The Future Ready Law Firm

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Dominate Law Podcast, where we empower attorneys as entrepreneurs. I'm your host, Donisha. Uh, today we are tackling a reality. Every family law practitioner is already feeling the American family has changed, but in many courtrooms across the country, the law has not caught up. We are here to bridge that gap Before we get into it, big shout out to our sponsor and growth partner, qua Marketing. The modern family does not look like the family of 20 years ago. Same-sex parents, transgender parents, chosen families, non-marital partnerships. These families are searching for lawyers who actually understand the reality. If your firm does that work, the question is, can the families who need you actually find you? Equa has spent nearly 20 years helping law firms become the trusted choice when potential clients search online. So the right families find the right counsel.

They're offering listeners a complimentary marketing strategy session worth $900, where a senior strategist audits your online presence, your competition, and your local seo. Before the call, go to www.dominantlaw.com/msm to book it now into today's deep dive across four critical pillars, the evolving structures of the modern family, and why the nuclear model is obsolete. Gender equity, moving past assumptions to evidence-based outcomes, LGBTQ plus protections, especially where the system fails transgender parents and intersectionality, designing policies that reflect lived realities to guide us to powerhouse advocates. Joining Waki, an attorney who has dedicated her career to ensuring that justice for all includes every family structure. After seeing how traditional systems often erase LGBTQ plus identities, she founded Academy LBTQ to educate the legal world. She turns advocacy into action. And Lisa Derman, managing partner at Miller Zeidman, LLP, and a super lawyer recognized across New York, she knows that family law outcomes often hinge on finance and psychology and brings a holistic high stakes perspective to fighting the gaps where the law falls short. Let's get into it. So my first question is to you, John, how has evolving understanding of marriage equality and gender roles reshaped family law over the past decade? I think,

I think there have been a lot of changes. Some of them have just been the changes in women getting into the workforce and having full-time jobs outside the home. There were was a time period, an unfortunate part of our past where, um, custody was primarily awarded to moms. Uh, so it was, uh, both a feature of, um, financial imbalance and then a custody imbalance. And so what we found was oftentimes the downside of that meant that women were using their children, um, in order to try to gain power in the relationship, and men were using, um, their money in order to gain power in the relationship. And I think it took a long time. Some of it was law, but certain in statutes throughout the states, but some of it was also just judges retiring that had the impression that every child needed to be raised by a mom, that every family had to have a mom and a dad, that every family was this nuclear traditional family that we think of.

And some of it honestly was just holding their breath and waiting for 'em to retire <laugh>. And fortunately, there's been, uh, I think an overhaul of most judiciaries in most states, um, with much younger judges who've actually changed to diapers and been active, and then, um, that have L-G-B-T-Q friends and family members that understand that dynamic families look very different. We have, you know, aunts and uncles raising kids and grandparents, and we have couples and transgender folks, and all of these folks are just doing the best they can in terms of raising families. And I think some states are certainly far better at this than others, and certain, um, places in the judiciary better. And I think sometimes what's really important for us as lawyer advocates is that we use our privilege. We have access to the judges, we can talk to them, we can make differences in clerk's offices about how they address trans folks and about how they're treat treating same sex couples.

We can have some kind of say sometimes in forms. Uh, I remember when we had marriage equality in my practice in Nebraska, and when we had marriage equality in 2015, it took nine months for our department of Vital Statistics to create a new birth certificate form. And their first version of it was, was mother, father, and then, um, legal friend. We, we can't say parent. We've lost the ability to know that there's a parent one and a parent two. I mean, these are, so, some of it is super frustrating that they're <laugh>. It's such an easy way, um, to be inclusive and to use gender neutral language. And yet the the systemic bias that's that's in place is really hard to move in certain circumstances. So I think it's our job to just kind of move it where we can. We're gonna run up into some brick walls, but we're also gonna meet people who don't know any better, but are willing to learn. And those judges and in those clerk's offices and those bailiffs and the other court personnel, you just have to make those inroads where you can.

Thank you very much, Joni, for, you know, starting off the panel with that great, great comprehensive answer. And, uh, just giving us a historical on, uh, what we're going to build the foundation of tonight's conversation on Lisa. Now, Joni has, uh, done a nice job at mapping out the history, but you're in courtroom seeing the reality. So let's talk about where the law is still lagging, right? Where do you see gaps between modern family structures and the assumptions still embedded in family statutes or court practices?

So, you know, I, I see it in two ways, and I was listening to what Joni had to say. Um, I think that there's two issues. I think that family has evolved to a large degree. And I do see, frankly, I mean, um, we're in New York, that in New York, the court system has evolved as well and has been, um, moving ahead and accepting, for example, that both dads and moms have rights to children and should be actively involved with their children. And that two parents, um, whether it be, um, male and male or female and female or male and female, that two parents are important to the child. But then I also see that sometimes there is a more traditional family, a a mom and a dad, and the mom may have been a stay at home mom and the court may have moved past that, but the family didn't catch up actually to that.

