The Glamorous Grind

Divorce Court Isn’t What You Think

• Ilona Antonyan, Mila Arutunian • Season 3 • Episode 5

Share episode

Reach Out Here

Ilona and Mila debunk the biggest myths about divorce court—and react to dramatic Divorce Court and Judge Judy moments to show how real family law actually works. From child support misconceptions to courtroom etiquette, this episode separates Hollywood fiction from California legal reality.  Judges don’t just ask who has the kids; they compare incomes, impute earnings when someone is underemployed, and can make support retroactive to the filing date. If payments fall behind, arrears snowball with interest, and enforcement can include tax refund intercepts, license suspensions, and judgments that follow you until paid.

 In this episode:
 • Why “50/50 custody” doesn’t mean zero child support
 • How courts handle hidden income and “phantom” earnings
 • Retroactive child-support orders and wage garnishments
 • What judges actually look for in custody and support cases

This is the reality check you didn’t know you needed.

Want more glam during your grind?

New episodes every other Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts.

🎙️ Hosts: Ilona Antonyan & Mila Arutunian
📲 Follow us on IG: @glamorousgrindpodcast

SPEAKER_02:

It's such a misconception. Just because you have 50-50 custody and take care of your kids half the time doesn't mean you don't owe child support. We've all seen the dramatic outbursts, the walkouts, the gavel slams.

SPEAKER_07:

I'm speaking.

SPEAKER_04:

But when it's your divorce on the line, the stakes are much higher than anything you'd see on divorce court or judge duty. I did not expect to see you back here. People don't just get to speak and the judge doesn't have this interaction with them that's very informal the way it is on TV. Welcome to the Glamorous Grind. Today we're talking about misconceptions about divorce court.

SPEAKER_02:

We'll react to a few divorce court TV moments and see how they actually play out in real California core. And we'll explain what people get wrong about winning in family core.

SPEAKER_04:

Alright, we're gonna watch some clips and you'll see our reaction.

SPEAKER_02:

I used to watch a judge video all the time when I was in high school. I love her. I've never really watched. I've like seen it in you know in segments, but I've never like sat down and watched an episode. I was more of a law and order girl.

SPEAKER_07:

So let me understand this, Mr. Woods. You had a child support order of$500 a month. There was a garnishment on your salary.

SPEAKER_08:

Yes, it was.

SPEAKER_07:

You separated from that company. At the same time that you separated from that company, you managed to get disability and unemployment.

SPEAKER_08:

Right.

SPEAKER_07:

And from that disability and unemployment, they were taking out a certain amount of money. I don't know if it was$500 a month.

SPEAKER_08:

Right.

SPEAKER_07:

Probably a lot less than$500 a month. And then disability decided that a big, strong, strapping guy like you was not disabled. So they cut you off from disability.

SPEAKER_04:

I wish the real court was like that sometimes, because people do go show up and they BS and they hide income to avoid paying child support and supporting their children. I don't like that. The state policy is that both parents have responsibility to support their children. Here in this case, the judge obviously was suspicious why he got on disability and unemployment, and she didn't believe him. Well, I'm not sure. She believed in disability, didn't believe him. Well, we don't know why it ended. So I really liked how she started questioning him how he provides for her because she's suspecting he probably has a side job, probably earning cash. How are you supporting your kids?

SPEAKER_07:

Now, fortunately for you, at about the same time you have a new fiancee.

SPEAKER_08:

Your Honor coming up.

SPEAKER_07:

I'm speaking. Okay. Meanwhile, you're the father of two children. You have a child who's 12 and a child who's five. And from what you're telling me, you haven't supported them in the last eight months. That is incorrect, Your Honor. From any well, tell me how much money you've given them in the last tell me how much money listen, money, dollar signs. Okay. Tell me how much money you have given your children in the last eight months.

SPEAKER_08:

There's an endless amount because I share 50-50 custody with my kids, Your Honor. There's an endless amount of money that I pay from my kids.

SPEAKER_07:

From what source?

