Family Law in 2026: New Risks, New Clients, New Opportunities

Everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Dominate Law Podcast, where we empower attorneys as entrepreneurs. I'm your host, Don Aisha. Today we are tackling family law in 2026, the new risks, the new client profiles, and the opportunities reshaping one of the most rapidly evolving areas of legal practice. Before we dive in, a big shout out to our sponsor and growth partner, echo Marketing. Here is the honest truth that runs through this entire episode. You can be the sharpest family lawyer in your market with real results and real client wins. But if the families who need you cannot find you online, they end up hiring someone else. And that gap costs you more every month. It stays open. Equa is built for exactly this. They help law firms become the first name. Families find and trust when they search for a divorce attorney, a custody lawyer, or someone to protect them through the hardest moments of their lives.

They are offering listeners a complimentary marketing strategy session worth $900, where a senior strategist audits your online presence, your SEO, and your review profile before the call, go to www.dominantlaw.com/msm to book it now into today's deep dive. We are walking through five critical pillars, the legal risks family lawyers must watch for in 2026, the rise of new client profiles and modern family structures, financial protection, evolving client expectations, and new opportunities for growth. To guide us to extraordinary practitioners, Barry Goldstein, partner at Goldstein and York, and founder of DV experts, LLC, with over 43 years in the domestic violence movement, as an author advocate, an expert witness, Barry helps family lawyers spot the risk signals in custody cases before they become crises. And Jacqueline Newman, managing partner at Berkman Bogar Newman and Shine, and one of the most recognized names in high net worth divorce. She's the author of The New Rules of Divorce and a regular voice on N-B-C-A-B-C, the New York Times, Reuters, and CNBC. Let's get into it. Barry, what custody related risks are becoming harder for family lawyers to recognize before harm escalates?

I think the problem is with domestic violence custody cases, um, very few court professionals know the behaviors that are associated with increased risk of lethality. And I mean, I've read over a thousand evaluations, and not one of those evaluators has done a real risk assessment, has advised the court when there are behaviors that are associated with increased risk of lethality, it's things like strangulation, um, forced or pressured sex, um, violation of court orders, assaulting a woman while pregnant, um, harming animals. There. These are things that we should be looking out for, and in most cases, we don't even talk about it. And that means that courts are making decisions about the safety of children without even knowing if they're at risk.

Now, why aren't we talking about this? I,

You know, I think the problem is at the start of the DV movement, there was no research available, and the popular assumption was that domestic violence was caused by, um, mental illness or substance abuse, and that led courts to turn to mental health professionals as if they are the experts. And even when the research came out that demonstrated that the assumptions were wrong, the courts have really been reluctant to make the kind of changes that are needed. We now have some really good research that goes to the essence of the wellbeing of children. And most courts are making their decisions without even thinking about this research. I'm sure we'll talk about the specific research like Ace and Saunders later, but I think that's the, the larger picture.

Okay, great. Start there. Uh, Barry, but, uh, risk of lethality seems to be the number one thing that we are really missing out on the bigger picture due to, well, as I understood outdated research. So let's, uh, figure out what we can do about it as we go along. Thank you very much for that opener, Barry. Uh, Jacqueline, what recent client expectation has exposed gaps in how family lawyers manage complex divorce matters?

I think what I'm seeing a lot of is that there are people that first of all, have unrealistic expectations. I mean, and that was what I saw, one of the things that people didn't vote for, but you see a lot of that. And so you have a lot of people that are coming to the office with expectations of the court system being able to really address the needs that they're having. Um, and what I'm getting, actually, just listening to what Barry was saying, to the degree that the court system, and I would agree with this, um, is sort of defunct is really to say it pretty blatantly, um, at this point, I think that there's just not enough, uh, funds that are going into the courts to really provide the support that they need. I mean, definitely, you know, I agree with him as what, what he was saying in regards to domestic, um, violence cases, and there's just not enough real knowledge for that. And I'm seeing the same sort of thing, um, even in finances and all of these things, I think people are really in a position where they're just not getting, um, the support that they want from courts, and they're unrealistic about the way that the process will unfold.

