The Glamorous Grind
The Glamorous Grind is where bold legal minds meet unfiltered conversations. Join hosts Ilona Antonyan and Mila Arutunian—powerhouse attorneys at Antonyan Miranda—for this dynamic podcast as they dive into headline-making lawsuits, past cases, and the hustle of balancing career, family, and ambition. With fascinating guests, including celebrities, business leaders, and former clients, Ilona and Mila keep it raw, real, and always glamorous.
The Glamorous Grind
The Price of Peace: What Divorce Really Costs
In the premiere of Season 2 of The Glamorous Grind, attorneys Ilona Antonyan and Mila Arutunian sit down with family law expert Nicholas Moore for a raw, insightful look at the emotional and legal minefields of family court and juvenile dependency cases.
What happens when CPS knocks on your door? When does emotional abuse become a legal case? And what does “full custody” really mean?
In this episode, you’ll hear:
- The real legal process behind CPS and juvenile court
- Red flag vs. green flag scenarios in custody and separation
- How recovery from addiction is treated in family law
- Strategic insights for victims of domestic violence
- Why rushing to court without counsel can backfire
- And what every parent needs to know about their legal rights
Whether you’re navigating a divorce, recovering from abuse, or just want to understand the system better, this episode is a must-listen.
Follow & subscribe for more powerful conversations where the law meets life—with grit, glam, and heart.
Want more glamor during your grind? New episodes every Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
Download the full podcast here:
Follow @glamorousgrindpodcast on Social Media:
https://www.instagram.com/glamorousgrindpodcast/
https://www.tiktok.com/@glamorousgrindpodcast
So Alona and I are going to bring up situations and you're going to tell us if it's a red flag or a green flag and why.
Nick:Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila:So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody on day one.
Nick:That's a red flag.
Ilona:Welcome back to the Glamorous Grind. We're kicking off season two with a powerful episode about the hidden costs of family law. Not just the financial ones, but the emotional toll, the custody battles and what happens when Child Welfare Services, now known as Child and Family Wellbeing steps into your life services, now known as child and family well-being, steps into your life.
Nick:We're joined by an incredible guest who's been in the trenches with high conflict cases and knows how to fight smart, it's her nicholas moore thanks for having me tell us about your experience with juvenile court so when a case gets filed against a parent um well, really, a case is filed concerning the welfare of a child the parents, both of them are entitled to counsel.
Ilona:So that our viewers understand there's family court and then there's juvenile court. The types of cases that end up in juvenile court is where one or both parents may be losing custody and the child may potentially become the ward of the court. And in family court it's different. Anyone who has a paternity case, a divorce case or arguing over their children without there being any concerns about their safety necessarily can go to family court and open up a petition Domestic violence or drugs are generally the two big types of cases that end up in juvenile court.
Ilona:What percentage of cases that you've dealt with? You would say dealt with physical abuse versus emotional, although obviously, if there's physical abuse, emotional abuse is part of it.
Nick:For the most part, domestic violence cases involve some serious allegations of physical violence that occur in front of the child, and there are occasionally child abuse cases as well that deal with the physical violence to the child occasionally child abuse cases as well that deal with physical violence to the child.
Ilona:The way that a case gets reported to child welfare services is either someone calls in and makes a report that's often anonymous or it would be a mandatory reporter who is a doctor, a therapist, a teacher. There are a number of mandatory reporters that if they hear about any sort of abuse they have to report it to child welfare services. Now let's go back to how things end up from family court and juvenile. So either for the parties who are never in family court before and there was an incident, or it was in family court already and something happens and child welfare services gets involved and then they take action, file a petition in juvenile court and at that point any family law or custody proceeding that's pending in family court is probably on hold until things are resolved in juvenile court involves restraining order that just keep getting dismissed at the temporary restraining order stage and then new allegations of violence or abuse are made and at that point the government is essentially considering the parent non-protective or codependent.