SPEAKER_08:

From what source?

SPEAKER_07:

That's my question to you. If you don't work and you don't get unemployment and you don't get disability, from what source do you give them endless money?

SPEAKER_08:

Well, right now they they have everything that they need. They have food.

SPEAKER_07:

Goodbye, Mr. Woods. I can't help you. You want$2,000 from her? Get a job.

SPEAKER_02:

Oh, oh hell yeah. I love that. And I love how he's like, well, I already have 50-50 custody, so I don't really need to pay child support. Like, that's that's such a misconception. Just because you have 50-50 custody and take care of your kids half the time doesn't mean you don't owe child support.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, child support is based on the parents' relative incomes, their wages, self-employment, other sources of income, including passive income they may have. They could have rental income, non-taxable income. There are many forms of income and sources. Some that are on tax returns, some that are not. And in a situation like this, if they were actually in family court, what the other side could do is get job ads to show that that guy is qualified to make at least minimum wage or get a job that's relative to a skill set, depending on his education and performer experience, and the court could impute income to him. But if you are underemployed or you're not employed because you don't want to pay child support to the other side because you have 50-50 or any other reason, then the court can pretend that you have real income and base child support payable to the other side or to you based on phantom income. Is that due once they actually have an income to pay? Immediately due. Meaning from the time a person files a motion seeking child support, they may wait 60 to 90 days to have their court hearing. The court at the time of the hearing has uh the option to make child support retroactive, meaning starting with the date when the motion was filed, three months back. The court has wide discretion to do it later. So then do you get a judgment?

SPEAKER_02:

Like if they just refuse to pay and they're like, hey, I don't have a job, I can't pay it. Do you get a judgment against them later? Or how long do you have to wait for it to accrue before you can go to the court and seek? And then, like, what do they do? Do they take their car?

SPEAKER_04:

Their hat like how does that even well it depends which court it's proceeding in? It could be through Department of Child Support Services, which means that government is monitoring the payments received towards a child support obligation. And then they send a monthly statement to the payor and the recipient saying, here's this ordered amount, here's the interest accrued. If it's late, this is what you owe. And if it's a government enforcing it, then if the payor, the person who owes child support, has back due support that's unpaid, well, if they have a refund coming due at the end of the year for tax refund, the government will take that and apply it towards the debt and send it to the other party. They can take that money. They can cancel the driver's license and a passport if payments are late for more than six months. If it's in family court, you get relief a lot sooner than if it's in the hands of the government, which can take a long time. In family court, what you do is you file a request for order to establish arrears. And what that means is you're asking the court to count how many months did you not receive support, either in full or in part. Bottom line is you can total up the total amount of monthly missed payments, and the judge will order a lump sum payable that will then accrue monthly interest as well until paid in full.

SPEAKER_02:

And if it goes through family court, can they also go in and like take from their bank account?

SPEAKER_04:

You'll have to get a writ of execution, you can get abstract of judgment, you'll have to pay a lawyer to enforce it. So, what I recommend generally is if you have an arrears order from family court, it's a good idea to register your case with the Department of Child Support Services that already establishes the lump sum amount that has been ordered that's back due. And they're gonna then keep track of the additional interest that accrues from there on.

SPEAKER_00:

Mrs. Martinez thought her husband would clean up his act after their first time in divorce court. Instead, she says he's graduated to scamming churches and denying their baby today on divorce court.

SPEAKER_04:

Arrest him now.

SPEAKER_00:

All right, the honorable judge stopped presiding.

SPEAKER_02:

I didn't know judges make enough money to rush it all.

SPEAKER_05:

You may be seated.

SPEAKER_00:

Your Honor, the case of Martinez V. Martinez.

SPEAKER_05:

Mrs. Martinez and Mr. Martinez, I did not expect to see you back here.

SPEAKER_00:

How are you?

SPEAKER_05:

We know each other. I the last time I saw you, I thought that we had resolved what was going on. But today it looks like we have a whole nother issue, Mrs. Martinez and Mr. Martinez. You all have been together for nine years. This is a case that I know very, very well. You've been married for three years. You have three children together.