Hmm. And how is that connected to recent client expectations?

Well, I think that what happens is recent client, client expectations are really being infiltrated by social media, by um, situations. Even now, AI has become a huge issue. Um, and the fact that people are going into chat and they're coming up with all their expectations and, you know, chat is just trying to appease them, so it's going to ultimately say the things they wanna hear, and then they come to their attorneys, and then their attorneys are saying, well, that's not really what's gonna happen in court. So that's a problem <laugh> right there in itself, <laugh>.

Right. Okay. Um, thank you very much for that opener as well, Jacqueline. Now, we do have a lot of comments here in the chat. I'm gonna try to see what's going on over here. It gets pretty chaotic here, so if anyone does have a specific question, please do use the q and a button. Um, uh, instead of the chat, the chat is great for, uh, uh, great chat. Part of the problem is, okay, I'm just gonna read what Susan just typed in. Part of the problem is, in your state, are there adequate statutes that allow for protection of survivors and children, especially from coercive control and narcissistic abuse? Uh, Jacqueline, do you have anything to add on to that?

Uh, um, what was the question? What was the question exactly?

No, it's not necessarily a question. It's, uh, just a thought, uh, of, uh, Susan over here mentioning that part of the problem is in your state, are there adequate statutes that allow for protection of survivors and children, especially from coercive control and narcissistic abuse?

I would say no, <laugh>. I, I don't think that there is. I think that, you know, again, just to piggyback on what Barry had said, I think there's a misunderstanding, um, about what that, you know, about what abuse looks like. Uh, I think, you know, there's financial abuse, there's coercive control to that point. It's not always just about being physical. Um, if anything, I think that very often a lot of abuse occurs that actually may not even come out as physical. And so I don't think the boards are gross, are really equipped to do that, which I think, again, goes back to funding and knowledge and, you know, just being overburdened.

Check. Mary, you have any,

If I could jump in there in Of course,

Of course.

There is a, there is, um, legislation called Kira's Law named after Kira Fratti, who is one of over a thousand child victims, murdered mostly by abusive fathers because the courts failed to protect the children. And Keira's law is based on the Safe Child Act. So it's a comprehensive proposal that would really solve the problem. And what's really frustrating in New York, the state Senate passed Kira's Law unanimously, and there were a majority of the assembly are sponsors of the law. But what has happened is that the assembly speaker refused to allow it to be voted on, and the governor hasn't, you know, used her, uh, um, influence to get it voted on. This is the solution. One of the things that's frustrating, my new book came out recently, and one of the findings was that the failure of custody courts to protect abuse, uh, victims of abuse has resulted in a huge increase in domestic violence homicide. Here's what would stop that, which save the, uh, state a huge amount of money, particularly in healthcare costs, but they're not doing what they need to do to protect children. In many other states, they have passed some really good laws, but they're partial laws. The legislators have been unwilling to do the kind of comprehensive legislation that would deal with all the problems so that we could finally protect children.

Seems to be working against that. Um, that's a whole nother discussion in itself. Uh, thanks Barry for that wonderful insight. Uh, yeah. Now, which patterns in domestic violence and child custody cases should lawyers treat as urgent in 2026? Barry, this question's for you.

As I mentioned before, there, there are two studies that are really the best tools for handling domestic violence custody cases. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. The first is the ACE Research ac, and it stands for Adverse Childhood Experiences. This is peer reviewed medical research comes from the CDC, so highly credible. Fundamentally, what ACE tells us is that children exposed to domestic violence, child abuse, other kinds of trauma will live shorter and less healthy wive. So, so fundamentally, when courts don't use ace, they're minimizing the harm from domestic violence and child abuse. It goes to the essence of the wellbeing of children. It is absolutely absurd that courts are not using ace. ACE came out in 1998. We could have saved thousands and thousands of children, and the courts are still not using it. And I have yet to hear any of the judges explain, why don't you use the best research?