And that sometimes, um, you know, when, when people come in and they're looking for that 50 50 schedule, and that split when that never happened before, when, um, perhaps one parent, whichever parent didn't actually know who the pediatrician was or who the dentist was, or, um, never even saw the pediatrician in all the children's lives, right? That they should just come in and get a 50 50 schedule because now that is the thing to be doing, and that that may not be in the best interest of the children. So in New York, we still have a best interest standard, and it is our job as lawyers to sometimes remind the judiciary that it's a best interest standard, whether it is for equal parenting or not for equal parenting, frankly. Um, and perhaps there is a more traditional family, and we represent lots of those families as well as families where both parents are working and both parents are involved or, um, or they're not married and, and they're in family court, um, and both wanna be involved, et cetera.

So I, I think that the court has to be open and take the, and, and have the ability to take the time to understand the family that's before them. And I think that unfortunately the court system is extremely overwhelmed. We see that more and more, and ever since COVID frankly, um, that the court system is extremely overwhelmed. And sometimes what you're getting are sound bites from lawyers trying to explain the family dynamic to the court. And it's not that the court doesn't want to understand it, they just don't have the time to understand exactly this family that's before them. And so I think it's, it's really important to try to work, whether it's in the court or outside the court, to make sure that you are fully prepared as an attorney and make sure that you're able to explain the family dynamic to the judges, um, and, and understand the family dynamic yourself, frankly.

Okay. Now, two questions. Uh, so first one I have is, I, I mean, I really appreciate the analogies here. Uh, Joni mentioned it, uh, earlier on judges who have changed the diaper, right? Uh, now they're coming into play, so there is a much more evolved and understanding landscape, but as you mentioned, sometimes they just don't have the time. So what is your go-to framework, per se, um, to really capture all the details in a succinct way that, you know, you can, uh, translate it to the judge

Quickly, so I quickly That's the key, right? To so quickly. So it's first of all to really understand what clients you have. And, and that means particularly in a custody situation, um, that you understand as much as you can about this particular family that you, you know, exactly who has been going to the doctor, the dentist, um, who has taken, um, charge in terms of the major decisions for the family, um, and for the children, most importantly. And that you actually have done the research and, and seen the backup and read the text messages and read, um, the our Family Wizard messages, et cetera, right? Between these two parties, that you are not walking into court making assumptions that just aren't true. And that, frankly you check and you make sure that what your client is telling you is also accurate, because they may see it from their lens, from their point of view, but that may not be the most accurate, um, basis for, for understanding the facts.

So it's to, um, listen and verify and then make sure that you are very prepared to make that cohesive argument in court for your client. And that it, and that the judges know that because you are honest, frankly, and forthright, that you are not just making it out of whole cloth. That, that this is an accurate representation. Because as I tell my clients, if I don't accurately represent what your family is about, then I won't be able to go before that same judge again and accurately represent for the other families because the judge just won't find it credible anymore. And so I think you have to be super familiar with it, and you also have to figure out before you go in what it is that your client wants and what is reasonable for them to get. And you can't just make, you know, we see it so many times, these promises to clients. People are standing in the hallways, lawyers trying to explain at the end of a case why their client is not getting what they wanted. They should have been explaining that at the beginning of the case, frankly, at the very beginning, during the first consultation. You know, those words not happening is really important.

Joanie, uh, how are courts and legislatures responding to the rise of non-marital partnerships, cohabitation and chosen families?

Uh, unfortunately they're not <laugh> very quickly, so I I, and I do think it's state specific, so I shouldn't say, I mean, I'm gonna do the swath of the Midwest, right? The flyover states are not doing really well. <laugh>, I think maybe you're talking about, you know, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, um, Illinois doing better jobs, uh, at that and keeping up, um, Nebraska as I refer to as northern Alabama not doing so great in that regard. One of the things that comes up on a pretty regular basis, um, <laugh> is same sex couples who've had a baby through IVF Nebraska statutes have no idea what to do with that, nor do the judges. They are still trying to figure out who bio dad is, even though there's a doubleblind contract that says that the donor can't know who, uh, the parents are and that the parents can't know who the donor is.

Um, but they still want that relinquishment. And I said, I can't, I can't give it to you. It is physically impossible. Um, and nobody's gonna know. And then when I really blow their minds, 'cause I bring in a same sex couple <laugh> who, uh, one of 'em, they use their egg and the other one gave birth. Again, Nebraska statutes don't have any idea what to do with that because they want to say that we're all about biological parents, but all of the statutes, uh, deal with birth parents, with birth mother. And so it, it's, I, so I end up doing a, basically will have a married couple. 'cause in Nebraska we can't do a second parent adoption outside of a marriage, so it has to be a married couple. But I'm having these couples, they're adopting their own kids because when, if something happens with marriage equality and that things go south there, I wanna make sure that both of those parents are protected.

