Rule 1 on co-parenting: Do not talk about the other parent in an angry way

Do not say angry things about the other parent in a way that the kids will hear or find out about it. 

This is a particularly difficult rule.  Some states have classes that they require all parents to go through, which classes explain this principle in detail.  The problem is that we have a history of believing that "venting" is good for one's own psychological issues.  We feel like bottling up feelings is bad for you.  While this is true, the problem has been that our society has evolved, over the past 40 years, into a society where one is expected to disclose anything and everything to anyone who shows interest or curiousity.  There is a fine line between venting and starting gossip, and most people cannot recognize that line.

We watch TV shows and movies where people get together with their family and friends, and vent away.  The expectation, when you go out with pals and a divorce or separation is pending, is that you will tell all about the horrible things that happened in your house from your point of view, and your friends and family will be blindly supportive of your claims, even encouraging you to exaggerate them, all in the theory that they are doing right by you. 

Here is the problem with all this venting.  If you do it with anyone who has any connection with anyone who knows the kids, you can be sure the kids will eventually find out.  It does not matter if you have teens who are obsessed with their own friends and can't drag themselves away from the video games or cellphone, or if you have toddlers who do not understand the more adult language and concepts that you are using, the children will be curious about anything having to do with their own family (especially when the family is breaking up) and they will rouse themselves from the playstation or wake up from thier deep sleep and toddle down the stairs to eavesdrop.  Even if they are not ONLY safely tucked away in bed or in front of their playstation, but are totally out of the building when you are venting to your parents or the neighbors, their friends will tell them what THEY heard from thier own parents, and your kids will piece together how you feel about their other parent.  And if there are gaps in thier information, they will fill it in with the worst possible choices.

Their misunderstandings will be awful and evil.  They will believe that if there were disagreements about parenting, that perhaps their own presence in your lives caused the divorce.  They will believe if the two of you cannot agree about parenting time, that one of you has rejected them.  And if they ever overhear that you say, the other parent "left us", they will experience the same rejection and you are experiencing.  You do not want them feeling this way.

I know one woman who trashed her ex to family, friends, whoever would listen.  They had been happily married for 20 years and she is a strong woman, but to her her talk, behind closed doors, things were miserable and he was abusive.  The children were old enough to confirm to others that their mother was exaggerating, but their mother continued to be nasty.  The neighbors weren't sure what to think, but would not allow their children to visit this woman's children if they were at theri father's home, just in case.  Over the next few years, the friends and neighbors started to realize that something was significantly wrong in her household.  They  started refusing to let their children visit her children at her own house.  Before you know it, her children were never able to convince even their best friends to come visit.  This is not a good situation.  These popular kids spent the rest of their high school careers, avoiding spending weekend time at either parent's house, and ended up being the type of kids who are talked about when someone talks about a kid who hangs around with other families (and with the whispered comments, "they're from a broken home, you know".  This did not need to happen.  If that woman had gone to her pastor or to a therapist  (as she had been ordered to do), she would have resolved the need to be so venomous in her discussions that others would be that alarmed. 

Often, to you, a separation means that your home is now a safe haven for yourself.  It is not that for the kids.  The anger you feel against the ex is something they still feel present every day, even if there is no longer an opportunity for yelling daily.  And if every exchange of time with the kids is your only opportunity to talk to each other about divorce issues, and you choose to take that opporutnity while the children are there and waiting to bo to the other parents and settle into their lives at the other parent's house, then the children will actually witness every one of these angry communications between you.  And this is all they will witness between you.  For their sakes, find another way to communicate.  One the kids cannot eavesdrop on.  E-mail with a password protection that the kids cannot access.  For younger kids, a notebook with notes about what is going on, that you pass back & forth with the kid's backpack.  And for in front of the kids, find a way not to make your comments sound like you're sniping at each other, and not to overreact to comments that the other parent makes.  If the kid gets a rash and needs a particular lotion every 6 hours, then be careful about how you instruct the other parent on this need.  Find a way to do it that is neither demanding nor condescending.  If you are receiving information during the transfer of the children that bothers you, treat it as if it was meant to be helpful, not a condescending order.  Assume the other parent meant to do right by the kids, even if you know differently.  Do not allow this stuff to bother you.  The children are watching.

The children are also eavesdropping. 

The worst thing that can and will happen if you talk about the other parent in a nasty way, is that the kids, who have an understanding of heredity (after all, during better times, you didn't mind telling them that they got their artistic talent from Dad and their fashion sense from Mom), will believe that half of thier D"NA came from a person who is flawed, and perhaps they, also are flawed.

Rule 5 on co-parenting: enforcing parenting time

    So many people ask me how to withhold parenting time from their co-parent that it's not funny.  About 10% of the time, there is a serious problem that makes withholding parenting time necessary.  Violence or substance abuse causing severe neglect is a danger to the children and the children should be withheld.  But  that's rare.  Today I'm talking about the 90% who need to be talked down from a bad parenting decision: 
    Many separated parents would like to control the other parent's time at some point.  It's an ego thing.  They are the best parent.  The other parent has rejected them and therefore rejected the kids.  The kid loves them more and the other parent less.  Once you recognize that it's ego and stress over the separation, not good parenting, that is causing you to feel this way, you can stop looking for reasons to keep the kids away from the other parent and start looking for ways to encourage the parenting time. 
   Learn to recognize the excuses.  Maybe you heard that it is unfair to the kids to have two separate houses or maybe you believe the other parent is not a good parent.  Maybe you think it's good to withhold the kids when they are angry at the other parent or don't like the new stepparent.  Or there are grandparents who stick their noses in to encourage the anger in a misguided attempt to help.   
   Whatever the excuse, keeping the child from the other parent is bad for the child.  A study about a decade ago at Arizona State University showed that children are best served by having as close to equal time with each parent as possible.  If they have equal time with each parent, the other stuff is gravy.  Experts recommend similar rules in each household, but that is not a deal-killer.  The kids will not crumble if Mom's house has different rules from Dad's, just like the kids understand that there are different rules at Grandma's.  Usually kids are fine with two different houses, two beds, two sets of toys, etc.  Kids of intact families feel at home at grandma's home or at the summer home.  Some parents think a move is bad for the kids, but if they were still in an intact family and the move was to a nicer neighborhood or across the country for a better job, there would be no question that it would be ok for the kids.  The kids would fuss, the parents would do it anyways, and in the end, everyone would be happy.  The adjustments associated with divorce are no different.   
   Once you get over the idea that the kids now have two homes, try to find a regular, predictible plan.  This will help the everyone.  You parents can make real plans, the kids know what to expect.  Start early in enforcing the schedule.  Be willing to be reasonably flexible when occasional schedule changes arise.  If such a change is necessary, get it in writing and talk about it outside of the listening range of the curious kids.  Don't let them get the impression that they are the cause of your arguments, or that they have any right to control where they spend any given day or night.  On the issue of parenting time at least, present a united front that they cannot disobey.
        Never allow yourself to schedule activities to take place on the other parent's time.  If Britnee's mom asked if Suzy will sleep over and it's going to be your ex's weekend, give them your ex's phone number and explain that they need to arrange it with the ex.  It's a simple thing once you get used to doing it that way, and lets the ex be more involved in parenting.  Don't plan fun to take place in their absence and tempt them away from the other parent by talking about it.  And don't try to give them guilt about the time they spend with the other parent by telling them how awful you feel when they're gone.  They do not need to know this part of your personal life and don't need to have responsibility for your happiness.  Just be their parent and wish them a good time.
   Do not allow the kids to avoid time with the other parent.  You would not allow them to pitch a fit and avoid school or church or a visit to grandma's, so don't allow them to avoid the other parent by pitching a fit.  Do not allow the kids to think they have control.  Imagine if the kids got the impression that they can just leave whenever they get angry at you.  If you let them do this when they get angry with the other parent, it will eventually turn on you.  Never allow yourself the pride of feeling that you are their favorite, that you are the better parent, that the other parent's choices of activities or discipline are inappropriate, and therefore you are justified in defying the court ordered parenting time. 
    Do not use parenting time as either a reward or punishment.  Do not use it as a tactic in the divorce.  Do not allow excuses.  Even send the kids to the other parent if the kids are sick.  You may not believe the ex can be nurturing, but you should not withhold parenting time simply because you don't think the other parent can or will do what you think want them to do.  Let them do it, their own way.   
    No matter how much you hate your co-parent now that you are separated, no matter how much you hurt, you must find a way to avoid letting this hurt the kids.  Cooperate at least to the extent of enforcing the parenting time.  Good luck and if you have a specific situation you need help understanding, let me know.