The other study is the study which looked at the domestic violence knowledge of judges, lawyers, and particularly evaluators. And this, again, is peer reviewed research. This comes from the National Institute of Justice in the US Justice Department. So, again, highly credible. And what they found is that most core professionals do not have the specific domestic violence knowledge that's needed. The recommendation is to use a multidisciplinary approach that include, you know, would include mental health professionals who are expert in psychology and mental illness. It would include lawyers who are expert in the law and analytical thinking. But it requires domestic violence experts because DV is a very specialized area of knowledge, and the courts aren't using it. And Saunders tells us, how do we screen for domestic violence? Because one of the big problems is that most domestic violence is committed in private for obvious reasons.

And a lot of, you know, untrained court professionals treat that as well. It's, he said, she said, there's no independent witness, so we can't tell. But DV experts know what to look for to have a little bit more information that makes it more likely than what he said or what she said is true. And the courts aren't doing that. So without Saunders, we're disbelieving true reports of abuse. And very often what happens is, you know, the mother continues to try to protect her children. That's what mothers do. It's what they're supposed to do. But courts get angry at them and often retaliate against the mother trying to protect the children after the court failed to recognize true reports of abuse. It makes absolutely no sense for the courts to try to handle the most dangerous cases without the best tools like Ace and Saunders

Check. Oof. There's a lot to unpack there, but definitely, um, you know, court professionals just not having that, uh, adequate understanding to really deal with the DB cases. So make sure you're trying to get, um, those DB experts involved in it. Um, yeah, I mean, 1998, that's, uh, the latest, uh, updated research that we can, uh, have a chance of, uh, bringing justice

To D Can I actually ask

Barry a question? Is that going off script? Is that okay?

Yeah, go

Ahead,

Go ahead up on this. So I'm kind of curious what I mean, 'cause what you're saying obvious makes total sense. And, you know, as somebody who also litigates and is involved in custody cases, um, you're right. I will tell you, DV experts don't even come up as something that is, you know, brought in as a general thing. I mean, what we'll have is we'll have forensics, we'll have all these people, but they're not experts. And so when you've spoken to judges and you've said no one's given you an adequate answer, what even answer do they give as to why they would not apply these, you know, these specialties that obviously have been proven? Hmm.

Well, I guess I can respond to that. I mean, most of the time they don't talk about it. When we go to court and we wanna testify about a Saunders, they will usually listen to us, and it can make a difference. We've saved many children, but most cases don't have a DV expert. So the courts never hear about Ace and Saunders. I mean, I would share with you, and we're back to the state of New York, um, I had a case near Albany where the judge had just had a training in Ace. And when I came to testify, he was delighted to have an ACE expert in the court. And whenever the attorney for the abuser objected to something I said, he would quote what I just testified to in denying the objection. And the outcome was what it should have been, custody for the safe mother, supervised visits for the dangerous abuser.

Um, the father was very upset at that. He appealed it all the way to the highest court, and he was, because the research and the evidence supported protecting the children. But most cases don't have that. And you know, Jacqueline, one of the things that interests me is that I'm sure we both know many attorneys handling other types of cases, and they will spend hours upon hours to learn technical material so they can cross examinee, experts, et cetera, and domestic violence, which they're going to encounter cases with over and over again. They don't do that. They don't think of domestic violence as the specialized area of knowledge that it is. Yeah,

I, I would agree. I think that i, i, to the point that you made earlier, I think it, there is an element of people feeling, it's a, he said, she said, and because it's hard to prove what's going on behind closed doors at times, unless there are actual bruises. I think, you know, judges don't wanna hear it in the same capacity. And so it's, it's a hard claim. And unfortunately, there are people that make claims that may not be true. And so, you know, it's, it's kind of a typical thing in my world where you'll have somebody who will make a motion for exclusive occupancy as a, and they'll go into the family court to do it just as a pure way to get somebody out of the house. And then they'll, you know, consolidate up to the Supreme Court and then the person's out.