SPEAKER_04:

Oh, and he's 41. Mistake number one, girl. Okay. I mean, he has a right to do that. Everything is possible. She seems a little nervous, so who knows? But he the reason why people sometimes ask for DNA tests is just to delay their liability to pay child support until later. Because if he's established to be your father, he's responsible. But if you're a guy and you're not sure if it's your baby or not, you better ask for a DNA support.

SPEAKER_02:

But during that time where you're not sure, you don't that child support doesn't accrue even if you're not paying it?

SPEAKER_04:

It depends if you got filed and served with the summons. If it is, if it ends up being your child, the court does have jurisdiction to order child support back to the date of the filing of the petition.

SPEAKER_05:

Because you've had a baby since uh I saw you the last time. Ages five, three, and one. And then there's a two-month old who seems to be in question. Mrs. Martinez, why are we in back in court today?

SPEAKER_06:

I am here, Your Honor, because I am angry. I am pissed and I want a divorce. Not only is my husband manipulative and controlling, but he's also denying our two-month-old baby. Once I prove he is the father, I am walking away for good.

SPEAKER_05:

So no matter what the DNA test says, you ready to be done with the marriage? Yes, I am ready to walk away. Mr. Martinez, I thought we've had some of this discussion the last time. What do you say to your wife's allegations?

SPEAKER_01:

Well, Your Honor, um, I am here because I love my wife. We've been together for a long time. Uh, we have three kids. He's 26 in a newborn. How about you? I want to know if that's my kid or not.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, if she says she's pissed, maybe she went and tried to get a revenge on him. So you never know. Maybe the guy has a point here to ask for DNA testing despite their marriage.

SPEAKER_05:

I want to find out what has been going on. I don't even uh need to start all the way back at at how you choose a met because I know how you met. And y'all have been through a whole heck of a lot together. But you are back in court now. Tell me what has happened since you were in court.

SPEAKER_06:

The last time we came to Cori Honor two years ago, it was fabulous. Oscar changed, he got his act together. Oh, he listened to me. He got a job, he got a car, and he got us a stable place to live. Bravo, Mr. Martinez.

SPEAKER_04:

Yay, Mr.

SPEAKER_02:

Martinez, you did the bare minimum.

SPEAKER_04:

Not easy, especially with that many kids. Can you imagine? She has to take care of all the kids, and he obviously has to provide for everybody. Not easy.

SPEAKER_02:

It's not easy, but they should at least have a stable place to live.

SPEAKER_06:

Oh Lord. He got into a car accident. And he got into a very bad car accident where he almost got a lot of time.

SPEAKER_03:

Oh, like talking about we can help Mr. Martinez. We have a personal injury department.

SPEAKER_04:

And a family law department. Yeah. And Mr. Martinez, if you got fired for a bad reason, call Mila. She can help. I got you.

SPEAKER_05:

He was in the hospital for almost a week. Oh my goodness. No, he got into a very bad car accident. So why is she blaming him?

SPEAKER_04:

You know what though? If he didn't have insurance, if he couldn't afford a place to live and he didn't have his own insurance, he would not be able to recover for his pain and suffering as a result of this accident. Because that's the law in California to enforce.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04:

So let's find out if he had insurance or not. And if he's able to make money on this car accident.

SPEAKER_06:

He was recovering. I asked him, Are you gonna go back to work? And he tells me, No, he refused to go back to work, so he lost his job. And we're back to zero again. We lost our apartment.

SPEAKER_04:

What if he has a personal injury attorney? Seriously, if he got into a serious accident like this, he could have made a good chunk of money unless he was and helped his family. Well, you're right, unless he was she seems pretty pissed.

SPEAKER_02:

I'm guessing he played a part in the accident. And maybe he was drunk. Who knows? We lost our apartment.

SPEAKER_06:

We're back to the hotels with our three kids.

