Sol (00:01)
Welcome to Co-Parenting Beyond Conflict. I'm your host, Sol. Today, I am joined by Kirk Stange, a seasoned family law attorney with over 20 years of experience and a host of the Family Law Talk podcast. If you've ever felt like the legal system just doesn't see the full picture or you're wondering how to protect yourself before blending families again, this episode is for you. Kirk brings both practical wisdom and real-world compassion to the hardest corners of co-parenting. Let's dive in.

Sol (00:25)
Hi Kirk. Welcome to the program. Thanks for being on.

Kirk Stange (00:28)
Thanks for having me.

Sol (00:29)
So Kirk, you've been practicing family law for greater than 20 years and you run your own firm. And even in your spare time, I understand you're podcasting about divorce and custody. I've always felt like it takes a very special kind of commitment to become a family law attorney. And here you are juggling emotional grenades for a living. What was it that made you say, yeah, this is for me?

Kirk Stange (00:51)
It was really an accident. It wasn't something I intended on doing when I went to law school. But I got a job at a small general practice firm right when I got out. It's been about 25 years now that I began. I did general practice law, so I did a little bit of everything. But there was one partner in the law firm who did divorce and family law. He went out on medical leave.

It was an unexpected situation. Then he said, Kirk, you got to handle my cases while I'm out. So he was out for a few months. I took care of his cases. Before you knew it, people were referring other people to me for divorce and family law. ⁓ People were happy. People were satisfied. I like the work. I like being in court. I enjoy that much more than the transactional type areas of law. So really, it was one of these things that just kind of happened. It wasn't planned. I never thought I was going to do it when I went to law school.

Sol (01:37)
You've seen a lot of cases over the years, I'm sure. And what is one mistake that you see co-parents specifically make when they're approaching their divorce, coming up with their parenting plan? What's something that comes to bite them later?

Kirk Stange (01:51)
One of the big ones is when you when you're drafting a parenting plan or you're agreeing to one as a party it's important to not just look at the present but you're trying to look at the long term too so having a parenting plan that works for today and that hopefully works for years to come is really important and I think a lot of clients just get caught up in today, how things are working today and they address it

as of right now in the moment, and then they have to come back to court and deal with issues because a parenting plan is either vague or silent on certain things, and they don't really account for changing circumstances. So having a long view about a parenting plan is really crucial for parties.

Sol (02:27)
Yeah, I would imagine

that for a lot of your clients, they assume that they will be able to come back and handle things, changes and whatnot. But the thing that you might miss out on as a co-parent is that the relationship may evolve or devolve over time. So it might be more challenging to come back and make changes as they arise.

Kirk Stange (02:46)
Yeah, it's really hard to change a parenting plan after the fact. And I think that's something that a lot of people don't realize. So I always tell clients, better to get it done right than get it done quick and it not be right. Because then you're coming back to court trying to change things, trying to fix things. It can cost people a lot of money to do that. And it's like going through a divorce all over again. You also have to show that the verbiage is going to vary by state a little bit.

Basically, you have to show a change of circumstances of a substantial and continuing basis in order to make a change to a parenting plan. And that could be a hard thing. It could be a hard burden. I know people just want the case to end. They just want to be put out of their misery going through one of these cases. And I get that and I completely understand that. But it is a good thing to just pause a little bit. You get a proposed parenting plan.

Sol (03:25)
Totally.

Kirk Stange (03:33)
Take a little bit of time, 48 hours, 72 hours, whatever time you have. Consume it, make sure you're good with it, because it's very difficult and very challenging to change a parenting plan after the fact. I know a lot of this can happen too, where it's the courthouse settlement and something gets thrown in, and then individuals face in court and then they sign it, and then six months later, a year later, they're like, what did I agree to? And so trying to not do that's an important thing.

Sol (04:01)
Yeah, and actually going through and reading all of those points that you might not feel are super important right now, just knowing that that's gonna possibly bite you in the future.

Kirk Stange (04:10)
100%. Unexpected things happen in the future and having that long view about a case is critical. I always tell my clients I want them to be happy with the parenting plan and the divorce judgment today, but I want them to be happy with it three years from now, five years from now, 10 years from now. And it's impossible to account for everything. Something's gonna arise, but as many issues as you can try to forecast and deal with now is going to save parties a lot of time, a lot of money,

aggravation having to go back to court.