Nick:They say here's our documented history of violence. We have this from the family court file. Here's a new allegation that was raised in a new temporary restraining order. We know that this has happened before on multiple occasions. The child is at risk. We don't believe that this person is going to follow through with this restraining order and so they'll remove the case from family court to juvenile court.
mila:Those processes are in place to assist with, maybe, spouses or partners who are not strong enough to walk away on their own kind of forces, forces their hand that's a good way to describe it the average victim of domestic violence.
Nick:It takes them seven attempts to leave and that's not seven plans, that's not seven times that they've written out their goals in terms of end up in the system. I'm constantly trying to figure out the right combination of words to express the urgency of the situation and my sincere desire to put them into a place of safety so they don't have to worry about the legal consequences of it. And I think it's a real case-by-case and personal basis where it gets a struggle to explain to people, because you are essentially trying to get a person to conceptualize the death of an idea, right, which is the idea that I'm going to raise this child with somebody else. We're going to be a family together, right?
Nick:And if they're not willing to accept that, not only is it a distinct possibility that that may not happen, but there will be severe consequences unless they take immediate action. It's a really hard thing for a person to process.
Ilona:What are different types of cases that are dealt with in juvenile court?
Nick:Sure, the most common is drug and alcohol dependency. That's where at least one parent has a serious addiction issue that requires the child to be removed because the drug use has placed the child at risk either of exposure, or there has been some positive exposure to the child, or it results in the child being placed in dangerous situations.
mila:What does exposure mean? Does that just mean they're around the parent when they're on drugs or alcohol?
Nick:Testing positive for drug zero.
mila:The child.
Nick:Yes Wow.
mila:So what about? You know, because drugs could be illegal, but alcohol is obviously legal. What point would alcohol abuse be considered enough to move into the juvenile court system, like if, for example, a parent is an alcoholic but there's no physical abuse, there's no physical violence. Just get strong. Is that enough?
Nick:Yeah, it is enough and there's not a bright line. So, like there's no particular line that can be crossed with alcohol, that puts you in juvenile court. The heuristic is essentially, is your alcohol use creating unsafe situations for a child? So we'll see it in DUI cases where there's a child in the car, in certain cases where alcohol is contributing to other types of unsafe behavior and that can look like parent day drinking and falling asleep while they're supposed to be at home watching the child, and the child or children are spending several hours unsupervised and they're passed out on the couch. By the time a case reaches juvenile court, the court is slowing everything down and saying that everything's going to be analyzed and there's a process for that. So juvenile court has dependency and delinquency. Dependency is when there's a health and safety risk identified for a child. Delinquency is when the child is committed a crime. The adage is that everything a child says in juvenile delinquency is not believed, but everything a child says in juvenile dependency is believed.
mila:That's so hard because kids I mean their imaginations run wild. I mean you know you have three.
Ilona:And they can be coached. One of the things that the Family Court Services and the mediators look for when they interview the children if they do that in any specific case is whether the child is coached. And the way that parents often coach a child is by telling them what to say, by preparing them in advance, by scaring them they're not going to see them or bad-mouthing the other parent. They understand what answers you probably want to hear and they're going to tell you what you want to hear. I mean, how often has that come up in juvenile court, where the evidence elicited by one parent against the other through video of the child been used.
Nick:It's a great question because, well, first, the dynamic is not really one parent against the other, it's really the state against both of the parents at the time that it reaches the juvenile court. So the court is really less concerned with what one particular parent thinks is the right idea, as opposed to just holistically what is the right approach for the situation.
mila:So, nick, coming from a different background, that's not in family law. This is all very interesting to me. How did you get started in this field? By accident? Tell us about that.
Nick:I wasn't really sure what type of law I wanted to practice.