10 general rules on separate co-parenting

Family and friends of divorcing people will share all the dirty tricks they know.  Some of these dirty tricks tell you how to use the children as little weapons, which will hurt the children.  You don't want to do this, but the tactics are deceptively easy and tempting.  Awareness of what is wrong with these tactics is the first step in avoiding them.  If there is danger to the kids from the other parent, real danger because of violence, or danger of serious neglect as a result of an addiction to a mind-altering substance, then keep the kids away from the other parent unless they are under active supervision or have proved that they have resolved the problem.  But for the 90% of parents where violence towards the children or extreme and dangerous neglect is not an issue, the following principals apply.   

   Think it through, do you REALLY want your children to be supporting you?  To be a weapon for you?  To spy on their parents for each other?  Or to try to be peacemaker between the two most important adults in their lives?  Is this what you envisioned when you became a parent? 

    I know you did not envision raising them in a broken home.  I KNOW that you had your own vision of how to raise them and your spouse (or ex) is ruining thas visions.  I know what a fool your ex has been.  But none of this justifies being anything other than a parent with them.

    We see it happening in movies, mothers who say, “you’re the man of the house, now”, as if somehow the eldest son is expected to fill Dad's shoes, raise the little ones, bring home the bacon.  The eldest does not understand the difference and is looking for Mom's cues.  If Mom says, "now you're Dad", this is very confusing and upsetting to the kids.  Or, “Mommy (or Daddy) left us”, which is rarely true.  They left you, not the kids.  And often if they have not seen the kids, it's because you and the kids are a package deal that they know will not help.  Or Dads who tell the kids, “tell Mom to buy your school clothes.  I can’t afford to even buy my own clothes because of child support.”  Or we see parents on TV arguing in front of the kids during the exchange of the children.  And it all seems so normal. 
    To some extent, it is normal.  There was likely arguing before the split, so this is simply a continuation, arguing whenever you see each other because now you so rarely see each other.   You need to fit the nastiness into that very limited amount of time that you are together, and usually the time you're together is when you're with the kids because you're split.  There is no more alone time for the arguments.  It feels so natural.  Arguing about them or in front of them feels normal as a marriage is breaking up.  But as soon as you can, stop it.  It hurts the kids.  Make some groundrules to prevent this.  You follow the rules even if your ex does not! 

1.  Do not talk to your coparent about the kids in an angry way, in front of the kids:  Speak about the kids only when the kids are not in earshot of either of you… meaning they’re at school or activities… even a kid who is glued to his Nintendo will pry himself from it to eavesdrop when he knows that HE is the topic of conversation on the phone in the kitchen! 
2.  Find a reliable way of communicating:  Try passing most notes either in a notebook in their backpack (when they are too young to read it all), or via e-mail.  Remember, kids snoop if they think it's about themselves 
3.  Beware of texts:  Try not to text because texts tend to be so short that they’re easily misunderstood.  At this point, where you’re breaking up, that short message style makes things worse if it sounds like you’re ordering the other parent to do something rather than asking or suggesting, as you must do now.  E-mails are perfect if you check your e-mail account frequently, read the things, and hit the “send” button only after thinking it through and editing it. 

    Witnessing angry communication between the parents can scar kids forever.  If they already saw enough while you were together, stop letting them witness it now.  Put it in writing.  But be careful.  Just as you do not want to see nude photos of yourself on the internet, you do not want embarrassingly nasty things there either.  That e-mail that you dashed off and sent at 2 am will be judged in the cool light of day by a judge deciding whether you are being unreasonable.  So think twice before hitting “send”.

4.   Do not let your children believe that they are "rejected".   I know your ex is a jerk.  There is a reason that you are separate now.  But you picked that person as a co-parent.  Maybe you even did it repeatedly.  There was a time in your life when you were willing to cooperate with them and felt it was in the best interests of the kids to spend time with that person.  Their commitment to the children has not changed.  Only their commitment to you.  It hurts, but their separation with you says nothing about their feelings towards the kids.  IF THEY WITHDREW FROM FAMILY EVENTS BEFORE THE SEPARATION, THAT WAS MORE ABOUT STOPPING THE UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATIONS THAN ABOUT REJECTING THE KIDS.  The person who was rejected was you, not the children!!!  As much as that hurts, try to understand it and hold the children away from your anger about the rejection. 
   Do not tell anyone that the other parent does not care about the kids.  They care in a different way than when they lived under the same roof as you, but they still care and you are not a good judge of whether that care is good enough.  If you privately feel that they are not caring enough, do not let the kids hear it.  Kids don't need to hear from you that you predict the other parent will be late to pick them up for parenting time.  When you say it, it implies that they don't love the children enough.  Do not ever let the children feel that the other parent's bad habits about being timely or reliable are a reflection of rejecting the children. 