Sol (04:36)
You mentioned

being vague in the languages is problematic and I'm curious overall with the parenting plan is it better to be very prescriptive about each line item or is it to be more general and flexible and allow the parties to handle it as things evolve?

Kirk Stange (04:50)
Well, most parenting plans have language in it that says custody will be as the parties agree. So if parties are workable, they're amicable, they're able to compromise, they're not still upset with each other, then yeah, having a parenting plan that maybe is a little bit less specific can work, okay? But being realistic in these cases where parties don't get along, where there's somebody that's a high conflict kind of person and there's going to be issues there, then it's really important to have that fine print

spelled out because I mean little things like where the exchanges are going to take place could be a huge issue. What time are they going to take place? What specific time? Dealing with the summer and vacations and these kinds of things. It's really important to have that spelled out if there's a high conflict person that a party is dealing with because that

can avert lot of controversy if it's specific. So yeah, you do have to adapt it a little bit based on the parties in the case.

Sol (05:41)
Speaking to that co-parent

for a moment, one that is maybe prejudgment and looking at their parenting plan and thinking that they're in maybe a growing high conflict situation, are there any other specific clauses or safeguards that you recommend including in their parenting plan?

Kirk Stange (05:55)
Well, in high conflict cases, think communication being through some of these co-parenting applications is a huge thing. And this is a trend. More and more courts and more and more attorneys asking their clients to use these applications. I think having that language in a parenting plan that requires the parties to use these applications can be really important and really critical.

I think parties at times are not excited about using these apps out of the gate. So when you first bring it up with a client, they're like, I don't want any part of using some kind of application. But I think most parties find out if they're dealing with a high conflict situation, six months, a year down the line, they're going to love the fact that they're using these applications. Because what a party doesn't want is communication flying in from multiple avenues. Right? You don't want text messages coming, emails coming,

phone calls coming, it's hard to manage all of that. It's much better to have that just situated through the app. It's all in one source. And then, you've got the calendar in there so you don't get into these issues of, I didn't know that there was this appointment or this thing out there, this school appointment or whatever. Using these co-parenting applications is, I think, a big help, even though parties oftentimes are not forward out of the gates.

Sol (07:04)
What are your thoughts? I know that AI has been a growing trend in this space, especially around communication. What are your thoughts on that?

Kirk Stange (07:10)
A really useful tool, that parties should take advantage of, which is before they hit that Send button,

have the AI check out their communication and see what the AI says about it. I think that's a huge, huge key. I think that's one of the most important ones that I've seen, which I recommend clients use. And obviously the AI is not right all the time, but most of the time it is. And it's good to have that perception of how that communication is going to come off because oftentimes it

It doesn't come off how an individual intends it to come off out of the gates.

Sol (07:43)
And a way, I imagine that takes some of the burden off of your plate in terms of having to monitor your own clients and their communication.

Kirk Stange (07:52)
Yeah, I mean that's totally true. It does help. I think it is really helpful for parties. I mean some parties might struggle in terms of putting communication together, having a lawyer who's willing to get in that app and assist the client and give their neutral feedback I think is an important thing. Obviously, different parties are different. Some people write fluently, they write quickly. It's not a problem. They get

that they're not supposed to be writing from a place of emotions and these kinds of things but particularly clients who struggle and they've got some anger issues or they're dealing with some anxiety Having a lawyer who's willing to get into the app and assist and teach and guide I think is a huge plus.

Sol (08:29)
I wanted to switch gears for a moment. I know a lot of our listeners are existing co-parenting situation and maybe even new relationships, dating again, maybe even contemplating getting married again.

and get fearful of pre-nups and I noticed on your podcast that you recently did an episode about these pre-nuptial agreements. I'd be curious if you could walk us through some of those ideas. First of all, do you recommend that a co-parent might consider doing a pre-nup and in all cases?

Kirk Stange (09:00)
I think prenups are definitely good to think about in all cases, that's for sure. It's definitely something people shouldn't just be dismissive of. I know historically prenups can be taboo. People think they're forecasting divorce. And then there's a viewpoint that this is a bad thing. And so it shouldn't even be thought of. I think parties should at least think about it, contemplate it, and carefully consider it. It can take a lot of issues off the table if parties are going to get

remarried after divorce. For parties that have gone contentious, expensive divorce, the last thing they want to do is be back in that same court system doing it again. So I think it's good to think about it. It can take a lot of the issues off the table. Property and debt division can take that issue off the table. Spousal maintenance, you can take that issue off the table. Attorney fees in the case of divorce, you can take that issue off the table. So then the issues, in theory, that you're left with would be if you have

Sol (09:32)
Totally.