And even if there wasn't, you know, necessarily violence, that's, you know, it happens very quickly and courts in that situation don't wanna take a chance, but then there's a custody. I mean, there's so many ramifications to it. So you just, I don't feel like that happens. And even, you know, I'm thinking right now, like, I have a case in my office and, you know, it's interesting, like a DV expert. I don't feel like anyone's ever even talked about bringing in a DV expert. Like, I, I, it's, it's an interesting concept and you're a hundred percent right, that why it's not looked at as a specialty in that manner. I don't have an answer for,

Uh, on a different side of things. When financial complexity arises, what should lawyers prioritize between speed protection and client control?

I think when it comes down to it, um, I honestly, it's really sort of all of it. I mean, client control to some degree, depending on what they're doing. But I think that that really speed is not necessarily the factor. I think it's just very important to be accurate. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. And to not make presumptions and, you know, different than, you know, what we're talking about in regards to domestic violence. There are documents. I mean, there's no, he said, she said a lot, you know, there are actual documents and financial documents. It's a question of really being able to ascertain them. Yes.

Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Uh, Jacqueline, I think you're, you just cut off your audio

Or I didn't move.

Barry, can you say, I think my audio got cut off. Barry, can you something real quickly by any chance? Yeah, a few things. Um, oh, no, no. Hold on. Hold on, Barry, sorry. I just wanted to see if there was an audio issue. There is an audio issue coming from Jacqueline. So Jacqueline, we cannot hear you. It's not for me. Uh, now, now you're good.

Mm. I didn't move, so I don't know. <laugh>.

Yeah, no, I think maybe it did from my side, my side. Maybe my apologies. Please continue on. Sorry, Jacqueline.

Uh, I'm not sure what I was saying. What was I saying? <laugh>? What

Was the question? Oh, oh, I'm so sorry about that. That's okay. It was regarding the financial complexities.

So, yeah, so I think accuracy is important, and I was saying that I do think it's, there is not as much he said. She said there can be ambiguity, obviously, and there could be people's interpretation, but financials, um, you know, are, are much more clean cut, I would say, than any kind of, you know, there's a much more of an objectivity to it than there would be to a domestic abuse situation where some people may deem that to be subjective, some may not. Um, but so I think that really it comes down to definitely being, um, you know, careful in what you're doing. I mean, speed can play a role to the degree that if you have somebody who might be wasting assets or things like that, but there are ways to address that. So I think really what it comes down to is accuracy is the number one thing that you wanna be looking for.

How do you address speed while being accurate? Of

Course, speed and being accurate. I mean, I think that there are ways to do it. Um, but as I said, I don't see speed as the number one factor in this. I think that we're really looking at, you know, there's AI now, which is definitely speeding things up. So that is one of the things that we've been using, um, you know, in regards to discovery and things like that. So there are ways to internally move faster than what I think we've been able to do in the past. But I can't stress that enough about accuracy. <laugh>, I would take accuracy over speed.

Absolutely. Barry, you wanted to add something there previously? I cut you off. Would you like to go ahead and do so?

To put something in context, um, economic abuse is a really important part of domestic violence. Um, about 99% of DV includes economic abuse, and courts are used to parties arguing over money, and they miss the important difference in a custody case because, you know, typically DV is about control, including financial control. So in most DV custody cases, the money is on the side of abusers. And what that means is that they have this unfair advantage. And when an abuser is taking money from the victim, um, not paying support, stealing money, hiding money, wasting all sorts of money on unnecessary litigation, they're not just hurting the mother, they're hurting the child. And for an abuser who claims to be acting outta love for the child when they're taking money that could otherwise be used for the child, that demonstrates that they're not acting outta love for the child.

They're acting out of their desire to have power and control. And the problem is the courts aren't adjusting. And there are two things the courts need to do. Um, judge Mike Briner wrote a chapter in my first book with Dr. Mo Hannah, talking about the judges have the power and the authority to level the playing field, and that would be to have the wealthier party pay some of the legal and other courts for the less wealthy part party so that the court can get both sides fairly. And what Judge Bruner was saying is the courts aren't using that power as often as they should, as effectively as they should, but that needs to be done. The other thing is, there's a really important book in the DV field called the Batter as Parent Wendy Bankrupt and Jay Silverman. And one of their recommendations is that any expenses made necessary by someone's abuse should be paid for by the abuser. And what's really important, if courts did that, you would've a fairer case where both sides can, you know, provide the information, you know, to support their case. Very often, because one side has all the money, very often the poor side loses representation. The court doesn't even get the information it needs to make a good decision for children.