5. Enforce parenting time.  Do not withhold the kids from the other parent for any reason.  Do not allow the kids to think they can ditch parenting time any more than you'd let them ditch school or church or time with their grandparents.  Parenting time is neither a reward nor a punishment.  It is not dependent upon you receiving money for it (a bribe), or planning exciting activities for the kids that you were informed about.  Parenting time is the kid's right and the parent's right, so do not interfere.  Oh, and you are not the police force who can force the other parent to follow through, you can only control your behavior and your children's.  No allowing the children to be lazy or fussy or simply think they can gain your favor by telling you that they don't want to go to the otehr parent's house, telling you that you are their favorite parent (tell them not to play favorites in some circumstances, such as parents don't have a "favorite" child, they should not have a "favorite" parent), or letting them pitch a fit to avoid spending time with the other parent.  Unless you have enough evidence of abuse or neglect to get CPS involved, the child needs to see the other parent. 
6.   No controlling what the other parent does:  You no longer have the right to control the other parent's actions with the kids.  You can only insist on whatever is in the parenting plan.  If the football team practices are important to you for the kid, make sure it's in the divorce decree so that the other parent is required to tke the child to the football practices during their parenting time.  If raising the children as vegetarians is important to you, write it into the decree before your ex changes thier mind and decides to start being a meat lover.  Assuming this stuff is not in the decree, understand that you will not be allowed to sign the kids up for extracurricular activities that take place during your ex's parenting time unless the ex agrees to take them to the activity.  You cannot force the ex to pay for activities you have scheduled for the kids.  You cannot insist that the ex take them to a certain place or avoid other places.  
    I have seen exes who are trying to control each other, find themselves thwarted by all kinds of nastiness.  Hair cutting, changing grooming choices, failing to follow a certain diet or extracurricular program are common ways of seeking revenge against a parent who is trying to control the other parent.  I even know more than one parent who tried to take kids to "therapy" behind the other parent's back (it usually backfires, read on) in an effort to get the kid to disobey the other parent (not telling the therapist the whole story and being able to get away to a certain extent because the other parent has been circumvented in this effort).  If the therapist is any good, they'll not allow this because they will not accept therapy of a kid in joint legal custody without both parents' consent. 
7.  No false or exaggerated criminal accusations:  Do not make false or exaggerated accusations of violence to try to get more time with the kids.  Using criminal accusations as a tactic in a custody battle is reprehensible and a clear sign of a form of child abuse known as "parental alienation".   
8.  No choosing sides, no bribery:  Tell the child that the other parent does love them and that they are never required to choose sides.  They are allowed to love you equally, but differently, just the way you love them equally, but respect their differences between each other.  Every kid tries to play one parent against the other, and kids of separated parents get the opportunity to succeed at this game more often than kids of intact families.  It is not good for them.  To avoid this, do not try to one-up the other parent in terms of fun or gifts given.  
   There has been a recent study that children of divorced parents have less financial assistance with college than children of intact families.  The realities of the finances in supporting two households is proposed as part of the reason for this phenomenon, but I wonder how much this other issue has to do with it... that the parents spend so much money during the children's childhood in trying to bribe the children away from the other parent, that there simply isn't enough money left to spend as much on college.  "Did DAD get you a X Box for Christmas?  No problem, I'll get you a Wii"... always doing bigger and better gifts than the kids would have gotten if the parents had still been together.  From the same amount of income, the kids are getting two different Christmasses, two sets of summer vacations, and two sets of clothing, one for each house.  Don't let this happen.  Kids can be bribed, but it's not best for them.  Be the parent, don't play the "who's your favorite?" game.  Sometimes, the true parent has to be the bad one, the disciplinarian, the one who teaches that money doesn't grow on trees and self control is a virtue.  That is not the fast ticket to being the favorite, but it will get your kid farther in the long run.  
   As separated co-parents, if you can avoid bribing the kids and teach the kids that they do not have to choose a favorite, then you are increasing your chances of ending up with more of a budget for the important things, like their education. 

9.  It does not matter if the other parent violates the rules:  Take the high road and follow these principals even if your ex does not.   Do not be the parent who uses the kids as a tactic in the divorce, as a little ATM machine, as a way to seek revenge.  Do not be the one who tells nasty stories about the ex or asks them to choose thier favorite.  Be the parent whose house is a safe haven from the anger. 
10.  Gossip hurts:  Be the parent who will not allow friends and family to vilify your child’s other parent.  Be the parent who does not let your kids’ family become the subject of gossip about what a jerk the ex is (understand that if you "vent" to their schoolmates' parents, their schoolmates will hear about it and so will your kids.  While "venting" may be popular as a psychologically good thing, it's not necessarily good to do it in a non-therapeutic environment).  "Venting" to the neighbors, is commonly known as "gossip".  Do not gossip about your kids' family.  Don’t let anyone else think they know things about what goes on behind closed doors in your own children's house.
    One parent I know who did not follow this advice ended up having the children's friends parents refusing to allow their children to visit this parent's children.  Over time, the neighborhood and school parents realized what a nasty household these children were raised in, and wanted to keep their own children away from the nastiness in that family's household.  This mother wanted to gain an advantage in the divorce and embarass her ex in front of thier frirends, and she ended up ruining her kids' social lives.  Her revenge backfired.  The kids are still working to recover. 

The results:  I have a good friend and former client who followed my advice on this.  It was not easy, her ex is one of the strangest people I know and their divorce was one of the most difficult ever.  But she religiously never vilified the ex in front of her kids and did not allow others to do so either.  Her ex tried every dirty trick in the book, including using the kids against her.  She stuck with it, won custody, and moved on.  Years later, her adult son approached her and asked why she never saw the bad in his father.  She explained that she had seen it, but it was not appropriate for him to see it through her eyes, that his father had to develop the parent-child relationship without her interference, so she actively worked to encourage the relationship.  She explained that the things that made his father difficult were not hereditary.  This young man is about as well-adjusted as any I have ever seen, recently accepted into a prestigious graduate school program, and still maintaining whatever relationship he chooses to have with his father, without having to choose BETWEEN his father and his mother.    

