sarezky to join in his efforts. It is truly one of the most powerful tools I have seen that can encourage parents and professionals to pause and more thoughtfully consider how custody battles affect children.”

Talk to Strangers is currently used by professionals throughout the U.S. and abroad, and by public and private institutions including Colorado’s continuing legal education program, New York City’s Washington Square Institute, and law schools nationwide. It is scheduled to be in service throughout the Massachusetts family court system at the beginning of next year.

The film and its companion Parents’ Guide have earned high praise among lawyers, mediators, mental health professionals, and divorcing parents. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz advises divorcing couples—and their lawyers—to “Watch it and learn!” Retired Oregon family law judge Paula Kurshner calls Talk to Strangers “the film every parent contemplating… child custody litigation should see.” AAML past president Arthur Balbirer calls Talk to Strangers a “must-see.” The Library Journal praises the film as “a cautionary tale that succeeds in portraying [the custody] process as bewildering and destructive.”

“Having seen the film bring family court judges and divorce lawyers to tears, we are immensely pleased to find it resonating so profoundly with audiences, and we welcome this relationship with the AAML to further its exposure,” said Larry Sarezky. “We’re pleased as well with the favorable reviews, awards, and testimonials, but our goal remains to continue raising consciousness about the risks to children posed by custody battles and other high conflict divorce.

A number of popular myths about child-related court proceedings lure separating parents into poor, and sometimes disastrous decisions regarding their children. At the beginning of the short film Talk to Strangers, David and Laura Sherwood, a pair of well-meaning but misguided parents articulate a number of these myths. Two of them are discussed in this article. Separating parents need to understand how these myths underestimate the impact on children of child-related court battles.

Myth #1: “Judges Protect Children During Divorce.”

The Truth: As with all the myths about children and the courts, this one sounds reasonable enough. But as a rule, judges don’t monitor how the kids are doing as their parents’ case works its way through the system. Even in custody, parentage, or child-access cases in which judges eventually do become directly involved with children’s issues, that involvement usually doesn’t begin until trial is imminent. And that’s too late to protect children from the kind of emotional harm that high-conflict divorce can cause.

We know that custody battles are bad for kids. The reason seems obvious enough: Prolonged high levels of parental conflict are toxic to children. But there’s more to it than that. Battles over children (“fully contested divorces”) deprive those children of the very things they need most.

What are those needs?

A “Top 4 List” of children’s needs during divorce would read something like this:

• • An end to their parents’ fighting
• • An end to uncertainty about where and with whom they will be living
• • A return to some degree of normalcy in their lives
• • Security in knowing that their parents will continue to love and care for them

And here’s the thing: Custody/access battles deprive children of all of the above. In fully contested cases, children experience prolonged conflict, uncertainty and highly dysfunctional parenting. Slowly but surely, normalcy and security become distant memories for those children. It’s true that at trial, family judges try to act in the children’s best interests. But that doesn’t erase the impact of months of anxiety and stress for children whose parents are often too embroiled in their own conflict to attend to them.

Nor can judges spare children the rigors of the custody evaluation process. Judges don’t supervise that process; by the time a case comes to trial, it’s been completed. Interviews by court services counselors, attorneys or mental health professionals—no matter how well intentioned or how adeptly performed—can be terribly intrusive and intensely embarrassing to children.

In many other ways, large and small, children’s lives are disrupted by the prolongation of their parents’ divorce that occurs in fully contested cases. No one can protect children from that except parents dedicated to working out their differences for their children’s benefit.

Myth #2: “The custody evaluation process is designed to protect children.”

The Truth: The custody evaluation process is not designed to protect children. It is designed to gather information for the court. And that process intrudes mightily into children’s lives.

Many of such intrusions go unnoticed. An extracurricular activity missed while a child meets with an attorney or custody evaluator, or a play-date prevented by an inflexible visitation schedule, might not seem like a big deal. But for children already reeling from the break-up of their family, the cumulative effect of such disruptions can be profound.

Dedicated professionals in high-conflict cases try to spare children unnecessary hardship. But of those professionals, only the children’s counsel, guardians ad litem, or in some jurisdictions parenting coordinators act solely on behalf of children. Court services counselors and mental health evaluators are undoubtedly concerned with what is best for the children. But again, their role is to provide information and assessments for judges to use in deciding child-related issues. Their role is not to protect children from the stress and anxiety they experience while awaiting those decisions, and often for many years afterward.

The truth is that no one can fully protect children from the risk of emotional harm in fully contested cases. Where children are at risk due to factors such as a parent’s mental illness or untreated substance abuse, court intervention is often necessary. Absent that, parents and their counsel have an obligation to children to try to resolve child-related issues as quickly as possible.

Learn more about how to maximize results and minimize costs
in Larry Sarezky’s new book Divorce, Simply Stated.
www.DivorceSimplyStated.com

“Unbundled representation,” also known as “discrete task” or “limited scope” representation can, in the right circumstances, save divorcing spouses a lot of money.

In the approximately 40 states that permit it, unbundled representation allows divorcing individuals to choose which parts of their case a lawyer will handle.  Tasks that can be easily separated from the rest of a case lend themselves to “unbundling.”

Those tasks include:

• • Court proceedings such as temporary custody or support hearings and trial
• • Where permitted, drafting court filings (“ghost-writing”)
• • Drafting settlement agreements
• • Providing legal advice and opinions upon request
• • Legal research
• • Reviewing documents and agreements

A successful unbundled representation arrangement requires the following:

• • A client able to manage certain tasks customarily handled by lawyers
• • A written agreement clearly specifying the respective responsibilities of attorney and client
• • A client educated about how unbundled representation works, its benefits, and its limitations
• • Adherence to relevant state ethical rules and laws

Unbundled representation is not for every client or every case.  It has a number of potential downsides:

• • The line between the respective responsibilities of lawyer and client can become blurred, leading to confusion and tasks being neglected
• • In an arrangement limiting the lawyer’s role to providing advice, clients do not always know when to seek that advice, and thus may miss important guidance
• • Clients who feel they can handle, for example, a “routine” court proceeding may find out otherwise when they hit the courtroom
• • An unbundled representation lawyer who is responsible for only certain parts of a case may not be in a position to negotiate an overall settlement

To find out if, and the extent to which your state permits unbundled representation, visit the American Bar Association’s Pro Se/Unbundling Resource Center at:
http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbund.html

Learn more about how to maximize results and minimize costs
in Larry Sarezky’s new book Divorce, Simply Stated.
www.DivorceSimplyStated.com