Kirk Stange (09:50)
kids in this new marriage, child custody, you can't deal with that in a prenuptial agreement. You can't put clauses in that deal with kids that aren't even born yet. And you can't deal with child support in a prenuptial agreement. But theoretically, in a divorce, where parties aren't going to have any more kids, they've had their kids, they're done, it can really take all the issues off the table, which I think is huge.

Sol (10:12)
Yeah, my married friends don't like when I get on this subject because I can get pretty heated and opinionated. But, I find it strange that in our culture, we make getting married as easy as signing on the dotted line at the courthouse for maybe 25 bucks. And then, of course, divorce can take many So prenups are a way to front load some of that work.

Kirk Stange (10:31)
Yeah, it's 100 % right. And I think one of the things I've seen, and I think a lot of attorneys would mirror my sentiments as well, which is that if parties are able to negotiate a prenuptial agreement, so in other words, they're able to have open communication, open conversations about to complete a prenuptial agreement, you have to do a full and fair disclosure of assets and debts and your income. I mean, that's always advisable, or a prenuptial agreement could be set aside.

But my point is if parties are able to do this and they're able to put on the table their assets, their debts, their income, they're able to come to an agreement, I think a lot of family lawyers would say the chances of divorce substantially lower because you're dealing with a couple that's able to communicate, they trust each other enough to tell the other party everything before they're going into the marriage. And so the chances of divorce decrease because it's a couple that's able to communicate. I mean, I'll never forget I had a case one time.

It was a former client of mine, I did his divorce. Then he came back and he's gonna get remarried. God love him. And he's like, we're gonna do a prenup. So I started helping him with the prenup and his fiance got an attorney and it just went south. They couldn't agree on the terms. It turned into trouble and eventually he told me, said, Kirk, we're just gonna do a commitment ceremony. We're just gonna, we're getting along. We're just gonna skip this marriage thing. Thanks for all your help. Pay you for all your time.

But we're just going to do a commitment ceremony not get buried. I was like, okay, that's probably a good decision. If this is causing fighting and disagreements right out of the gates, then probably better not to do it. So yeah, I think in a way a pre-nup can be a mechanism if you will, in terms of whether or not this marriage is going to be one where there's open communication and people are able to compromise and get along. And if it turns out that that's not going to be the case, then yeah, maybe.

Maybe better to do that commitment ceremony.

Sol (12:14)
Yeah, and like you said, it's an opportunity to establish more trust, more openness, more vulnerability between

Kirk Stange (12:20)
Yeah, 100%. because I know for lot of people it's embarrassing to put all their income and their assets and debts out on the table of the other party, right? Most people that are for pre-nups are for it. And then when I tell them they have to do that, they're like, "ooh, I didn't know. I didn't know I was going to have to do that." I'm like, "yeah, you got to do a full and fair disclosure of assets." And that makes people uncomfortable. But I mean, if it's a great relationship, one in which is worthy of getting married, then

you shouldn't feel bad or embarrassed about doing it because this is somebody that loves you and accepts the good and the bad because some people have a lot of debt coming in and they're like "oh I don't want to tell my spouse all that" or the other spouse is thinking "oh I got a lot of money, and I had a bunch of money in an investment account. I never told him or her that I don't know if I want to tell him that or her that" so yeah, I think it's a it's a really good vetting mechanism in terms of seeing whether or not I mean it's pre-marital counseling in a way

and it shows people whether or not this is going to work or not.

Sol (13:17)
A lot of our listeners are what you would define as being in a high-conflict relationship, potentially with someone that is a narcissistically-oriented individual. And oftentimes, they find themselves stuck in repeated cycles of litigation, accusations. For a parent that feels stuck in this cycle in the court system,

how does the court view this sort of behavior, and are there tools to stop it or mitigate it?