So in the case of a one egg and one gave birth, I'm gonna make sure that they're doing a dual adoption because I want both of their legal parents just to be protected if something happens with marriage equality. So there's this huge expense and time that people are going through to adopt their own kids. And then at the end, because it's really the only fun thing that we get to do as lawyers, right as adoptions, is that judges are super excited for this new family and they want to take pictures and celebrate. And my clients are like, what the hell? This isn't a celebr, I'm just, it's a formality of adopting my own tribe. This is nothing I'm celebrating. I just spent, you know, a thousand more than a thousand dollars, sometimes two or $3,000 <laugh> to adopt my own kid. And you're acting like this is a brand new family.

This is our family already all I'm doing is protecting it from you people who wanna take it away, <laugh>. So I, I think being cognizant of that and making sure that we're not, um, it would just read the room, you know, make sure that we're not making it a huge celebration when it's really a hurdle that opposite sex couples never have to go through. So I think mm-hmm <affirmative>. There's, there's a lot that goes into that in terms of understanding what couples have to go through, um mm-hmm <affirmative>. To make sure that their family is protected. And I think the same thing happens when we're talking about family law and custody, um, for, for folks that aren't married. And then we have partnerships and then there's, we have, and I'm not sure how many states have in local parentis, um, and, and how different they are. That's really the only available statute we have in Nebraska to make sure that somebody who is, and that's Latin for stand in parent, so who was in that role as parent and, and can they get some kind of parenting time. Um, but then there's a, a support issue that goes with it. So I think, I think one of the things is to make sure that you're really versed in all of the tools that are available to you as a lawyer when you're dealing with, um, with families that aren't, that cookie cutter nuclear family. And to understand what you have available to help them.

So, um, all of the tools, you know, uh, being well worth is, do you have any particular recommendations for, you know, the contemporary lawyer who's, uh, ta well by choice or by design have gotten a non marital partnership case on their hands? Where should this start? Well,

I think, yeah, I think some of it is just making sure that you're, you're doing the research about what language to use. Um, making sure that, you know, if you're dealing with, um, a transgender person, and we're going into a hearing about it, that we're, we're making sure that we're asking about pronouns when you sit down with, um, your client, because you're only seeing one of them right? When they first hire you in a divorce, then you say, you know, who, what's the name of your spouse? Stop saying wife and husband. You know, just train yourself that, even if you think you know that they're in an opposite sex relationship, stop assuming, um, and stop assuming people's pronouns and just get more used to it. 'cause the more you do it, then it just becomes your vocabulary. Uh, and I think that's the thing that people think they need to be an ally.

They need to be, you know, super ally right outta the gate. No, you just need to think about some of your language choices. Think about the things that you say all the time. If there's hearings that you go to, uh, on a really regular basis, look at the language that you use during those hearings. Um, you know, if you're a criminal defense or a family law lawyer or whatever, it's, what words are you using that could be gender neutralized? I remember at the beginning of, um, you know, 2015 ish when, um, when we started seeing same sex couples that were married in Nebraska and could actually get divorced. Um, 'cause they were getting married in Iowa since 2009. Um, but we couldn't divorce them in Nebraska until 2015 when their marriage was recognized. And people, judges would throw a fit, you'd be back in chambers and they would say, I just don't, you know, be Sally and Sue.

And they'd say, I don't know what to, I don't know how to refer to these people. 'cause there's two moms. Like they, they can only talk about mom and dad. Yeah, well, gosh, judge, you know, you could, you could just use their names. <laugh> you, you could say plaintiff and defendant. I mean, there's a a million ways that, but you just get into, I think you stop questioning your language because you use it so commonly. And that's, I think the first step in being an ally is, is backing up about your language and realizing what words you use and how you can gender neutralize them in every setting. So it just becomes part of your vernacular.

Got it. Now, Lisa, what are some of the assumptions about caregiving breadwinning or primary parent roles that continue to shape outcomes in family courts?

You know, it, it's so interesting 'cause I'm listening to Joni and I'm thinking about really our practice and even some of the statutes that are coming down. And we're really, um, in New York, we, we have so many clients that are not married. We have so many clients that, um, are, you know, have have children, um, together that are not married. Um, and we see it really every day in our practice. It's, it's kind of very common, frankly, in our practice. Um, and even the issue of IVF, we are starting to write so many prenuptial agreements now, um, for people who are go, who think that they may go through IVF, um, as to disposition of embryos, disposition of frozen eggs. Um, and there are statutes for this now in, in New York. In New York, <laugh> in New York, yeah. That we can write prenuptial agreements about this. And as long as people have, you know, two lawyers who are reviewing it, um, we can contractually deal with the disposition of embryos and we can go beyond what the clinics actually, um, are putting down and people are signing.

