Parents caught violating child custody restraints they find stupid or minor often question why I won’t advocate the position that their violation should be excused because the restraint is stupid or pointless. This blog explains why.
Let’s say you have a child custody order that was the result of an agreement. That order forbids you from eating Cheeriostm in the presence of the minor child. That order puts you on notice that violation of the order can subject you to contempt sanctions of up to one-year incarceration.
You think the Cheeriostm restraint is a stupid provision. You only agreed to it because the other side insisted and you preferred reaching an agreement over the expense of trial. Or, perhaps, you got some benefit in the agreement by agreeing to the Cheeriostm restraint. But you think the provision is really stupid. You literally have contempt for that provision.
So you eat Cheeriostm in the presence of the minor child. And get caught. And the other parent is angry. And the other parent has filed a contempt petition. You intend to tell the judge the Cheeriostm restraint is stupid and pointless. You believe you can convince the judge that you are correct so that judge will not hold you in contempt. You think that judge might even admonish the other parent for bringing such a stupid contempt action.
You would be mistaken. Your simple violation of an admittedly stupid restraint tells the family court judge two things about you—both of which are highly unattractive. First, the judge thinks: “this parent was on notice not to each Cheeriostm in the presence of the child and did so anyway.” This judge thinks, “why would this parent value Cheeriostm more than maintaining a good relationship with the other parent?” and “why would this parent risk the relationship with the child over Cheeriostm?”
Second this judge thinks, “why would this parent risk jail time for Cheeriostm? Why doesn’t this parent respect court orders? Clearly this is a parent with a Cheeriostm problem and an authority problem.” Your attempts to convince this judge that the provision is stupid backfire because it feeds into these concerns. You’d have been better off apologizing, showing growth, and seeking contrition.
Now substitute Cheeriostm for things like marijuana or alcohol use or failing to have the child in an approved life vest when on a moving boat. Unlike Cheeriostm, these restraints address some legitimate (if likely minor) safety concern. Trying to explain and excuse your violation is even more likely to backfire.
So if I counsel clients to apologize and seek contrition rather than arguing the stupidity of the restraint being violated, it isn’t because I lack the backbone to fight but because fighting in this situation is simply doubling-down on disrespect. It will not work.
(0) Comments