Kirk Stange (13:42)
Obviously, it's going to vary a little bit by the court and who the judge is and how long the judge has been on the bench and whether or not they did family law before they went on the bench. I think that can make a big difference. Some judges go on a family court bench and maybe they didn't do family law. In their practice, they got appointed or they ran for judge and now they're doing family law and they don't understand. Some judges did family law before they went on the bench so they understand and get this. I mean, I think it can really vary in terms of how courts view it.

I think judges who've done family law in private practice before they get on the bench, I think they're able to spot this and see this and they don't look real favorably on parties continuing to file cases, particularly cases that don't have merit and that at the end of the day, didn't result in a favorable disposition for the party filing the case in the first place. Sometimes newer judges to family law don't view it favorably too because, I think a lot of

judges, at least in terms of what I've seen, didn't do family law before. I've heard this kind of statement for years: "Well, Kirk, why can't they just split everything down the middle and get out of here? Get divorced. What's the problem? Why isn't this so simple?" And I'm like, "Judge, I hear you. I understand you. Welcome to family law, though. It doesn't work like that." It just doesn't work like that in some cases, unfortunately.

Sol (14:48)
Ha

Kirk Stange (14:54)
It's a tough deal when you're continually brought back to court and you're having to deal with this over and over and over again. It's important to have an attorney who understands the situation, who understands narcissism, that gets that. mean, I think that's a huge key. And then being smart about

what you do in response. It's always a double-edged sword. Do you just sort of play defense in these cases because the other side keeps filing them and you kind of play defense and you have faith that the judge is going to see through this and it's going to go nowhere. Do you get sort of assertive in response to try to deter the other party from doing this? That could be a good thing in some ways, but

what some judges can kind of think is, birds of a feather fly together. So then if you get too aggressive back in response, then the party can get lumped in with the other party. always kind of a risk, a fine line. And that, I think, is the dilemma in terms of how to respond. But definitely hire an attorney that understands these kinds of cases, that isn't simplistic in their thinking.

I'll see other lawyers' advertisements and marketing and God love them. We all look at this stuff a little bit differently, but it has language and verbiage about simplistic family law. "We make family law simple." That's probably not the kind of attorney you want for these kinds of cases. Those are the attorneys where you got some pots and some pans and you've got some Tupperware and you got no kids. That's probably not the kind of attorney you need for a high conflict kind of case.

Sol (16:13)
As a co-parent myself, I know how difficult communication can be. That's why I created Best Interest, the co-parenting app that uses advanced AI technology to automatically filter out all negativity, promoting positive communication and helping you create a healthier environment for your family. Try it now and get 10 % off with code Beyond10. Link in the show notes.

Sol AI (16:35)
And now, back to the show.

Sol (16:38)
What are your thoughts on hiring a " bulldog attorney?"

Kirk Stange (16:43)
I don't think a lot of attorneys will use that kind of language and verbiage as well on their web I think that kind verbiage and language and approach is a mistake. I think what parties want is a lawyer who's competent, who's diligent, so who moves their case, who communicates effectively. And I think, obviously, being assertive and being a tactician is important.

If you're hiring a bulldog, and the attorney is just aggressive and isn't a tactician, then this is where a party can get lumped in with the other party.

Right? Hey, birds of a feather fly together. They're both narcissists or they're both crazy. And that's what you don't want is a judge when they can't distinguish. They just see, hey, these people are continually back in court. probably both their fault. I mean, they picked each other, right? And that could be the mindset. They picked each other. A lot of family court judges don't realize that parties sometimes didn't date that long before they got married.

Sometimes people get married for all kinds of reasons and they didn't see these traits or attributes because they were in some kind of honeymoon phase. But there can be that tendency at times for courts to lump people together. So you gotta be careful with the attorney, because it could just end up sullying a party who's really maybe not at fault in the situation at all.

Sol (17:55)
Now, do you ever sit across from a client and then hear the opposing counsel's name and say, ⁓ I'm out of here?

Kirk Stange (18:02)
Yeah, lawyers that are just difficult to deal with. It's very challenging. And obviously, you could try to make attempts to settle the case and come to a reasonable outcome, but you just know it's going to be very difficult and very challenging. I've always tried to be upfront and candid with clients when that's the

You just know. I've always put lawyers in three camps. There's lawyers I know that I get along with, they're reasonable, we're probably going to settle this case. It's not going to be a problem. It's like 25 % of attorneys.