And, um, we can really talk about who's going to have control of the disposition of embryos and who's going to have disposition of eggs. And so it is probably so different in New York in so many ways. And I I I find this entire, um, panel discussion that we're doing so interesting actually, um, because I guess I've taken it for granted in a lot of ways. I, I have to say, I have, um, you know, we regularly, when we, when we speak to people about their prenuptial agreements, we automatically say like, do you expect to go through IVF? Or are you expecting to freeze eggs? What, you know, what are we gonna put in a prenuptial agreement about this? Um, and certainly, I mean, one of the issues that we tackle on our, on a very often basis now is, um, children going through transgender roles and how we're going to make decisions.

How will parents make decisions about that and which parent is going to get to make decision about that in a, um, family where there's a divorce or a family where there, this is now a major decision to be made. Um, and, and we see that quite a bit. And that is usually, um, a difficult situation in our practice, um, because somebody has to make that decision to take the child to the doctor to take, to, you know, to have the child go on the hormones to do all of those things. Right. But the rest of it, we, you know, I I think that the courts are very accepting of the fact that roles have changed that, um, that, you know, um, parents have the both have an ability, um, no matter what their gender is to raise children, as long as they're doing it in a good and a healthy way to do it.

Um, and as long as they're keeping the best interests of the children, first and foremost. And I guess we're spoiled frankly in, in New York, you know, I'm gonna say that I guess we're spoiled because we don't see that, um, gender bias. Mm-hmm. Um, we really don't. I mean, maybe once in a while, but we have so many, um, judges that are working judges, um, regardless of their gender that have been on the bench and regardless of their age, frankly, who have been on the bench and have, um, been in family court on the bench. And, and so we're spoiled.

But I do think that some of that is just that the both larger city, more progressive state in general yes. Is where folks that aren't cookie cutter mainstream tend to go, wanna live <laugh>. And so when, then when you look at Nebraska, one of the reasons that it's hard to get the judiciary up to speed is because there isn't as much diversity in general. Um, a lot of closeted and, and a lot of people not living authentically that unfortunately that happens in, in the flyover states. And then I, and I think that that's a big part of it is that it's because it's exposure, you know mm-hmm <affirmative>. That the isolation is what breeds the fear and you don't understand, and you've never met a trans person. I'm constantly writing to my legislators in Nebraska, and I'm like, if you do not have at least three trans people's phone numbers in your cell phone, then you shouldn't be legislating about 'em.

'cause you clearly have never met anyone. And if you've met 'em, it's in passing and you don't actually even know their lived experience. And I just think when you talk about New York, that's not the case. You know, that you, you meet people both in terms of, you know, race and faith and gender identity and orientation and all of those things, and culturally, um, that you just, you're not afraid of it anymore. They're just people in front of you, and then you can just go ahead and be a judge about these people instead of deciding, uh, you know, ahead of time or even the unconscious bias where you're not deciding ahead of time. But those just, it's permeating your decisions regardless. And that's because it's a lack of exposure to anybody different than your lived experience.

And I think to some degree, Joni also, our colleagues have personally gone through some of these, these issues. Yes. Right. So I, I think that that's the other part, right? Is that, um, we, we see our colleagues going through all of these different issues also personally, who have decided that, you know, family law is a place that they wanna practice, perhaps because they've experienced some of these issues themselves. And so I, I, I guess, um, in some ways, maybe the bar is very educated about it, right? There's certainly, we have lots of panel discussions about it and lots of articles and the New York Law Journal and case law and, and all of that. And, and so it's, it, it it's not really, um, I think it's certainly not an issue that's, that is buried. It is right out there every day in family court in the Supreme Court, um, you know, of of, of the county that you're in, in the appellate division. It's there.

My next question, really Jo uh, Johnny is, uh, kind of a follow up of that, um, and perhaps a bit more elaboration from your side. Um, you know, with regards to our family law firms adequately prepared to advise clients whose family arrangements do not fit traditional legal models,

Uh, not typically in, again, in the states that are, I would say, and just to generalize, red states, we'll just say that, and I don't know if that's okay to say, but <laugh>, that's what it is in Red States, I would say generally, no. Um, law firms are not ready. I I see lots of law firms, um, even where I am that are, you know, sponsoring at Pride events that are telling same sex couples that they don't need to go through. Um, and adoption not true because they have a, they're on the birth certificate, and that's not true. Birth certificate is an administrative document does not in and of itself convey parentage. And so if you don't have a legal adoption for that same sex couple and something happens to marriage equality in their marriage, so somehow voided or set aside their, their parentage isn't protected.

So even firms that are saying that they're allies to the community are not doing their homework. Um mm-hmm. And so I think that's really important. If you are gonna hold yourself out, great. Uh, we need more of you. However, we need you to be confident. And so don't be dabbling in this because you have a gay friend. I mean, you ha you have to know what you're talking about in order to protect 'em. And, and I think that's really important that it can't just be because you like the idea of, you know, having a pride flag on your website. You, you have to be doing the work and it's changing all the time, and you gotta keep up with it so that you can stay ahead of it. You can't be telling people, um, you know, or V Trump had, uh, a stay in terms of, um, uh, changing your gender marker on your passport and people were, you know, there were law firms that were saying, hurry up and go, go get your passport, right?