Nick:Coming out of law school I was really interested in white collar criminal defense and I was fortunate to have an opportunity where a great criminal defense attorney was a mentor to me, brought me along for several big trials at the very beginning of my career, helped me establish my own practice by referring me cases. But I knew that I needed to find other ways to get into a courtroom, and so domestic violence restraining orders really were that kind of first opportunity to litigate, something that's very similar to the criminal realm, albeit in family court. And I was fortunate enough that when I was first starting out I needed some office space and there was an opportunity to be co-located with a victims' advocacy organization who said we'll give you a great deal on office space if you're willing to do pro bono hours to help domestic violence victims. And so the opportunity presented itself and I just sort of started doing it and looking back, you know, sort of more than a decade later, it's what I'll be doing for the rest of my life, is this?
mila:easy. Yeah, you seem very passionate about it and we've had a few consults together on DV victims. You know where we kind of combine the family law perspective and the personal injury side of DV. And you're very good with clients. You're a great communicator, you have incredible empathy. So how did that happen?
Nick:Like what's your background? Yeah, I think the reason I stuck with it, as opposed to like looking for a different area of law, was that there's real tangible success when you're doing domestic violence cases, and that success is generally you have a victim that is afraid that their story isn't going to be told well, that their story isn't going to be told well, that their voice isn't going to be heard, that their concerns aren't valid. All of these things are in the mind of a person who's wondering should I even go forward with this? One of my favorite closings to give in a domestic violence case is that, at the end of the day, victims know that some lawyer is going to stand up in a courtroom right and, with a smile on their face, say victims, don't do that, victims don't do that, victims don't do that. And it's a really important, I think, argument for everyone to hear, which is that a lot of lawyers are hardwired to think that way, and if you know that that's going to be their approach to the case, well then you know. You just got to help them tell their story in a way that makes them feel confident that they're being hurt, because judges aren't going to believe that.
Nick:Well, victims don't do that, because we know there's no such thing as a perfect victim, and I think we're finally at a place in society where we understand that victims don't behave rationally. There's no right way to respond to a safety concern. We all think we know what we would do in the moment. The truth is, when faced with those moments, most people freeze or flake care, um, but occasionally you get a victim that fights back and the other person will say, well, that's the abuser, right there.
Nick:Do you see the scratches, you know, on this person's arm? Well, of course, there are scratches on this person's arm that were strangling, right? What are you going to do when you're going to claw back, right, if you have somebody laying hands on you? And so you know, a lot of people are sort of locked in this mindset of, well, victims don't do that, and if there's one important message for anyone who's a victim to hear is that is your reaction to the abuse isn't relevant, okay, and if they want to make it relevant, then they're arguing the case the wrong way. What's important is whether or not something happened.
mila:And I think a lot of times, especially in cases with children, when there's domestic violence, what people fail to take into account is it's very easy to judge someone for staying with their abuser, right, oh, how could you. But I think a lot of people I've seen, I've met and spoken with at least thought that they were doing the best thing for their child. Oh, I don't want to get police, I don't want to make their dad out to be this terrible guy and arrested and make a big deal out of this, Like it's probably OK. And you know, for someone like you or I who are third party, we see this and we're like, oh my God, how could you have stayed? But for them, that was their life.
Nick:And and we're like, oh my God, how could you have stayed? But for them that was their life and it wasn't anything crazy. It was hard for them to see beyond that. Statistics say my child is going to have a worse outcome. All right, if I leave this person and we're in a lower socioeconomic status because of it. Statistics say my child is going to have a worse outcome, depending what statistics they read, because that's also arguable.
Nick:Yes, of course, of course, but I think, generally speaking, right, what we understand is that, you know, children of single parent households will some, I think, by and large have lower educational outcomes, lower socioeconomic outcomes.
Ilona:We don't fit neatly in the boxes for our lives right causes severe damage to the emotional well-being of the children. Their confidence level, their success in the future is impacted. Everything is impacted and I think it's worse than just being raised by one parent who can provide you a stable, happy home. That's better for the child, that they can live in a calm environment. That's happy, even if they have limited visitation with other parents, versus living in a house where the parents are fighting, arguing in front of them, screaming, hurting each other. That will mess you up for life.