There's probably 25 % of attorneys out there, we're just going to be trying this case. Could settle, but I ain't counting on it. And then there's that 50 % of attorneys, well, maybe we could settle. Maybe we're going to go to trial. Depends. Oftentimes these are attorneys, too, you don't have a lot of experience with, so you don't really know. But yeah, they're definitely very difficult attorneys that can be hard to deal with. And parties got to really choose

their own lawyer very carefully in that kind of scenario to counteract it. But it isn't always the bulldog. On the other hand, you don't want the attorney, I think, in these scenarios that's advertising cheap, quick, fast, simple divorces. That's not helpful either, because those lawyers could get run over, they're not gonna prepare the case. So you need a tactician, going to do what they need to do.

But they're able to hopefully maintain the high road along the way with the case. Because what parties want lawyer that the judge thinks is credible, that they'll listen to. Being too aggressive, the judge, at a certain point, it's kind of like crying wolf. And judge is like, I don't believe much of what this attorney says. And you don't want that.

Sol (19:26)
It seems like there is an expectation by the court that co-parents should always cooperate when it comes to their co-parenting relationship. And a lot of times I hear my clients talk about how that's so challenging when they're dealing with someone so emotionally abusive or just antagonistic. Is this true, this perspective that the court system generally favors cooperation?

What are your thoughts on that?

Kirk Stange (19:49)
Yeah, it's 100 % true in my opinion. I mean, courts prefer cooperation. Courts prefer that parties get along. Courts prefer that people be amicable, put the kids first and do what's right and get along. Courts don't want parties to be bitter and be upset over things that have happened in the past. They want parties to move on.

The problem is, the ideal world and there's the real world and the truth is this is a great idea, but there's certain cases where one party doesn't want to move on. They want to keep filing cases, they want to keep lighting up the other party with communication, they want things done their way, they want it done their way all the time and in these kinds of situations a court might want cooperation

in co-parenting, and the other party might want it too. The one who's not filing the cases and sending the nasty communication, they probably want it too, but it's just not possible and it's not practical. Again, this is where I get into this dichotomy too, where judges who did family law before they went on the more likely to understand what I'm saying here. Judges who are new to family law,

maybe they're a criminal lawyer, maybe they're a public defender, a prosecutor, or they did whatever before they went on the bench, or they're a civil litigator. Some of these judges can, not get it, at least out of the gates. And they're thinking, why can't these people just get along? Why can't they just cooperate? And then when they don't see it, there can be this tendency again, metaphor, birds of a feather fly together, They lump people together and they think, well, it's both of them. They're both a pain in the rear end.

have to be really careful because this can happen. And parties need to be smart about what they're doing and above board with the hopes that the judge or the guardian ad litem is gonna get it's not them. They're fully willing to cooperate. They're fully willing to move on. They're not bitter about the past. They don't care about the past anymore. They're worried about the future. got to be portrayed. And the hope is that the court will eventually see it.

Doesn't always happen, but that's the hope.

Sol (21:39)
Yeah, there is this tendency you mentioned about going into the past for these cases to bring up old emails, communications. Do you see that ever being effective or is it best to just focus on the now?

Kirk Stange (21:50)
In terms of using old emails evidence and stuff like that? Those communications can be useful in court particularly where one party's hostile, acrimonious, difficult, threatening the other party all the time. And again, not pulling emails from five, 10 years ago. But if there's emails and communications over the last six months, last year, maybe last couple of years, showing that one party's acrimonious, they're hostile, they're threatening in their communication.

They're not trying to work with the other party. It's my way or the highway all the time. Do it my way or I'm going to sue you. You do it my way or, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z to you, these kinds of things. And yeah, I think those communications can be real useful. I think that's why these co-parenting apps can be important because that communication is then preserved. It can't be edited, can't go back in there and alter the communication. Once you hit send, it's there. And yeah, if you're able show a litany of just

hostile communication to judge or guardian ad litem it can have a huge impact on a What parties need to do, it's easier said than done. It takes a lot of patience and it takes faith that things are going to work out and that the courts eventually going to see this. Parties need to take the high road. Don't get in the mud with the other party. You get nasty email. Don't send nasty emails back. It's always good to wait

48 hours, 72 hours, whatever you're able to do, 24 hours before you hit that send write something, save it as a draft, have an attorney look at it, make sure comes off well, don't send nasty stuff back. Because again, what parties need to do is don't be lumped in with the other party. You get lumped in if you start to fight fire for fire in the written communication.