Legal ethics in a nutshell

    Despite that there are always at least one lawyer available to pursue and argue each side of any given case, it does not mean that we have no moral or ethical standards.  We are unusually open about our standards, publically arguing about them and we police ourselves so forcefully and vocally that you would think that we are always unethical.  However, this perception is excessive.  In a world where most professions are expected to close up and refuse to talk when questioned (often for fear of lawsuits), lawyers are notoriously open about revealing those in our profession who are flawed. 
    Every state has a system for disciplining lawyers.  Most often, states leave this in the hands of the lawyers, because we're harder on ourselves than any governmental disciplinary board would ever be.  But we require proof of unethical behavior before we're going to wreck someone's livelihood, and this requires something more than just that you did not win your case that you thought was a slam dunk, or that you had to pay your lawyer more than you think fair.  These things will be looked at in accordance with whether you signed a contract to pay a certain amount and whether something was done in the case that caused it to be lost (or whether your expectations about winning were excessive). 
    Most of the complaints I hear about other lawyers involve the price or the failure to win as much as expected, or the loss of the case entirely.  However, the bar association tells us that the most frequent justified complaints, however, are about the lawyers failing to communicate with the client.  This tells us that a lot of people have high hopes of winning big while paying little, which hopes are not justified by the case.  Maybe the lawyer should have been better at communicating these issues, and that might have averted misunderstandings about fees or the strength of the case, but the bottom line is that usually when the bar examines a complaint about fees or failure to win a case, the result is often that the fee is justified or the failure to win is appropriate, meaning that the client had unreasonable expectations.
    Lawyers have an ethical responsibility to zealously advocate for our clients, but we also have a duty to give our clients information about the process, give them realistic understanding of what is likely to happen, and keep them informed of the costs along the way. 
    We try, but we are faced with optimistic clients who take our confidence in court as if it their case is a slam dunk, and they close their ears when we are talking business or trying to give them the reality behind the scenes.  When we go to court, we must give the perception of confidence.  If we let our concerns show, the judge and jurors will wonder if we are justified about our concerns, and not give us the result we want based upon our behavior rather than the facts of the case.  Some clients get caught up in the show of confidence, and close their ears to anything else.
    Many of us write lots of disclaimers.  And many clients fail to read what we've written or fail to ask about it when they do not understand.  It is your lawsuit and your fees that we are talking about, and we try to explain it, but if you do not read what we've given you and do not ask what you do not understand, we will not be disciplined when it does not go as you hope.  Usually, when I am talking to a person who is disappointed in a lawyer they had before they approached me, I find out that it is because they listened to the part they wanted to hear, and let the details slide.
    Which is not to say that there are not some lawyers who have done wrong things.  I have been opposing counsel against some attorneys who have been disbarred, and have taken over cases from attorneys whose clients left them after some unethical behavior, who have since been sanctioned for that behavior.  But this is very rare.  The more common situation is a simple misunderstanding, the failure to listen, the unrealistic hope that the lawyer can perform miracles for cheap.
    And the moral?:  Ask questions.  Don't expect something for nothing.  Do not agree to a contract that you do not understand.  Read and understand the stuff your lawyer gives you, and do the homework your lawyer asks for.

There are ways to manage your relationship with your lawyer and your case, without making a mess of it or making it more expensive than necessary.  We'll discuss that in another post.

why personal injuries are never worth as much as the victim wants

    Wayne just broke his leg, so people are commenting about how lucky it is that his wife is a lawyer.  He slipped on ice in a church parking lot and they probably have deep enough pockets, probably insurance, and since they had removed the snow, they had a duty to remove it properly, meaning to spread out sand or salt to prevent accumulation of new ice on the lot.  So it seems clear that he could win the lawsuit lottery with this, right?  

    Wrong.  We thank God his injuries are limited to his leg.  A slip and fall of that variety often causes spine and head and arm injuries as well.  And we thank his daughter for convincing us all that the new definition of "responsible" is to carry your cellphone at all times or he might have been laying in the freezing cold parking lot until someone discovered him.  While it is excruciatingly painful and has required surgery with a titanium rod placed in it, this slip and fall could have been a lot worse.  He had to take off work, but we are promised that he will be back to speed soon, barring complications.  As long as all goes well, his injuries will not be our new retirement plan and the neighborhood church will not have to go bankrupt over making my husband whole.
    Let me go through the process of determining whether you are going to win the lawsuit lottery so that others have a chance of understanding the situation.  First, we determine the financial amount of actual damages.  That will be the full price of the emergency, hospital, doctor and followup services, plus the price of the time off work, plus any other services needed to make him whole.  This is the actual damages.  Second, we look at his pain and suffering.  Typically, this will be measured not by the subjective amount of pain he feels that he has suffered, because everyone would feel that thier own injury was worth the highest value of suffering possible if that was the measuring stick.  Typically, you take the value of the financial damages and multiply that by some factor (and that depends upon the local custom, generally), and that will be the price fo the damages.  The theory is that the amount of suffering is higher if the amount of medical and therapy services you had to receive was higher. 

    Then your lawyer will look to see if there are special things about this injury and this person that would justify higher value of loss.  For example, is he a football player about to play in the Superbowl and loses this opportunity because of the break?  My own "man of steel" will not get compensated for having a titanium rod placed in his leg a week before the superbowl because he is not playing in it.  We may miss a superbowl party for the pain, so that might be compensable, but we will not be winning the lottery over this. 

    It occurs to me that many people are misled by big headlines about seemingly huge lawsuits based upon what we think of as stupid or small injuries.  It's easy to envision your car wreck as your new retirement plan when you hear about someone suing for multi-millions over having gained weight for eating fast food, or winning millions for spilling hot coffee on themselves.  I call it the “lawsuit lottery”, because people are hoping for lottery sized winnings off a minor accident.  The problem is that in reading the headlines of seemingly minor injuries, we do not see the pain and work behind them.  We do not see the months of therapy, the time in life lost because of third degree burns, or the extensive discovery process that proved the restaurant knew they were playing with fire (almost literally) by keeping their coffee excessively hot, in an effort to entice some customers.  We do not get to see the awful stuff the jury saw that convinced them that their decision was fair, so it is not fair for us to second-guess it. 

    You can be sure that personal injury cases are not a big payoff for a person who is not seriously injured by behavior that was not highly irresponsible.  The bottom line is to make you whole, compensate you for the time and enjoyment you lost while recovering, not turn you into a lifetime member of the jet-set. 

    When looking for a personal injury attorney, please ask about their realistic evaluation of the case and not accept optimistic promises without a reasonable explanation about how they intend to get it.  Million dollar wins are usually only possible when your injuries are very serious, when someone has died, and your life is irreparably damaged.  You do not want to be this person.  This is suffering beyond a few days in the hospital and an uneventful recovery from that time.  The people who win big awards have suffered big pain, and will continue to suffer, and hopefully, that will not happen to my husband, which does not mean he should not get compensated, just that we do not expect a huge, life-altering reward for his slip and fall case.

   OK, so how do we evaluate the price of pain and suffering if it's not worth a billion dollars, it certainly is worth something, is it not?  Well, we usually take the amount of financial damages and multiply it by some factor that seems reasonable based upon what local juries are likely to give.  If you have $5,000 worth of medical bills and rehabilitation services, then you probably spent quite a lot less time in pain and off work than if you had $500,000 worth of medical bills and rehab services out of the case.  So the way they determine pain and suffering is based upon hte price of the services you needed to get back to normal.  If you cannot get made whole, but instead suffered permanent injuries, there will be a value built in for that.  Think of this value as similar to the schedule you might have seen in a disability policy… X thousand for a lost limb… X thousand for a lost finger,… X thousand for loss of sight.  Each type of injury has a different generally expected value, and unless you're a superbowl super kicker, the loss of your leg is not likely to be valued at any higher than the standard.  