SPEAKER_05:

It's just the message. So it's a revolving door of irresponsibility. And he's back to treating me like dirt again. So, Mr. Martinez, you know, I was very proud to hear what you had accomplished, and of course, I kept up with your case. I didn't know about the car accident. I just knew that you had really gotten yourself together. But where are you at fault for the car accident, Mr. Martinez? Speak up. Yes, sir. And I know that Mrs. Martinez was happy with the man that she got her husband back again. So what happened, sir?

SPEAKER_01:

Lots of things happened. I got into a car accident.

SPEAKER_05:

But you're looking good, so you're good now. So you can't tell me you used nothing wrong with you.

SPEAKER_04:

Man, if she just had him admit that he's good and he's still treating, she just helped the insurance company cut his losses on national television.

SPEAKER_02:

But honestly, I think he's at fault because why else would the wife be so pissed?

SPEAKER_04:

Most wise, if they're not gonna call a lawyer, though.

SPEAKER_02:

So let's find out.

SPEAKER_05:

Let's listen. You look 100% better than you looked the last time I saw you.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes, Your Honor. Honestly, this accident made me um change. There's been a lot of uh Mr.

SPEAKER_05:

Martinez, it sounds like this accident made you lazy again. Because you take responsibility. You know I'm the judge that's gonna always hold you accountable.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes, ma'am.

SPEAKER_05:

So did it make you lazy again?

SPEAKER_01:

I take full responsibility on that. Um she wanted me to go to work r right away. I mean, I was still in crutches, I was in a wheelchair, I still feel my kind of tense.

SPEAKER_02:

The employer has a duty to accommodate you and place you in a position where you can perform the duties of your job within a reasonable accommodation with respect to your injuries, Mr. Martinez requested.

SPEAKER_05:

But if you can stand here, you can work.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes, yes, ma'am.

SPEAKER_05:

You can work. You I mean, and every family is needs, you know, both parents, both family members. I don't know very many families that exist just on one income. Um, no matter how much money you have, unless you Mr. Bezos and them, mm-mm. You gotta work. Everybody gotta work. You know what I'm saying? He's also very manipulative. Like he was manipulative before, but you say things change. What has happened now?

SPEAKER_06:

Now, okay, we were back to live in a hotel, like I told you, um, we were short for a hotel. We were short like$700, and he told me, ask my mom. And I told him, Why do I have to ask your mom? She's your mother. After all, that's embarrassing for me. So he said, I'm not telling her. So I'm like, I'm not telling her either. He's like, okay, so we checked out. At the end of the day, we ended up sitting down on a bus stop and he looked at me and he said, This is your fault. Oh my god. I'm like, how is this money?

SPEAKER_04:

Well, you know what? Child protective services can take away their babies if they end up on the street like that and having stability. You may put them into uh foster care.

SPEAKER_06:

We're sitting on the bus stop because you don't want to work. At the end of the day, I ended up asking his mom for the money because I feel like he uses me as babe because at that time I was still pregnant. I called him. Yeah, so getting you and keeping you pregnant makes begging for money a lot easier. Like always, his mom gave us the money and we ended up going back to the hotel.

SPEAKER_05:

So this can't be a life that you want. That's why I'm ready to walk away. Good. Mr. Martinez, I'm coming back to you. Why would you put your family in that situation?

SPEAKER_01:

Well, Your Honor, it's it that's not totally true. Honestly, Your Honor, I was going through a tough time. I did ask her to tell my mom. I told her, you know what? Because she gets along with my mother more than I do.

SPEAKER_04:

If you don't get along with your mother, then that means uh you're not that great of a person, don't you think? I mean, unless your mother is a bitch, which happens too.

SPEAKER_02:

I mean, their mother is obviously giving them money to live, and it doesn't sound like it's the first time she's done that, so she's not a bad person.

SPEAKER_04:

Sounds like mom is a good person here, and she just lost faith and hope that her son is gonna get his uh stuff together for sake of his family.

SPEAKER_01:

You know, it's not my style. Hey, mom, you know, can you can you can you lend me some cash? No, it's not my style. So I told her Why is it not your style? Because I because I I like to do things on my own, and it's a good thing.