Sol (23:20)
And these situations where there is a more acrimonious co-parent involved, what are the remedies that you see that the court offers besides just using a co-parenting app?

Kirk Stange (23:30)
Ultimately a court can give sole legal custody to one of the parents. If the one parent is so hostile and so acrimonious and so difficult to deal with, then it's impossible for parties to really communicate, make decisions. That's your remedy, and this is going to vary, by jurisdiction. Courts can be big fans of parental coordinators. Having a parental coordinator come in and you know, they break the tie when the parties can't agree.

And that can work in some cases, theoretically. It cannot work in other cases. Particularly where, a party is just going to submit everything all the time. Do it my way. I'm going to submit it. Do it my way and submit it. A party who's above board and is a good person could be inundated, with basically a full-time job of dealing with a parent coordinator all the time, The process can be abused. too. But, those your big

remedies. Theoretically a court could give one parent more of the custody the situation called for it as well. Court could hold somebody in contempt in theory. A lot of the parenting plans will have language that say you're not gonna disparage the other parent, you're gonna say bad things about the other parent to the kids and so on and so forth. There could be remedies there as well, but it's tough. It's a tough road and it's definitely not an easy situation and hard to get quick

remedies. The parties have to be patient and that is hard.

Sol (24:40)
In your career, is there a moment that's really stuck with you, like a case or a family, something that has reminded you of why your work matters?

Kirk Stange (24:49)
There's one case I still think of where they're trying to terminate my client's parental rights. He's a good guy, good father. Mom was getting remarried, wanted her new husband to adopt the kid. And my guy was out of state from where the child was located. And he loved his kid, did the best he could. But it was difficult. He's one side of the country. The mom's somewhere very far away.

They tried to terminate his rights to a step parent adoption. And I know this case broke my client's heart. He was distraught by it. His whole family was distraught by it and nobody, wanted his rights to be terminated. And, theoretically could be some critique of maybe could have done a little bit more here or there, but as a whole, seemed like a really good guy who loved his kid. I remember doing a multi-day, contest of a step parent adoption.

We won that case, his rights weren't terminated. And for me, that was a very satisfying case. Termination cases in family law, is kind like a death penalty case in a way, because if your client's rights get terminated, they're out. There's no visitation, there's no contact unless the child is an adult, wants to come see his dad in this circumstance. So yeah, that was a tough case, and that was one that, I was worried about, but when we prevailed, my client was very, very happy and very thrilled and

yeah, it was emotional for me too.

Sol (25:59)
Yeah, these are high-stakes situations that you're dealing with on the daily. Is there a particular way that you ground yourself or help yourself emotionally in these situations?

Kirk Stange (26:00)
Okay.

it's kind of a bad example, if you will. I mean, baseball players have to come to the plate. And sometimes you come up, bases are loaded, games are lined, strikeout. But the good players get back up, similar situation presents itself. And they get a hit, and they win the game. And being a lawyer, you've got to be able to say, I did the very best I could. I was competent. I was diligent. I communicated.

everything I could and the case didn't go my way and you can't beat yourself up. So you can't get too high, you can't get too low, you gotta stay level. While you care about your clients and you gotta have compassion for your clients, our law firms catchphrase is here to help you rebuild your life, so we're always here trying to help clients rebuild their life, trying to get them through it.

You're able to move on and say you did the very best that you could and you kind of leave it there. I can tell you I've had cases where I thought clients got a raw deal. I didn't think what ended up happening was what should have happened. I've had other clients though who came away way better than I ever expected.

You just got an awesome deal better than I ever thought because it's one judge deciding these cases. So you just never know. While you want to care about your clients, you can't vicariously live through them. You've got to have the ability to move on hard. I know for a lot of attorneys who do this area of law, case doesn't go the way they want. And this will break certain attorneys and say enough. I don't want to do this area of law. So you got to have that ability, but it's not, not easy.

Sol (27:21)
Yeah, and you could extend that advice to the co-parents themselves. Obviously, it's harder to distance yourself from your own situation, especially when you're talking about your legal rights being terminated. This is a long road and it's good to just stay centered in yourself and have intentions that you take to every court battle, every interaction with your kids.