    Your lawyer's job will be to calculate the total value of the financial damages, and find any area where your own suffering is special and exceeds the standard version of suffering, then negotiate with the insurer while preparing for trial, to convince the insurer that you deserve some value more than their standard number.  It will be your lawyer's job to know what that standard number is, and look for ways to get more.  This is not the type of thing a person can reasonably do for themselves without the assistance of a lawyer.  Luckily, most lawyers will take personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning that they don't get paid unless you get paid, and you do not have to pay anything up front. 
    In most cases, your personal injury settlement will not be enough to burn the mortgage and quit your job, but every finanlized settlement is certainly worth a glass of champagne, because it means that the time of being a victim is over, and time to live your life has returned.   Only someone who has been caught up in a difficult lawsuit could really understand the value of having a nice, normal, boring day of life. 

    It is hard, when you are the one who did the suffering, to envision someone realistically placing a dollar value on the suffering, and no dollar value seems to be high enough when the suffering is YOURS, but this is what insurers and attorneys do every day, and so understand that they will talk numbers that sound more like giving you extra compensation for the time you had to take off work, and paying for your crutches, than like paying off your house and car.  No one will ever be able to make it as if the accident never happened, but insurers and attorneys are there to find a number that will reasonable help you out.  Do not hesitate to call one, but be prepared to understand that your loss will be judges against all other losses that have come before you, and may not be worth as much as you hope.   

Keeping costs down

OK, I promised this in part of a previous post, so here goes:

First thing to keep costs down is to get the lawyer before you are in over your head.  Lawyers make a ton of money fixing problems that you created by handling your litigation in wrong ways.  If you thought that you’re good at paperwork so you’ll just handle all that and bring in a lawyer at the last minute, understand that by the time you look for a lawyer, most of us will not take on your case because we know the problems that are about to befall you and we don’t want you to blame us for it.  The alternative is for us to take on the case, do triple the amount of work to get things up to speed and hope the judge does not sanction us or you for gaps in the paperwork.  That triple the amount of work is going to cost you, because it takes our time, and our time costs you money.

Second, prioritize your issues and consult with your lawyer about whether the value of an issue is worth the price it will cost to present it.  Discussing it with your lawyer can help you decide whether or not it can be used to support your position in a different issue and therefore has more value than simply the price of winning the item, or whether the likelihood of winning makes it not worth the time taken to present it.  We understand that when you’re thinking about your issues, every one of them seeks equally important, but 20 years ago, people spent thousands fighting over large console TV sets, record collections or VCR tape collections, and today these people would rather have fought over the retirement savings, because their old electronics are obsolete today.

Third, schedule your consultations with your lawyer ahead of time and send a list of questions or agenda items.  You get a clearer answer and waste less time in the phone call (and being charged by the 10^th of an hour, you don’t want to waste that lawyer’s time), if the lawyer has an idea of what the call will be about and is able to prepare, accordingly.  Don’t expect your lawyer to have definitive answers to most of your questions off the top of their head without review of the file or a little legal research.  Don’t expect them to have definitive answers, ever, to some things, but you’ll have a better idea of whether this is a question that has a clear answer or not, if you give your lawyer a chance to look it up rather than try to answer off the top of their head.

Fourth:  be the best possible client available.  Do not pay your bills late.  Do not show up to meetings or court late.  When the lawyer says they want your past credit card statements, ask “how many”, and when the lawyer says “5 years worth”, don’t fuss and try to cut it down, don’t fiddle around and delay getting them because you have not been a good record keeper (most people lose or toss their records quickly).  Simply get on the phone and call your credit card company, ask what it will take to get a copy of all those statements, and if they say that you need to write a notarized letter and pay $.50 a page for the statements, do it and pay it.  It will cost a ton more money if you have your lawyer do it and if your lawyer has to pay for it.  Heck, even just getting the additional paperwork from you to prove to the credit card company that the lawyer is authorized to get a copy of your credit card statements is going to cost you.  If you do it yourself, you keep costs down.  And when you get the statements, if you have an idea of what the lawyer is looking for, then organize the statements.  Don’t just dump them on th lawyer’s desk in a pile unless you want to pay for the time the lawyer has to take to shuffle through them and arrange them.  For every hour you spend doing this, you’re probably saving at least 2-3 hours worth of legal fees, because you have a better idea what you’re looking for and what you’re looking at.  After all, these are records of your life, not your lawyers’.  You are the best expert in finding them and explaining them to your lawyer, so do it, as big of a pain in the neck as it is, simply do it.  Or understand that you will be paying that $200-500 an hour for your lawyer to do it for you!  Oh, and please don't write on things, put sticky notes on them, put little easily removeable tabbies to help find them, but this stuff might become evidence, it might be disclosed to the other side, and we don't want your private notes on them. 

Finally, Fifth:  ASK.  Don’t direct us on what to do without asking first.  A client who comes in and says, “I want alimony, that’s the most important thing,” will get their lawyer fighting for alimony.  Some lawyers will advise, “I think you’ve got a better shot in your case if we look to get a bigger property settlement”, but if you don’t listen, or if they simply follow your directions and don’t review all of your other options with you, then you may lose your case and lose opportunities you didn’t even know you had. 

The client who wins is the one who says, “I’ve got a problem”, explains it, and then asks the lawyer what the options are, and spends the lawyers time making sure they understand the alternatives before making the decision.  And if the lawyer does not explore the option the client was hoping for, the client asks about it.  That client wins.  The client who walks in and says, “Please write this letter on your letterhead for me,” will get a letter, but may lose opportunities to solve their real problems because have walked into the lawyer’s office with a specific task for the lawyer, without intending to get the lawyer’s expertise about which is the best option.  And paying $200-500 an hour for someone to put your words on their letterhead without at least asking for their expert advice, is foolish. 

Rule interpretation

I recently heard from a potential client who thought we could make a ton of money.  He heard that Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), any time a debt collector violates any provision of it, the debtor could sue and get $1,000 plus attorney’s fees.  He figured his doctor’s office violates this act frequently, and we could make a killing! 

                Here’s my answer:   It’s not as easy as it sounds.  And in this situation, it’s not going to work.  The (FDCPA) does not penalize original creditors, it penalizes third party debt collectors who were hired for the purposes of debt collection or who purchased the debt from the creditor.  If the people calling are the original creditors, we won’t get the penalty.  My potential client’s theory was that the billing manager at his doctor’s office who is making the calls, so he considered that to be a third party debt collector.  Unfortunately, he was wrong.  The definition of a third party debt collector is clear in a different section of the statute, and it specifically excludes employees of the original creditor. 