No, because it was overturned almost immediately. And then there's things like when you're talking about a passport, if you have to get a renewal and you're, you're up for a renewal and you, you don't have any choice but to get a new one, then there's little tricks like, make sure you turn in an expedited if you can afford it, an expedited application, because instead of, for us in Nebraska going to a Texas office, it goes to the office in Philadelphia, right? So those are, you know, like there's nothing legal behind that per se, but you have to be, you have, you have to be in the community enough to know those things, to be able to advise your client. So I think that's important. It isn't just your willingness to be an allied law firm, you also have to know your shit. You gotta do your homework so that you can protect your clients. Sorry for that.

I also think your law firm itself should be diversified, right? So I think that that's very important that it's, it's inclusive, um, of what you represent too, right? So I think that that's, that's very important because that adds a much better understanding of the issues than, um, if you're not, if your law firm is not diversified.

There we go. Now, Lisa, if firms aren't prepared, uh, then where do legal systems most often fail LGBTQ plus parents in areas such as custody, parental recognition, or documentation?

So I, I think again, you know, if, if you are, um, if you don't have an understanding, if you're not up to date on the case law, if you are not prepared with the facts, if, um, if your firm is not representative of the people that you rep represent, I think that these are all issues. And, um, I like to think that we are representative of the people that we represent. Um, I like to think that we are well prepared with the case law, um, and that there are so many new cases coming down on all these issues. Um, and you know, the, as I said earlier, the biggest struggle that we have is sometimes parents coming to us because, um, their kids are, um, are, you know, saying that they want to, um, change their gender. And that is one of the biggest issues I think that we see happening in terms of, um, fights mm-hmm <affirmative>. In the court courthouse because one parent is fine with it, one parent is not fine with it. Um, one parent is, you know, in, in insanely not fine with it mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, and that, that those are difficult issues. Um, and of course, um, getting the names changed, doing all of those things that, that matter for that client's child, um, that is something that you have to be familiar with.

So, um, during these issues where a child wants to change their gender and, you know, uh, is it usually a nucleus type family or non-marital or cohabitation, what do you see a trend there?

So in our, um, situations, they've been, um, children whose parents are divorced and at some point the, um, the parents, um, now disagree on the issue. Um, I'm thinking about it, for the most part, they have been, um, parents who are traditional parents. Um, I'll say that in terms of male and female roles in the, in the, um, in, in, in the family. Um, but now their children have decided, um, one or more that they want to change their gender. And so, and one parent is, is very pro and willing to seek out the doctors and willing to do the research and willing to advocate for their child. Um, and the other parent not so much. And that's where the, the court battle starts. And frankly, that's also where the children start to choose which parent they prefer to be with, um mm-hmm <affirmative>. Which parent they want to make decisions for them.

And in New York, and I don't know if this is the same in other states, um, but in New York, a child's voice is a very important voice. They may not have a vote at the table, but they definitely have a voice. They have, um, attorneys for their, them that are appointed by the court to advocate for what they want, not what is in their best interest, but for what they want. And I don't know, Joni, if you have what we call attorneys for children, um, but we certainly have it in New York, um, where if there is a custody case, there is an attorney for the child usually assigned, and that attorney for the child's, um, position essentially that they've been appointed for is to advocate for the wishes of their client unless they are a substituting judgment in some way because the child is just unable to comprehend or has been so influenced or any of those things.

So we don't typically have that. Um, they are available, we don't typically use them. We sometimes use the role of a guardian ad litem, which is a lawyer, but that is more of the, you know, observation, um, and more into that best interest. And so I think that, that, one of the issues I find, um, particularly troubling is in addition to having a custodial parent who might be able to be, make those decisions about transitional care, is things like then you, you take your trans daughter and then there's a weekend, um, with dad, and dad decides to buzz their haircut, you know, the two days before school starts. Um, like there isn't really a lot that you can do to fully protect a trans kiddo from a parent who is super, one of the parents is super opposed. They're also being subjected to, you know, family get togethers and all of that where they're being misgendered.

And so just because one parent has that legal custody to be able to make those healthcare decisions about their transition doesn't mean that they aren't still being traumatized by the other parent, um, during their parenting time. Because I don't know many courts that are gonna say that that other parent gets no time, right? You gotta be pretty heinous individual to lose your constitutional right to raise your kid. So I, I think that's an underlying issue that a lot of times people don't think about is all the harm being done by those non-custodial parents during their parenting time and what that's gonna do to those kids.