Kirk Stange (27:40)
Yeah, that's totally true. I think, different people have different philosophies about life and, maybe come from different religious backgrounds but I think having faith on some level, wherever somebody's coming from, that everything in life happens for a reason. And even if it's not the way you want it to happen, it happened that way for some kind of reason. And some kind of good is going to come from it. Even if you don't see it now, you think it's terrible and horrible now, something good is going to come from it, something that you can't envision.

I remember watching, Steve Jobs at a graduation ceremony, he gave a speech where he said, "you can't connect the dots looking forward, you can only do it looking back," which I think plays in family law. Things happen, and it's like, if you try to connect those dots looking forward, you're gonna get frustrated. You're gonna think, I don't understand. I don't know why this happened this way. This is terrible, this is horrible. This is never gonna work out.

But if you have some kind of faith that now when when five years, 10 years from now, you look back, the dots are going to connect somehow and you're going to say, wow, I got fired from Apple. That was actually a good thing. I wouldn't have done all these other great things. You got to have that mentality going through a divorce or family law cases. Otherwise it'll be incredibly, incredibly frustrating.

Sol (28:41)
That's such good advice. And I'm curious to speak to a listener right now that's just really in the thick of it and having a hard time seeing themselves out of it, seeing the future. What's some parting words of wisdom that you could offer to them about this moment?

Kirk Stange (28:56)
I think there's a lot of things people need to do from a self-care perspective when going through these types of cases. And I think that's really critical. And this is going to look different for different people. I think seeing a counselor is almost always a good thing if you're going through one of these cases. No shame in that. I think for most individuals, that's a huge key. Get a good counselor, one who listens. One you've got a good rapport with.

Seeing a counselor, I think, is huge. I think putting positive stuff in your brain is huge. And this is going to look different for different people. It could be reading books. It could be listening to podcasts like this one, others. People come, again, different. Some people meditate. Some people go to church, synagogue, mosque, things that put them in a right place of mind.

And then doing things you enjoy in life. This is challenging because I think people can feel like their whole life is on hold and they're thinking, well, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z in my life, but I can't do this until this case is over. Once this case is over, I'm going to do all these things I wanted to do. As long as it's productive, as long as it's not going to hurt you in your case, so I say that with that disclaimer, certain things are damaging, hurts your case, don't do that. But if it's productive, it's positive, like,

maybe think about doing these things now. I mean, it could be exercising more. It could be engaging in other activities, social things, fun things you want to do. Do those things now. You've got to find a way to enjoy life now. And that, think, is very difficult and very challenging. Some people, too, in these kinds of cases can resort to alcohol, drugs, these kinds of things. Obviously, stay away from that kind of stuff. That'll kill you

in the case, not helpful, very counterproductive, and for parties who feel the need to sort of self-medicate, like maybe see a doctor and medicate. Don't self-medicate. No shame in getting on an antidepressant or some anxiety medicine or something like that, but it's a really bad thing if you start doing illegal drugs and narcotics and you start becoming an alcoholic and you do things that hurt your case and don't put you in a right frame of mind.

I know it's tough for individuals going through these cases.

Sol (30:48)
Kirk, I've really enjoyed our conversation today and all of your insights. Thank you for being on and for listeners that would like to connect with you and learn more about your work or your podcast, how can they find you?

Kirk Stange (31:00)
I have a law firm, Stange Law Firm. We're a nine states. I think we have 29 offices here today. We're still growing. We represent men and women in equal ratios. Our web page is StangeLawFirm.com. I know that's hard for people to spell. So an easier way to get there just type www.FamilyLawRepresentation.com. That'll take you to our web page. And from there, I've got

lots of articles, we've got blog articles, I do a couple podcasts myself and there's links to all that there so those would be great ways to look at us more and connect more and find out some good family law information there as well.

Sol (31:33)
Awesome, yeah, we'll put all that in the show notes and Kirk, thanks so much for being on today.

Kirk Stange (31:37)
Thank you so much. It was a pleasure and honor.

Sol (31:40)
Thanks for joining us on the Coparenting Beyond Conflict podcast. To support our show, subscribe or leave a rating. Links for all books and resources mentioned on appear in our show notes or on CoparentingBeyondConflict.com. See you next time.

Sol (31:58)
The commentary and opinions available on this podcast are for informational and entertainment purposes only, and not for the purpose of providing legal or psychological advice. You should contact a licensed attorney, coach, or therapist in your state to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.