Nick:This goes to Mila's point, though, where, like that's, the mindset of the person is like well, I'm afraid that life will be more difficult this way, because this happens rarely, right, this only happens when he drinks, or this only happens when you know. So it's intermittent, right, it's not a daily thing. But you're absolutely right that it's much better for a kid to grow up in a home free of violence, because one of the things that we know is that people who perpetrate the violence grew up in a home with violence, right? So that child that you're raising in a violent home is going to grow up to be a violent child.
Ilona:The reality is you never deserve for someone else to put your hands on you or your child and if it happened once, it will happen again. I've seen that in family law. That happened to me once in personal life and I ended up my marriage after four months because of that, because I knew that if it happened once, if it happened twice, it is going to happen again, because it happens to women, it happens to men, and to then have a family with someone or continue on is inviting more problems into your life, inviting court disputes in family court or juvenile court in the future. So if you can get out of an abusive relationship early on when you see red flags, do it, but when people are in that situation, they don't see that.
mila:I think, especially a lot of times, if you know there's a codependency, whether it's financial or otherwise, someone can't even fathom their life without this other person who they depend on. And that's why I think it's a good time to talk about really quickly that there are services available for people women or men who don't have money, don't have jobs and are being abused, and we actually are collaborating with one currently, one Safe Place, or the North County Justice Center, which is a center where women get medical services. I mean, it's crazy the services that are available for free to help in those particular situations where people don't have the funds or the finances or they're dependent on a person who's abusing them person who is abusing them, absolutely, really proud of our firm's collaboration with One Safe Place.
Nick:It's really exciting. The idea is that before places like the Family Justice Center existed and this goes back to about 2002, when the Downtown Family Justice Center was first started if a victim wanted to make use of county services, they would have to travel all around the county right and, if they didn't have a car, by public transit it could be a two or three day affair to get to all the different service providers. They have to retell their story at each provider, and so the idea was started back in 2002, 2003 by Casey Quinn, when he was the city attorney here, that we ought to create just a one-stop shop for people to tell their story one time and receive all the services they need.
mila:Okay, so let's play red flag, green flag. So Alona and I are going to bring up situations and you're going to tell us if it's a red flag or a green flag and why.
Nick:Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila:Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
Nick:Beige.
mila:So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody on day one.
Nick:That's a red flag.
mila:Why is it a red flag?
Nick:Well, the law in California says that it's in children's best interest to have frequent, continuous contact with both parents, and so the family court and even the juvenile court is going to create paths for both parents to be involved in a child's life, and so full custody. People have this idea in their mind that it means that this other parent doesn't get the opportunity to be involved at all, and if that's their mindset, going in and some reframing needs to happen in order to properly set their expectations.
mila:How would you recommend that someone acts if their partner says I want full custody on day one of the announcement of the divorce?
Nick:Well, try and explain to them what the law says and what the law is going to do, which is going to give their partner a path or an opportunity to be an active parent in the child's life their children just on a specific schedule and they don't know that.
Ilona:That doesn't mean they're getting full custody. They're going to have primary custody and the other parent will have the rights of visitation.
Nick:It does indicate a desire for control over the situation.
mila:I think. I mean I don't practice in family law, but I've seen a lot of times where people will use custody as a weapon against the other spouse or ex-spouse or parent to, and they'll say that just to hurt the other person.
Nick:Absolutely. Sometimes they'll be open about that desire and sometimes it might be borne out by the other.
Ilona:What about going to child welfare services interview when they knock on your door and leave a business card without legal counsel interview when?