                This is the danger of reading a piece of a statute, and thinking you know how to proceed.  It takes someone who has worked closely with statutes and regulations to understand them.   In this case, it was not so difficult.  Lawyers hear this one all the time.   It’s a definition that many people get hung up on the first time they hear about the FDCPA, and there are lots of non-lawyers out there putting their ideas into blogs and forums.  It’s kind of exciting, as a consumer, to hear that debt collectors aren’t allowed to do this and that, and they can get fined $1,000 per time for violating the FDCPA… people talking about the FDCPA and thinking, “I’ve got an idea”… and telling each other all about it… Lawyers hear this all the time, this particular idea, and it’s the same answer every time. 

                No one should feel bad about getting sucked into believing something like this.  It’s an easy mistake.  That’s why you consult a lawyer before taking action.  This problem is easy to resolve by reviewing definitions.  Most attorneys, even those who do not usually work with this statute, should know to review the definitions section of the statute before proceeding.  However, not all statutory questions are easily resolved by reviewing a “definitions” section.  Most statutes and regulations are drafted in a way that requires the reader to flip the pages back & forth to find the proper process.  It’s not as easy as reading a procedure from item one to item ten, and finding a ten step process that’s easy to follow.  It often requires reading through to item 10, then flipping to item 15 then back to item 4B, then 3D(15)a. iii.  After a while, you wonder if you’re missing something.  You’ve got a thousand little flags on the pages of your book.  So you have to go through it 3 or 4 times before you can be sure. 

                And once you’re sure, you talk to someone else who asks whether you took at look at the section before the one you’re looking at, because they think it applies and you’ve been chasing down a procedure meant for a different circumstance.  So you’re back to square 1. 

                I remember getting a copy of the Internal Revenue Code in law school, and being certain that I’d never find my way around it.  It consisted of several thick paperback volumes in small print on very thin paper, practically tissue paper, so that it could be small enough to fit on a single shelf of a bookshelf.  A large backpack was barely big enough to use to tote the stupid thing around.  I hated it.  After working with it for a while, though, all of us students in the class developed two things… an appreciation for the complexity of the concepts, and an appreciation for the roadmap needed to negotiate around the code.  After a while, you may not have all the answers, but at least you know where to look to find them.

                After three years of similar experiences, law students go out into the world and make a living by following an interpreting statutes and regulations, and we spend our lives looking for new clauses and exceptions and negotiating our way around them.  It’s our idea of fun (an odd idea, but after you’ve lugged around the Internal Revenue Code for a semester, anything that does not require carrying it on your back as you walk back & forth to class, sounds like fun).  If we litigate for a living, you’ll find us arguing over it.  If we draft contracts for a living, you’ll find us putting little tabs in our books over it, and if we legislate for a living, LOOK OUT, you’ll find us CHANGING the rules and looking for even more complex ways of doing it.

                This is why the smart layperson seeks the help of a lawyer whenever a statute is involved in something they want to do.  If the thing is worth doing, then it’s worth paying for an attorney to do a little research to find out if it’s viable under the statute.  I did not charge for the consultation on this one.  The issue was too easy and I’d dealt with it too often.  I told my potential client to keep thinking, though.  I don’t mind potential clients who have ideas and come to me for a review and analysis of their idea about whether a statute can help them, as long as they don’t mind paying for my time in reviewing it.  Next time he comes for help, I suggested he bring me something challenging enough to interest me… the FAR, for example, now THERE is a fun and challenging set of rules to navigate around. 

That Tiger Mother

Dear Gretchen  I’ve just read that Tiger Mother article and I’m so angry I could spit.  Before I go off the deep end, please give me your take on it.

Answer:  For those who don’t know what we’re talking about, Amy Chua has a recent book out, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother , which is a memoir of her life as a mother with a specific ethinc background.  It is not a myth that children of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. are more successful academically, and she explores possible reasons for this with her memoir.   Then the Wall Street Journal took the most explosive passages from the book and reprinted it for review.  And boy, has it been reviewed!

Take a deep breath and do not think of this book as a challenge to your own parenting style.  There is nothing that you need to defend.  If you have happy, healthy children, you’ve done a good job.  Every parent has some self doubt, wondering if they could have done better, and the Tiger Mom book has really triggered that feeling of self doubt along with a feeling that people need to defend themselves and their parenting style… there is no need for that.  Let’s take this book for what it is:  It’s Amy Chua’s exploration of her own self doubt, and conclusion that her own parenting style is, like yours, not evil. 

And her style was on the extremely strict side of the strict-permissive scale, so it is worth examining, particularly since there are documented differences in the scholastic outcome.  And I have to say that every parent hopes their own way is best, and every parent has experienced a moment where their child blames them for all the problems and disappointments of the world.  You cannot help but wonder, at these moments, whether you made mistakes.  Don’t worry about it, you did make mistakes.  Everyone does.  Perfection in parenting is not possible.  Even Jesus parents lost track of him and let him wander around, teaching.  Imagine a family today who were on a journey and took different routes, forgetting their teen for long enough that it was noticeable?  It would probably start a firestorm of controversy over how old a kid should be before you let them travel alone.  CPS would be called, and someone would have to decide whether to prosecute the parents for leaving the child alone. 

EVERYONE makes mistakes.  Amy Chua examines her mistakes and comes to the realization that her parenting style, taken as a whole, gave her daughters the kind of leg up in life that she wanted them to have, so she is satisfied at the results.  For other parents, the highest priority goal might not be academic achievement, and for them, a different parenting style is appropriate. 

Chua also explores her mistakes from the point of view of understanding and defending them.  I suspect this is where she offended most people, because defense of her methods ends up in some instances as a criticism of other methods, and if you have already chosen a different path, one of the other methods, it feels bad to hear this.  You have an emotional commitment to your choices, and to hear someone else criticize your choices creates anger (and sometimes, self-doubt).  So for a minute please put away the anger and self doubt and let’s look at a few main concepts.  It’s hard to do, because it feels like listening to this is an admission that your own style was not good and perhaps that your own children are not perfect.  Let me reassure you, your children are no less perfect now than they were before this book was published.  But for those moments when you worry that you maybe made a mistake, it would not hurt to open your mind to consider incorporating some of these methods into their repertoire, while not necessarily changing your entire lifestyle to fit the Tiger Mom style, and while not changing your goals to the Tiger Mom goals. 

Ms. Chua says the Chinese child-rearing method is autocratic, more concerned about pushing the kids to achievement with the goal that accomplishment would be its own reward and self-esteem was not necessarily something to teach, as it would follow from accomplishment.  She demonstrates her belief that this is a harder path to follow, as a parent, as it requires hyper-attention to the child, and requires the parent to stand in the background, pushing and demanding more work.  This is not a parent who could come home from work and ask, “honey, did you finish your homework”, and simply believe the child’s report.  This parent will have checked with the teacher about what homework was in the lineup, and will review the child’s work after school to make sure it was done.  And if this child has successfully completed today’s assignments, this parent will insist that the child work ahead, or do extra credit.  And if there is idle time after this is done, there are other self-improvement and learning activities to attend to.  No television, texting, or excessive phone time allowed for these children, which means the parents, likewise, have no free time to sit & watch Top Chef.  I do not know that I would want to be this intense, intrusive of a parent in my child’s life. 

