In Family Law, Parents Seeking To Gather Evidence Must Not Lose Sight of Most Important Issue
In family law cases, the most important consideration is whether or not the parent's actions demonstrate that the parent prioritizes the needs of the child.
November 20, 2023 at 10:17 AM
8 minute read
In custody battles, there are two sides to the story, and the truth often lies somewhere between the two. Whether a judge or jury, the factfinder must weigh the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence to determine what is in the best interest of the child(ren). In situations where the parties have differing accounts of events, which is often the case, corroborating evidence can be helpful to the factfinder. This article provides guidance in building a successful custody case, and cautions attorneys about clients collecting evidence to support their custody cases. It is understandable that parents fighting for their children would go to great lengths to obtain evidence, but they must respect privacy laws and not lose sight of the most important issue, which is parenting and acting in the best interest of the child.
Obviously, when two versions of a story exist, it can be helpful to have corroborating evidence to support the client's case. Some parents, however, will take this desire for documentation to an extreme and create more issues for themselves. Parties in custody cases usually have very little trust in the other party and fear that the opposing party will not be truthful in his or her testimony. This fear can drive people to be hyper-focused on obtaining evidence to support their side of the story and do whatever it takes to show that the other party is untruthful. As attorneys, we want corroborating evidence to contradict the "he said/she said" dilemma in custody cases, but it should be legally acquired and not to the detriment of using good judgment in raising the child.
|Credibility of the Parent Is the Key to Success
In almost every case, the most important witnesses in a custody case are the child's parents. In preparing for trial, I always tell my client that he or she is my key witness. I stress to my client that his or her credibility is the most important asset in the case. I remind my clients that no one is perfect and that he or she should freely admit to "bad" facts. A witness can be imperfect, as we are all human and make mistakes, but lying or spinning the truth in any way is a dead end. If a party loses credibility by being dishonest, the custody case is over.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readDoes Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250