So I think that's true. Um, you know, in New York, we do have very strong attorneys for children. Um, and that probably makes some difference, um, for, particularly for children who are transitioning, um, because those attorneys for the children will advocate very strongly for what their clients want. 'cause that's who they are. These children are clients, right? And, um, I'm on the panel, um, I often represent children and um, and I certainly advocate for them as strongly as I do their parents when I'm representing parents, right? And so, um, if I think that there are situations where a child is not going to end up seeing both parents because someone is, um, so disparaging or harmful to the child, um, that it's just not in the child's best interest to have the contact or the child, you know, by the time a child in New York is like 14, 15, 16, sure.

And I'm talking about, you know, 5, 6, 7, 8, where they don't have a lot of agency and they don't have a lot of voice with the court, at least they don't hear until they get slightly older. And I think that that's just something, again, back to that competency thing, that if you're gonna represent a parent who's got a trans kiddo, you've gotta make sure that you're talking about pronouns and who's gonna be allowed to use what pronouns about that. You know, whether it's a parent who's transgender, we can talk about that, put that in the order. You're only gonna refer to that mom as she her, we're gonna have maybe litigation, but hopefully in agreement that somebody's mom and somebody's mama or whatever, or Mimi or something. And we're gonna make sure that we know what we're gonna call that other parent. Because if you leave it silent, they're gonna be called dad forever with male pronouns unless you make that part of the order.

And the same thing if you have a transgender kiddo. So I think that just goes back to that issue of competency. You have to be culturally competent about that community that you're helping represent. Because if you don't put those things in the order, and then make sure that that, you know, we only have jurisdiction over that parent, but we can make sure that that parent doesn't expose other family members who are gonna misgender them either. You know, you put back the parent that other non-custodial parent in the hot seat about making sure that they're protecting the environment that that kiddo is in as much as you can. I know we can't legislate everything. Know anybody who knows family none knows that, that somebody will find something that we have not put in that order and do that main thing. But you know, where we know that we can protect that kiddo, you need to be culturally competent enough to do that and be willing to stand up for that kiddo. And you're, and your, and your trans client if they're the parent.

Let's pivot to solutions. How should future ready family law firms proactively advise clients in non-traditional relationships to protect their rights?

I don't know that it's much different than what I've said in terms of cultural competence. Uh, one of the things that I do for, uh, trans clients and then parents with trans kiddos is that I'm on a national listserv with other lawyers who help the trans community. And I learn a lot from that listserv. And we are constantly sharing resources. Sometimes people move and so they're in this community that's super supportive, um, and then somebody gets a job somewhere else or they remarry and they're moving somewhere else. You know, where do I have, uh, an advocate counsel in another jurisdiction that is LGBTQ plus competent, competent and can help you in that new environment? So I think sometimes it's making sure that you are keeping your network fresh so that you do have latest case law, the latest strategies, ideas about things like passports and all of that.

And no, I don't know that any one person can do that on their own. So I think it really does take a, a village or a community, and that is trying to find a community of lawyers across the country where we can all lift each other up in terms of the latest and greatest arguments. Um, and, and the strategy is kind of like making sure that everybody understands that birth certificates are an administrative document. They're not gonna confer parentage, so you better protect your clients from that. And things like that is just because we've had those conversations and kind of thinking out loud with, with one another. So I think it's important that you put yourselves in and put yourself in those rooms and at those tables with folks that are equally find it important to protect their LGBTQ plus, um, and non-married couples, all of those things that don't fit in that nuclear family mold.

Right. Joni, I'm just curious, um, has there ever been a time where you had to kind of, well recommend, uh, your client or perhaps, you know, advise, uh, parent to move states perhaps to New York, uh, to get things done? Uh, was that ever an option?

Well, it depends on where they are in the <laugh> in the case, because when you're talking about a divorce case or a paternity case, once the court takes jurisdiction, um, you're there. And so the U-C-C-J-E-A, um, hopefully everybody here practices family law, but that's uniform child custody to Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. It's a uniform code that I believe all 50 states have now incorporated, um, in some form or fashion. Most of them are pretty similar, you know, pretty similar in terms of the laws. And the bottom line is we now have a home state for a child. So it used to be that e even like in a paternity, um, you could just move, one of the parents could just move. And then, so you could say like, if you live in Nebraska, Colorado's the place we would go. It used to be Iowa, that's completely changed, but now it might still be Colorado.

Um, and then they could just go and then they would file an action in Colorado. The child lives there, the one parent lives there. It was fine once we had the U-C-C-J-A and maybe Lisa remembers when it was put. In fact, I don't really remember exactly. I wanna say two thou early two thousands. I feel like it's been around a long, that's what I'm thinking. Yeah. I feel like it's been around a long time, like not the whole time I've been practicing, but anyway, um, and so now there's a home state, so it's where that child has lived for the last six months. And so you no longer get, you can do that a a non-married parent. So we're gonna save mom as a storied example, um, picks up the kids from daycare and then just drives to Colorado. Um, and you could file there because you're a resident there, but then if it's a bio dad or, or the other mom or whatever the other parent is here in Nebraska, then they can file and say, you would need to bring that kid back like adult.