Tiger Moms are less interested in the social development of their children than in the academic development, and less interested in supporting self esteem for the sake of self esteem, than they are in demonstrating that satisfaction in one’s self is a natural response to achievement of a difficult goal.  This strikes a chord with me.  For years, I’ve been concerned that our western society has been promoting pride without accomplishment, “attitude” without justification.  Being a “diva” is something to take pride in.  Self-love is more important than achievement, and “I deserve it”, means that “because I am a human being, I deserve it”, rather than “I earned it by working hard at something that would justify it” (whatever, “it” is.)

Chua’s report of Western parenting suggested that we permitted failure and would not punish it for fear of damaging a child’s fragile psyche and self esteem.  She speculates that perhaps the difference is that Chinese mothers believe their children to have high talent and inner strength and simply need to be pushed to achieve, while American parents start from the premise that children are fragile and must be coddled and enticed to achievement. American parents whose children do not achieve, express doubt in the children’s basic abilities, and rather than push the child to improve their performance, will accept that this is as good as the child can do and divert the child to some other activity.

Our education system has encouraged this doubt in our children’s abilities.  Somewhere along the line, we started rigging classrooms so that there were no more failing grades and students could get passed along to eventually get their diplomas, whether or not they had learned anything.  There are occasional scandals where someone who has been passed up the ladder at school without ever learning basic math or reading skills, where children made it to and through high school with severe learning disabilities that could have been resolved if recognized and addressed.  But for the most part, these things go on every day without causing a scandal.  The parents are abdicating their responsibility to raise the kids to the schools, and the schools are assuming that if the kids were capable, they’d be performing, and the schools will not become Tiger Mom to their students.  The parents will not push.    The teachers will not push.  And the kids miss getting the work ethic that made our country so successful. 

I think the lessons from Tiger Moms might be that we need to pay more attention to the academics, trust that the kids are capable of performing and not allow failure.  We might not want to re-define failure as anything less than an A+, because that kind of attitude results in grade inflation.  Not everyone can get an A, some people will get a C, and we need to stop considering average performance to be defined as a “failure”, but I agree with her idea that maybe American parents are focused on the wrong things. 

Self esteem is so much truer when it comes through real accomplishment, than when it comes from Mom telling the school that she’s going to sue them if they don’t pass the child along despite failing grades.  Perhaps it would be good for us to return the focus to achievement and to spend a little less time supporting feelings of self worth that are not backed by achievement.    

Do I need a lawyer?

Dear Gretchen:  How do I tell if I need a lawyer for my divorce?

Answer:   Start with being really honest with yourself. 

Do you have the time to devote to your case, including learning the law.  If your lawyer would spend 40 hours of time on your case from start to finish, expect that you’ll spend at least 10 times that, just to find the things and understand the things that the lawyer already knows and has at their fingertips.   And don’t expect to be able to learn enough to handle the contested issues.  If you find yourself unable to agree upon everything with your ex, and end up having to get a judge to make the decisions, expect that you’ll only be able to present the most basic of information and hope that you’ve done enough to get the judge to decide in your favor.   Just because “it’s fair” is not usually enough for you to win.  And understand that when you pay a lawyer, you’re paying for all the stuff that they can say to back up the general principle that “it’s fair”.  This is the difference between putting a band aid on a cut and putting in stitches.  If you do not have the training to put stitches in, you probably won’t try to do it.  

Have there been any accusations of violence on either side?  Or any other improper behavior?  If so, then you are in a very precarious position to try to resolve things on your own.  You are not credible when making new or counter-accusations if someone thinks it involves gaining an advantage in the divorce, and to say it on your own sometimes puts you in a bad position for other legal proceedings.  You have the right to remain silent, which means that someone else needs to do the talking for you.  That someone must be licensed to practice law, and you want them to be, because there are too many mistakes available that could get you into deep trouble.  This is the case whether you’re the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim.  You could easily put your foot in your mouth.  Many areas of the country have options for victims to get a free attorney if you cannot afford one… this would be through a charitable organization, as the government generally does not provide the lawyers for private divorces, but the alleged perpetrator needs a lawyer also and does not get a free lawyer.  If there is an accusation of violence, both parties need a lawyer and at least one of them will be paying for the lawyer.  If you cannot find, borrow, or raise the money for one, you are highly likely to lose more than just the divorce if you try to proceed without a lawyer.   To try to handle this without a lawyer would be like the difference between putting a bandaid on a cut on your own arm, and putting stitches in.  Remember, if you do not have the training to put stitches in your arm in the first place, that’s just one hurtle, this time, even if you had the training, you’re missing the use of a hand to help get the stitches in.  You can’t work with both hands, you’re even more hampered in getting those stitches in.  You’re more likely to end up with bigger injuries if you try it yourself.  Same with trying to be your own lawyer if there have been allegations of violence.

Are you the world’s best organizer?  If you need a lawyer, being disorganized can cause the rates to raise (as the lawyer will have to do some of those things for you at their own hourly rate), but if you do not have a lawyer, being disorganized can lose your entire case for you.  I know people who were reasonably organized and cooperating with each other, but in the end the judge would not finalize the divorce because they did not see one of the steps in the self service center and missed it.  They were not divorced and had to come to me for help in getting it done.  As it was, we had to start over from the beginning because the step they missed was one of the first steps in the process.  And they found themselves paying not only for my services, but also a second set of filing fees.  They would have been better off bringing their settlement to me in the first place and letting it get properly documented and filed, doing it only once and getting it over with, rather than having to start a new waiting period from start to finish.  I often get calls from people who did not follow up the way they should, and ended up losing their retirement savings, the house, and/or huge ongoing alimony payments.  These problems are always much more expensive if you have to hire a lawyer to fix them after you’ve messed them up.  IF they can be fixed, which often they cannot be fixed once you’ve messed it up.  Being organized does not solves your problems if the law is not on your side, but even when you think you’ve got a slam dunk case on the legal issues, you can lose everything if you do not follow through properly, procedurally.   This would be like thinking you’ve done enough research to know how to stitch up a wound on your own, getting it done, and then finding out that the thread you used, because you were inexperienced at doing it, is going to cause a deeper infection.  Maybe the wound was in your own arm and the only person to suffer an infection is yourself.  But what if this person is going to be your children? 