Nick:they knock on your door and leave a business cart without legal counsel Huge red flag why, anytime you're dealing with the government, they're going to tell you things such as we just need to hear your side of the story, give us your version so we can write it up in favor of you and be done with it, because I just need to talk to you and then write this down and it'll be okay. And the reality is that everything you say, they'll find a way to use against you if they feel like there's a risk to the child, even if that risk seems very minimal. Right, you'll see this with police. You'll see this with child welfare services. Talk to an attorney first, but understand that you're under no obligation to talk to them.
mila:I would assume it's extremely emotional. When you're emotional, you're not rational. That's inevitable. You could be giving a statement because it's innate, I think, to want to tell your side of the story and want to tell everyone you didn't do anything wrong. And very important to take a step back and remember that, even with the best intentions, you could accidentally misstate something that later will be used to you know, make you out to be a liar.
Ilona:I mean you could be asked by a child welfare service worker do you ever drink? Yeah, don't lie about that. If you ever drink, even socially, say yes, because the moment you say no, most likely they're going to doubt the rest of what you said. But if you're asked did you drink on any specific occasion, then that's a different question Red flag or green flag Keeping a shared bank account open during separation.
Nick:Oh, that's a red flag Right open during separation. Oh that's a red flag. Go ahead Well, because something is going to happen that's going to cause some problems with this account at some point in the future. Somebody's going to make some expenditure that becomes the source of some degree of conflict, the sooner you can, I think, clearly account for what could be community or separate property from the outset of the case and have some clear boundaries. That limits the disagreements that will happen in the future equal, you know for both parties.
mila:But once you separate, does the community part, does the community property separate? Yeah, Immediately Do you have to file anything?
Nick:The property itself doesn't separate, but the idea that the property earned during the time period after separation is that it now becomes separate.
Ilona:Acquisition rule. If something was acquired during the marriage or while the parties are together, then it's presumed to be community property. If it's acquired after date of separation, then it's presumed to be separate property. But it's just a presumption. Presumption can be overcome by evidence that's presented. During period of separation you purchase something, although it is presumed to be separate property. If you use community money from joint account to purchase it, then you'll probably overcome the presumption that it's separate property.
mila:So is the date of separation a date when something is filed or submitted, or is it just when you decide that you're being?
Nick:separated. It depends. I mean it is looked at in terms of objective factors, but sometimes the parties will disagree as to when the separation happened. Living together can be messy, especially with somebody that you love and you built a life with, and there might be brief periods of love or romance, right, that could then be used to argue oh, we weren't separated, this was a reconciliation that happened.
Ilona:There has to be mutual meeting of the minds and it's clear to both parties that the marriage is over. So if you want to be sure that your finances are separate, you send a text message about it. You don't text about how you love each other and you may get back together. There has to be clear, definite, hey, it's over. And if you're continuing to live together for financial reasons, than if arguing over date of separation in family court later, questions you'll be asked by the attorneys in deposition or trial will be were you having sex still together? And one may say, yeah, we still slept together and I have pictures, or I have photos. Or we slept on Christmas or whatever may have happened. That's relevant. Have you been going to conjoined therapy together? Try to save their relationship? If you have a text message it's over, but you're going to conjoined therapy or tried therapy to save their relationship, then you're not separated. That'll be strong evidence against your date of separation.
mila:When should you open a separate bank account and close a joint account?
Nick:I think when you are fearful that the end really is here is probably the best time to do it. Like, if you have that fear that it might be over, that's probably the time to start taking it.
mila:And it'll definitely be over.
Ilona:So what's the process once the parties end up in juvenile court?
Nick:So the first hearing is an arraignment or detention hearing. Arraignment's just the fancy word for your first appearance in court where you're answering an allegation made by a government. Is there enough to kind of kick off this case to make some temporary orders the next three weeks, because another hearing will be set within three weeks of that detention?
Ilona:At that hearing they have a choice to place the child with a foster family or with one of the two parents, if one of the two is capable and safe to be with right Correct.