You can move wherever you want. But that kid is a home state of Nebraska, I, wherever they started. And so that isn't as easy, quote unquote, easy as it used to be to move states to find a friendlier jurisdiction. Um, now mostly you need permission in order to be able to move. So the advice would be more about finding, you know, that parent finding a job that's better than the job they have right now, or moving back towards family, um, that they have. Like if you have a, a close family that's in a friendlier state, then those are ties that we look to in terms of those removal statutes, which I also imagine are relatively similar across, um, across states where we say we're gonna look at the issues in terms of, you know, best interest and how much it's gonna impact the other parent to have that child move.

And then are you moving for a better job or a remarriage or to get closer to family? And they just kind of weigh each of those factors to determine whether or not that kiddo can move. So I would advise clients that we're gonna focus on family a new job, not so much, um, the transition related care if the other parent opposes that transition related care, or if you're in front of a judge that is awful on that topic, then stay away from that topic and try to find another reason for them to move to that friendly place that protects 'em. Um, and that's, I think the other thing that's important is sometimes I think as advocates, even if we're culturally competent, we get a little carried away in getting into other jurisdictions. Not states so much, but counties like Nebraska has 93 counties. I would not do necessarily agree to do a custody case in another county, even if it was for an L-G-B-T-Q client, if I thought that I would get what, what we call hometown, right?

And they don't want somebody, I live in Omaha, which is the biggest, I know it's not much, but it's the biggest city, um, in Nebraska. And so if you're in one of those smaller counties, I might be culturally competent in that, in that area, but I'm not doing my client any favor by representing them in a custody battle where that judge is going to be very upset. Um, I may as well have come in from New York or California. Right? Yeah. So I think some of that is reading the room again. Would that help, Lisa? You think so? Yeah.

Yeah. So I think the, um, I just looked up, by the way, so the U-C-C-J-E-A came down in 1997 and its predecessor was like 1968, so you were just about right. Um, and, um, the U-C-C-J-E-A is a very strict rule that, um, six months in the state, um, there's some exceptions, but there's not a lot of exceptions. One would be domestic violence. Um, if you had to leave because of domestic violence, that might be an exception. Um, but for the most part, um, a court is not gonna take jurisdiction of a child who has not been here for six months, and you're gonna end up back in that same state that you came from. So with an angry judge, with an angry judge, with a very angry judge, particularly if there is a parent who you left with, you know, without getting permission, um, to take that child because you had whatever your agenda was in order to, you know, to take it whether it be for good reasons or not.

Um, so I think that that is an absolute, and then in New York, um, and I'm sure it's like this in other states, you have to be residing in a particular state for a particular amount of time before you can file for divorce. Um, and that, and, and there's a whole list of other rules that go along with that. And so it's not so easy just to go from state to state, I don't think. Um, and, and relocation, frankly, very difficult to answer. I was just on the phone with, with a client today who wanted to relocate. Um, and I was like, that's not happening. Like, we'll put that all the way down on the list because that is a very difficult, um, you know, bar to jump, right? And, and because also you may be taking away time from the other parent, you're too far, how is the other parent going to have access?

Et cetera. So I, I think that those are very difficult routes that people would be taking. Um, and, and frankly very expensive. I mean, there is a cost factor in all of this. Um, and you know, New York is, it's expensive to just get divorced in New York. It's expensive to have a custody case in New York. Very expensive, frankly. Um, and so, you know, custody cases could go on for, I don't know, a month, a month and a half, I, you know, um, all day every day. And so, um, it can be very expensive and, um, you really have to, to think about all of this. And then the motion practice that could bring you back to the other state, um mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, after you've gotten yourself relocated and found your job and done all of these things. So I don't think that's a good solution to the, to the issue. I think that is just gonna be counterproductive.

Got it. Now, Lisa, can you share a case trend or policy change that signals where family law is heading in the next five to 10 years?

Well, you know, in, in terms of trans, I think that, um, judges have been very open, um, to trans. I I really think that they have been and to children transitioning, um, and to parents who are supportive of children who are transitioning and, um, certainly, um, not pleased with parents who are less supportive or, um, or denigrating the child for it or putting the child into a situation where they feel lesser than. So I think to, to some degree, um, that is, is a difference of, of where it was many years ago. Um, I also think we have, um, many, um, judges who, um, are part of these communities, these LBGQ communities, et cetera. And so the bench in New York, um, is, is very diverse, um, and both in family court and Supreme Court. And that makes a very big difference. Um, you know, our colleagues are diverse.