Do you have difficult issues to negotiate that even a cooperative person would have difficulty with?  Child custody and visitation issues can be easy or they can be hard, it depends upon whether you already agree on how to raise the kids.  If you fundamentally disagree with what your ex wants to do with the kids, (i.e., they are too lenient and you believe the kids need more discipline), then it’s going to take some professional help to resolve these issues.  A lawyer can help you get into a position where you can force your ex into cooperating with a professional.  Very difficult issues can involve non-custody situations as well, such as questions about alimony or division of debts or a family –run business.   How about how to separate when the house payments take both salaries to live on?  These issues sometimes require the help of a lawyer or mediator (many lawyers also mediate, as do I), to resolve them.   To try to handle the difficult issues on your own is not like trying to simply stitch a wound on yourself… it’s more like trying to do complex surgery on yourself.  Even an experienced surgeon wouldn’t try it.  And most lawyers do not handle their own complex divorces.  It’s not because they’re so rich that they don’t mind throwing money away on an unnecessary expense while their lives are being ripped in half… and it’s not because their buddies are giving them a great discount (lawyers won’t discount the complex cases even for their good friends),  it’s because they know better.  They go to court often enough to know the damage that can be caused by someone trying to handle their own complex divorce.  If the best way to learn how to handle your own divorce is to look at what lawyers do in complex divorces, take the example of what a lawyer will do in THEIR OWN complex divorce.  They will hire another lawyer to do it for them. 

One last question:  Are you and your ex both emotionally capable of cooperating to come up with a disposition to the issues?  If not, then are you willing to lose on those issues?  About 10% of the population has some psychological problem that makes it impossible for them to negotiate or handle things in a cooperative way.  Of course this means that it makes living with them difficult, so they’ll often find themselves getting divorced unless they were lucky enough to marry an unusually obedient/acquiescent person.  And when they get divorced, there’s usually drama, unfairness, and excess pain associated with it.  If you are married to one of those people, prepare for things to get worse before they get better, but it’s worth going through to get out before they get worse at home anyways.  In situations where you or your ex are unwilling to negotiate, a divorce lawyer is needed to avoid losing everything.  Even if you and your ex don’t normally have psychological problems that prevent amicable settlement, sometimes the circumstances of a divorce can push one or the other of you over the edge.   Think of trying to perform surgery on someone who is squirming around and refusing to settle down… or every time they do settle, they screech and yank away the minute you’ve got the needle halfway through.  But worse, to keep my medical analogy going, think of this as if you’re letting your ex perform surgery on you.  They’re angry, not happy, not able to cooperate, and you’ve left yourself unprotected by trusting them to do it rather than hiring a professional.  Not a smart move when you think it through.

I know some people are worried about the anger that seems to show up whenever a lawyer is in the picture, or the money that they might have to spend on a lawyer.  As for the anger, just tell your lawyer that you want to be amicable.  If it's possible to keep it amicable, your lawyer will be able to do it, but your lawyer will also be able to protect you if your ex becomes unreasonable.  As for the money, there are ways to keep costs down, but this is a necessary expense… just as necessary as a doctor is if you develop appendicitis, and your insurance says they won’t cover it based upon some technicality.  If you do not spend the money on a lawyer, you may end up without a roof over your head.  

We’ll talk about how to keep costs down in another post. 

Dating after divorce

Dear Gretchen:  I am ready to get back to the dating scene but afraid of making another mistake.  Do you have some quick tips to help me avoid mistakes?

Answer:  Quickly after becoming a divorce lawyer, my list of dating tips became anything but “quick”, but I’ll try.   There is an advantage to dating after divorce, and that’s that you and your dating partner are older now, you’ve got a few years worth of adulthood added to what you had the last time you were doing this, and both you and your potential romantic partners have track records in life.  An experienced adult is no longer just a kid full of possibilities and dreams and whose history includes one little mistake of shoplifting or having an ill-advised past relationship… as experienced adults, they’ve either proven to be hard workers or they’ve succumbed to addictions.  They’ve been job hoppers or business owners, and if they’re owner of a start up business, at least they have a record of whether or not they’ve been successful in previous ventures.  They may have 3 failed marriages or one long term relationship that failed without drama.  Look for someone’s track record to show you whether or not they’re going to be compatible with you.  On to the specifics:

First:  Figure out what caused your divorce in the first place.  Did you pick someone who was not compatible or were you not ready for a relationship at the time you started the last one?  Are you picking jerks or spendthrifts or job hoppers?  Is the thing that excites you (power or enthusiasm, for example), correlated with something that will be a deal breaker for a long term relationship (sometimes a person who is abusive seems powerful at first… and sometimes enthusiasm is a symptom of manic-depressive disorder).  If you can dissect what caused the previous relationship to fail, and be honest with yourself about the part you played in the failure of the relationship, then you have a better chance at making the next one work.

Second:  Think through what you want in a mate.  Have a short list of absolutes and deal breakers and a long list of “it would be nice if”s.  Do a little soul searching here.  Look at the list and check… are you being superficial?  Are you paying attention to character and long-term traits, or are you looking for things that will disappear as you mature?  Try to make your absolute “must-haves” list to have more important characteristics than superficial issues.  Include things about education, financial choice making, family making goals.   Invariably, if a person who wants a “generous” mate marries someone who wants a “financially responsible” mate, they’ll end up with trouble.  The one who seeks generosity will seem like a spendthrift to the financially responsible one.  The one who wants a financially responsible mate will seem like a stingy miser to the generous one.  It rarely works.  Don’t look for someone whose characteristics solve your problems, but look for someone whose characteristics are compatible with yours.

Third:  Clean house.  Literally and figuratively.  Prepare your home and your presence for a visitor who might be your next mate.  Do you want them seeing how you live in the midst of your initial post-divorce slump?  If Mr. Right were at the grocery store this weekend when you are shopping, will he be interested or is your manner saying “stay away”, with the ugly “laundry day” clothes and no make-up?  Become the person you envision your future mate falling in love with, or get a start on the process of becoming that person.

Fourth:  Don’t reject people for not being right for you.  Look at it as an opportunity to practice flirting.  Let them know that you’re not interested in taking it further, because leading someone on is bad karma, it is a wrong approach to take with others and you never want anyone to take it with you… but if they’re willing to hang out and talk and flirt and keep each other company, this is your opportunity to practice.

Fifth:  Once you have a candidate, look at how they treat their parents, because that is how they’ll treat you when you’re old or sick.  Pay attention to how they treat waitresses, because that’s how they’ll treat you when you’re waiting on them.  And pay attention to how they’ll treat their exes, because that’s how they’ll treat you when they’re angry at you.  Choose someone who treats people well even when they don’t need to impress the person.  It’s not enough that they treat girlfriends and friends and bosses and co-workers well.  If they treat people well when they don’t have to do so, they’re a good bet.

And finally, Sixth:  Anything that’s important to you, check it out.  If you have talked about retirement plans, look at the most recent IRA and 401K statements for each other.  If they say the ex was abusive and the truthfulness of this statement is important to you, get proof.  Before you take the next step and make a commitment, you should have met their family and friends, you should have seen their house and seen them at work.  You should have spent time in each other’s homes.  Your friends should like them and their friends should like you.  Failure to do this means something missing in your understanding of each other.