SPEAKER_05:

Well, you don't do things on your own. Okay? It's not your style because you don't want to come across like a begging um boy to your mother.

SPEAKER_01:

I understand. So I asked her, you know what, babe? Ask my mom, she'll give you the money. She gave us the money. We we uh went to the hotel. So Mrs.

SPEAKER_05:

Martinez is right.

SPEAKER_06:

She you use her as baby. He is the reason why we are back in the hotel. That was painful too.

SPEAKER_04:

Sad. Very sad. Well, I think one, they're probably receiving public assistance. They're married. So she would receive more if she wasn't married to him, since he wouldn't be able to pay her child support, and would probably be in arrears, meaning if there was an order, he'll probably never make his payments on time to support his children, which means the Department of Child Support Services is gonna kick in because they're providing uh welfare and cash aid and other um and Medi-Cal and all of that, and they'll keep track of what he owes child support for child support to her, but really the state will monitor that and part of it is owed to them. I would divorce him if I was in her position, get as much public assistance as I can for me and my four children. If she has a two-month-old, it's sort of hard to go work because who she can't afford to pay a nanny or anyone to take care of four kids. It's gonna cost more than her taking care of them. So she's kind of stuck and it's really sad. And well, I see his point is that I was still in crutches and she wanted me to work. Well, yeah, obviously, she wants to feed her children and she wants to have a roof over her head, and you could probably pick up the phone if they accommodate you at work to do something to make a living.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, the thing is you can qualify for disability leave. If you're if you're disabled and you can't return to work, you can have your job hold hold your position open for you, and you can get disability leave until your doctor approves you to return to work.

SPEAKER_04:

So I think the problem maybe in this situation, because it probably didn't occur to them to call attorneys. See, they're going to divorce court because it's free for them to go and show up on TV. In fact, I heard that they make money if they show and show up on TV to tell their story. So it's a way for them to pay their rent. But if they actually contacted a personal injury attorney to determine what rights he has, if he's within two years of since the date of the accident, then potentially he may have a claim that could help him feed his children. Uh, because it sounds like he still, whether it's an excuse or not, has neck pain and other problems that persist. And for disability, there are also time limitations within what period of time he can s make a disability claim.

SPEAKER_02:

But yeah, I mean, I agree. They should have figured out their rights a little bit better. But it it doesn't sound like there would be a personal injury claim there from how she's approaching the situation, like very hostily. It sounds like you maybe have been at fault for the car accident. Yeah. She's pretty pissed at him.

SPEAKER_04:

The divorce court on television is really a private mediation with the judge. It's actually arbitration, meaning the judge has the power to make an order, they sign an agreement that whatever the judge judge does, they will abide by, um, and they get paid to show up there, which is not what happens in public court. Real family court, there are other people on calendar. You have limited period of time, maybe twenty twenty minutes to speak uh in total for both, unless the court allows you more time to tell your story. Because she ha the judge has to get through her calendar in in the morning or in the afternoon. And it's gonna be limited to a specific issue that has been filed in the paperwork that the litigant is asking to be resolved. So it'll be limited to child support, spouse support, um arrears, attorney's fees, possibly property division, possibly restraining order, and other issues. Could be multiple issues. And it's multiple issues and the court doesn't have time to deal with all those issues during that day, it would be reset for a longer hearing and you would wait longer. But people don't just get to speak and the judge doesn't have this interaction with them that's very informal the way it is on TV.

SPEAKER_02:

Okay, guys, let's get gritty. This week's listener question comes from a viewer in Antonitas. My ex lied in court, and the judge seemed to believe them. Can I reopen my case to prove that they were lying? So the answer is yes.