Um, our, the bench is diverse. Um, and so, um, I I mean you just kind of have to look at the social media from, from New York and, and see that that diversity matters and is respected. Um, for the most part. I'm not gonna say to you there's not exceptions, but for the most part, um, I, I think that, um, there's, there's certainly been a lot of progress. Um, and I, I get that that's not certainly where all the states are at this point, um, particularly now. Um, and, and that is what it is. Um, but I, I think New York is fairly progressive.

I would love to get Joni's take on this as well.

Um, not true here. Uh, and I think that unfortunately the pendulum was swinging in the right direction towards justice. Um, but I've gotten kind of whiplash watching it go the other way. Kansas just passed legislation today, um, requiring all trans folks who have a driver's license to turn in their driver's license. If they've changed their gender marker, uh, immediately, there's no grace period to get another form of identification. And if they get pulled over, it's a misdemeanor, it's a 500 fine. If they get pulled, then they have a mandatory either 60 or 90 day suspended license. If they get pulled over during that time, it is, um, a thousand dollars fine and five days in jail and all of their jails now, um, you now, uh, are housed with the sex that you were assigned at birth. Um, the legislator legislature passed it and then their, uh, their governor vetoed it, and then the legislature overruled the veto.

So I am very afraid that that is going to be then mimicked now that it was successful there, um, that in passing that it's going to, it's gonna spread. And so I, these, the pockets, um, where you're safe in terms of, like I mentioned earlier, you know, New York and Illinois, somewhat in Colorado, um, Washington, Oregon, and California, it's a little bit in New Mexico. Um, they're getting fewer and far between, and the rest of the country is languishing. Um, they are, the best place to look is, uh, the Movement Advancement Project does mapping that you can see in real time across all states, um, by topic. So you can look at, um, trans participation in sports, you can look at bathroom issues, you can look at ID issues. Um, so both that website and the A CLU is tracking proposed anti L-G-B-T-Q legislation across the country right now.

They're tracking almost 500 of those bills. Um, and so nobody's gonna be able to do that lift by themselves. So it's nice to have those two resources. I like to plug for people to be able to see what's going on and to see, sometimes you can't tell I have it saved because it, you know, I'll save them in real time, like, this is the map today, and then I'll go back a year later and look at that same map. And how many states have anti L-G-B-T-Q laws or how many states have made it Now, I illegal to, um, allow a kiddo to transition and to give them their, their transition related care. Um, it's staggering. Like the sports for trans participation in sports, for example, just that one topic, um, no, no state had that ban until March of 2020 when Idaho passed it. 'cause there was nothing else going in March of 2020. Right. Nothing else we needed to worry about. No global pandemic or anything? No, we're gonna worry about participation in sports. And then since that time, more than half the states have now have now banned transportation, you know, trans folks participating in sports. So it's, yes, there are certain pockets where it's great. Uh, lots of places are not and getting more and more unsafe by the day. Sorry to be Debbie Downer. <laugh>,

No. Okay. Let's, uh, let's see what we can do to turn that around, perhaps in this final lightning round. Um, I would like to get to know, uh, you know, from Joanie, perhaps, you know, what is one thing a lawyer must unlearn to be future ready?

I think language is number one. What kind of gender neutral language do you use to be more inclusive to all of the communities that you serve?

Okay. And then to Lisa, what is one investment affirm must make to survive the next decade?

So I would say, um, great people, um, maybe ai. Um, you know, I I think that, um, our investment is probably gonna be moving forward, ai, um, because I think that there is, um, a lot to be said for AI right now.

Yep. Uh, can't get away <laugh> from the two that

You can't, you can't get away from it. You have to embrace it at some point carefully, but you have to embrace it.

And what an important conversation that was a huge thank you to Joni Wattie and Lisa Zeman for the wisdom, candor and advocacy they brought to today's episode. We covered the evolving structures of the modern family, the systemic failures around transgender parents, the courts that are catching up and the ones that are sliding backwards and the daily decisions a competent family lawyer has to make on behalf of clients who are running out of legal ground to stand on. If there is one line that captures the whole conversation, it is Joni's. You do not get to put a pride flag on your website and call yourself an ally. You have to do the homework. The lawyers who win in this field, and more importantly, the lawyers who actually protect their clients, are the ones doing the deep work of cultural competency, language, and case law. And that brings me right back to our sponsor, Equa Marketing.

Because being a great family lawyer is only half the equation. The families who need you most are searching for someone who understands them and they're searching online. EWA specializes in helping family law firms get found by the right clients with strong digital visibility, targeted content and intake systems that build trust from the first click. Their team will sit down with you, audit your firm's online presence, study your competition, and walk you through custom recommendations. That session is normally $900 and it is completely free for our listeners. Book it at www.dominantlaw.com/msm. If this conversation moved, you shared with one attorney who needs to hear it and follow the Dominate Law Podcast. So the next episode lands right in your feet. I'm Don and Deisha. The law is living and it changes because we push it to change. Let's build a family law that actually serves all families. We'll see you in the next episode.