Nick:Or relative. And what happens three weeks later at the next hearing. What is that hearing called? It's called the Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing. That is where the court is answering the question of jurisdiction, which is is this court the appropriate court to make orders?
Ilona:And if it's not, then it will be family court, correct.
Nick:No, if it's not the case, should just be dismissed. At that point the question at disposition becomes what are we doing about a juvenile dependency case? And there are three potential outcomes. Either it's going to be a family maintenance case, which means the child or children are placed with one or both of the parents. If the child is not placed with either parent but is placed with a relative or a foster parent, then the parents may be offered something called family reunification services, which would be essentially the same types of services as family maintenance services. Reunification just describes that the child's out of the home, and these are again services designed to remedy the reason for why the child came into court. The third outcome is bypass and that's the outcome you want to avoid, and that means that the court system is determined that it is not in the child's best interest for reunification services to be offered to the parents. Those are most likely drug cases, where addiction has been so prevalent during the parent's life that they've lost multiple children throughout their addiction.
Nick:What's the last hearing? The last hearing? Well, it depends, right. The last hearing could be a family maintenance hearing, right, where the court is saying child with one parent, they've had at least this six months of services seems to be going well. We can close the case now with what are called exit orders or family law. The other type of sort of final hearing is called a 2-6 hearing. That's a hearing to determine a different permanent plan. That's a hearing where reunification efforts have been unsuccessful or were bypassed entirely and the court is looking at what is the best permanent plan for this child's future.
mila:Okay, let's get gritty Audience. Q&a questions. You ready?
Nick:Yes, okay.
mila:We have our first question from the audience. Ready, yes, okay, we have our first question from the audience.
Nick:I'm 11 months sober, but my ex keeps using my past addiction to block custody. What can I do? This is a great question. That's a huge accomplishment and that should be celebrated, and so there should be people involved in your life that are supportive of that. So there should be people involved in your life that are supportive of that, and so a good start would be finding your supports right and letting them know. Hey, this is something that I'm struggling with right now.
Nick:The next should be that if you aren't working a program whether it's like a 12-step program in NA or AA or smart recovery or some faith-based recovery service if you're not working some kind of program, you should be working a program. The reason is is the programs are done in languages that courts are familiar with. A lot of the judges in this county, especially receive trainings on what these programs are, how they work, what kind of sort of benchmarks exist that make them effective, and so there's a bit like a secret language to refurbish, and if you're working a program, you can speak that language and the judges will understand what you're saying. Right, if you have a sponsor, if you're working steps, do you go to meetings? Are you somebody who has a service commitment at those meetings, right? Do you have a higher power, right?
Nick:These are all somewhat faith-based types of programs and the idea behind it is that you are recovery is not abstinence, right? So if you are 11 months sober, right, that means that you haven't consumed anything in 11 months. But are you actively working on your recovery? Or are you just abstinent? Because if you're actively working recovery, then you've got mountains of evidence to present to the court about why this person is manipulating your past using that. Early. Recovery is technically defined as three to five years, right? So your first three to five years of sobriety, you're still going to kind of be under a microscope. Everyone's got a little bit of a different story about what helped them become sober.
mila:And it gets better with time. We are going to wrap up with Nicholas's advice to parents who are facing system involvement.
Nick:What advice would you give. Understand that what you say can be against you. Understand that the people that are involved are primarily concerned about one thing, and that is your child's safety. And if you don't have the ability to articulate a fairly clear plan how to keep your child safe, then I wouldn't talk about it with anybody until you're ready to have that.
Ilona:Thank you, and again, nick is an extremely talented attorney. He's with our firm, knows all the ins and outs of juvenile court systems, so if anybody needs advice, feel free to reach out to him.
Nick:Yeah, Thank you. Thank you for having me advice.
Ilona:feel free to reach out to him. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for having me. Don't miss next week, where we sit down with a TikTok lawyer himself, ryan Steigart, and look at the intersection of social media and legal rights.