SPEAKER_04:

You have ten days after findings and order after hearing have been processed to file a motion for reconsideration, to ask for reconsideration, you need to provide evidence that you did not have access to before that became available after the judge made its ruling that would prove that person is lying. If you had that evidence in advance of the hearing, but did not present it when you had opportunity to do so, then you wouldn't be able to present that evidence to change the order. So if you don't file this motion timely for the court to reconsider all prior pleadings and new proof and evidence you have of that lie, then you can file a different motion. And there has to it depends what the issue is. If it's about child support and they lied, then you file a motion to modify child support, because you can do that anytime, and submit proof you have that shows that the calculations should have been different because now you have this proof that you didn't present before. And if there was a court reporter present at the last court hearing, I would request a copy of the transcript, highlight the lie, and make that one of my exhibits, followed by the next exhibit that disproves what they testified to before the court under penalty of perjury. If it's a different issue, then you know it will matter as well whether you can file a motion to change the order that was recently made or have to do a motion for reconsideration. Unfortunately, because one of two parties in family court generally lie about something, although everybody signs under penalty of perjury, they're telling the truth and they swear under oath. The court does not prosecute, or I haven't seen it in 20 years, anybody being prosecuted for lying under penalty of perjury. It's unfortunate, but that's the case. I believe if it was in fact prosecuted, people would take family court more seriously, and um their evidence would be tighter and clearer, and the decisions would be fair based on the credit credible evidence. But under the current circumstances, and this applies in every court, civil matters, family law matters, the court has to assess the credibility of the parties under evidence code 780. The court has to look at how is a witness testifying, what is their demeanor. The court also will look at are they admitting it that they told untruth in the past, and also their uh character for being truthful. If you can prove that on another occasion they were untruthful about something, and it may be convincing to the court, then that would also be taken into consideration. The court has discretion to choose to believe them or not to believe them on all or certain facts. So if, for example, the court believes that 80% of what they told is the truth, and they lied about one thing, they the court can say, I don't believe you about this, but I believe you about the rest, and that can apply to both parties.

SPEAKER_02:

For red flag, green flag this week. I'm gonna bring up common assumptions people have about divorce proceedings, and Ilona will let us know if they are true or if they are red herrings from the media. Assumption one, you get half of everything. It's false.

SPEAKER_04:

You only get half of everything that is community property, and community property is anything that's acquired, purchased during the marriage. So from the date of marriage through the date of separation, any asset is presumed to be joint assets subject to equal division. However, there are many exclusions, including if you can prove that that asset acquired during the marriage was purchased with separate property funds that you had prior to marriage, then although it's assumed that this is a joint asset, it can still be ordered to be separate property of one spouse if all that money came from their separate property source, which could include inheritance money.

SPEAKER_02:

So if someone gives an individual a gift during the marriage, like I want to gift my nephew a hundred thousand dollars, will his wife get any of that if they get divorced?

SPEAKER_04:

No. A gift to a specific individual belongs to only to that individual. If, however, there's anything in writing that says that gift was made to the family or to both your nephew and his wife, then that'll serve as evidence that it was for both.

SPEAKER_02:

So basically document everything. Absolutely. And then one more question. If you use your separate property separate funds to put a down payment on a house, but then during the course of the marriage, you use your community property funds to pay the payments for the house. And then you're getting a divorce, does the court have to like attribute the percentage, more of a percentage to the individual who put their separate funds into the down payment?

SPEAKER_04:

If the house was purchased during the marriage, it's presumed to be a joint asset, regardless of whether or not the title is in one party's name party's name. So let's say if they bought a house while they're married, it's automatically belongs to both of them, even if the title is in one person's name. But if the title is in both names or in one person's name, here's what matters as in re in terms of the monies used for down payment. At the time of divorce, anyone who can prove that their down payment came from a separate property source. Monies they had prior to marriage, monies that they received as gifts from parents, inheritance, anything like that, gets dollar for dollar reimbursement. So if you bought a house today for you know five$500,000, and you use$100,000 of your monies that you had prior to marriage as down payment, and you divorce 10 years later, you'll get that$100,000 back if you can show it came from your separate property account that existed before the marriage, you'll get a dollar for dollar reimbursement, no interest accruing on that money during that 10-year marriage. So that'll come off the top. So if the house in 10 years is worth now a million dollars, first you'll get your$100,000 back, and the other$800,000 subject to mortgage will be divided equally. Your other question was what if you use community money to pay off the mortgage during the marriage? If the house is bought during the marriage, then the monies used to pay down is considered joint money. So the net proceeds will be divided equally. But if during the marriage one of the parties used their separate property funds to purchase a house 100% in cash, let's say, in their name alone, the other spouse signed a quick claim deed, given away all rights to that house. Well, then there is gonna be no community property claim. There's many different scenarios, it's just complicated. But that's why you need a lawyer to calculate it. And when there are refinances during the marriage, then it becomes more complicated. Assumption number two custody always goes to the mom. That's incorrect. Red flag. Um the court treats both parents equally in the state of California. It doesn't matter if it's mom or dad, it's about the best interest of the child who'll be able to provide for their best interest, their health, welfare, keep them safe, fed.

SPEAKER_02:

And they look at who during the marriage was the primary provider, right? What else do they look at?

SPEAKER_04:

Well, when parties fight over custody, what matters are is the children's age. How old are they? Is it a newborn who needs to be breastfed? Is it a five-year-old that has an established relationship with the both parents? Is it a seventh-year-old who's not gonna listen to a court order because they might have a bad relationship with dad right now or mom? So it varies on a case-by-case basis. So although both parents come to court with equal rights, ultimately the court has to assess the situation to do what's in the best interest of the children. And is it gonna impact them mentally? If so, how? Is there any domestic violence in the household? You know, how are they doing in school? Did they have a therapist? Has any parent neglected the child before or endangered them in any way? All that becomes irrelevant.

SPEAKER_02:

Number three, and we kind of touched on this, but let's hear it. You can just tell the judge your side and they'll believe you since you're under oath.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, that's supposed to be the truth. You can tell the judge your story and the judge may believe you. Direct evidence includes hearing verbal testimony from the party. You can may have supporting documents to confirm what you're testifying to, but if you don't have any documentation, your testimony alone would be sufficient, including your declarations as evidence for the judge to make his decision. But often in family court, the judge has to read declarations of both parties, and it's a short term. You're always opposing. Correct. And then, you know, make a decision. What makes sense? What sounds credible and what's questionable? And do you have other proof to submit? And the judge will do his or her best to make a decision based on the evidence before them. If there is an evidentiary hearing requested where the judge gets to hear testimony from both parties, either a lawyer may ask him questions and the witness will answer, or if they don't have an attorney, they'll testify themselves and the judge may inquire while any issues arise that are that he or she may have questions about. At that point, um the judge has to determine whom they believe. And just like all of us, when we speak with anyone, decide do we believe you or are you full of it? The judge does the same thing. Do they believe you or not? Does your story make sense or does it have holes and you're lying? Your glam tip this week, confidence comes from ground up. And I'm talking about shoes.

SPEAKER_02:

Maybe you want to feel powerful. Maybe you just need to feel grounded. Find a pair of shoes that makes you feel like you can take on the world. For me, it's definitely heals. For me, it's heels as well because I'm shorter than Mila.

SPEAKER_04:

But confidence in a courtroom starts with confidence in yourself. There's a cool song, and I'm wearing my boots tonight. What is it called? I was playing it the other day. I got my new shoes tonight. Siri, play I got my new boots on tonight song.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, suddenly you have a good drive.

SPEAKER_07:

I said I put some new shoes on tonight.

SPEAKER_03:

I have never heard the song, but I feel I got my new shoes on tonight and everything's alright.

SPEAKER_02:

If today's episode made you rethink your courtroom expectations, good. Remember, the best way to win in divorce court is not to perform. It's to prepare. Hit that subscribe button and make sure to follow us. And if you've got a question for Let's Get Gritty, leave it in the comments or send it to podcast at AntonianMoranda.com. Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time on the glamorous grind.

Head Shot

Ilona Antonyan

Co-host
Head Shot

Mila Arutunian

Co-host