Wow. There's a lot of, uh, yeah, I mean, this just goes back to the second question with Jacqueline answered. Um, just a lot of these issues do come about because a, uh, courts are inadequate. Um, and that's unfortunate. It's truly unfortunate. Um, and, uh, yeah. What criteria should guide lawyers when evaluating abuse allegations within a custody strategy? What are the top three?

Well, fundamentally, when children are exposed to domestic violence and child abuse, they're gonna lose years from their life. And most of the harm from domestic violence and child abuse is not any immediate physical injury. It's living with the fear and stress that is gonna ruin the children's life. And again, stress is what we should focus on. And yet, courts almost never do. Very often the courts will impose outcomes that add to the children's stress. When the research says it's critical to reduce the children's stress, and that stress causes cancer and heart disease, it, it, you know, causes mental health problems. Um, you know, the many different kinds of problems. In our new book, we interviewed people from the Cancer Society and the Heart Association, and they agree with us. They have the same research. They understand that when we tolerate domestic violence and child abuse, we're increasing cancer and heart disease.

And one of the reasons I'm excited about that finding is that when we go to court and testify, the Heart Association says this, the Cancer Society says this, courts are more willing to listen. You know, those are organizations that are highly respected, um, you know, very credible. And, and it's really helpful. And one of the things that's interesting, we may talk about alienation later, um, but the outcome that the biased alienation theories like is exactly the opposite of what the American Heart Association recommends. And I think that's a pretty strong argument that courts have never heard before. And so I'm excited that we have some new information from our book and to share it you in audiences like this, and, you know, with the courts, because it's really persuasive and most of all, it goes to the essence of the wellbeing of children, which is what courts are supposed to be focused on.

Check. So absolutely. I think what I'm understanding here is, you know, stress being something much more emotional. It's difficult to, uh, really create a tangible grasp on, whereas when you have these physical manifestations in form of cancer, increased risk of cancer and heart diseases, um, backed by, um, authoritative bodies, um, it's much more easier for us to make the case. Um, so some things to really think about, uh, when it comes to evaluating your own DV cases. So, uh, Jacqueline, where should family lawyers draw the line between personalized service and unsustainable client communica client accommodation?

So I guess that's really a boundary question. Um, that is, you know, and it, and it's challenging. I mean, these are people coming to you incredibly difficult times in your lives. You're getting to know them as people. Um, I will admit, I'm probably not the greatest person to answer that question. My boundaries are very, very, uh, very, very weak. Um, to the degree that I do give my cell phone out, clients know they can call me on the weekends. Um, I am very accessible. 'cause I think that you do establish these relationships. That said, to your point, I think that you have to be self-protective. Um, obviously doing this is a very stressful thing. And, you know, you people that are divorce attorneys and, and working in this field as a whole, have their own families and their own levels of stress. And so I think it's important to have that type of balance. Um, and clients can take advantage of you at times, and that's something you have to be aware of and have certain clear boundaries when it comes to that. So for me, I think it is important to be able to be there for your client and be supportive and recognize the point that they're at and still be self-protective. Because if you are in a situation where you are, you know, you are ultimately getting worn down, and then you're not gonna be in the best place to really help your client, which is the goal.

Seemingly, you seem to be in a great position just telling by your smile <laugh>, how, how, how are you managing that? Give us some tips.

So I've been doing this for a long time. Um, I will say, uh, you know, I actually love what I do. Um, and I think that that's part of it. I think matrimonial law as a whole, I tell people all the time, like, try it when you're in law school, because if it's you don't like it, you, you're not gonna do well at it. Like, it's, it's one of those things you kind of love it or you hate it. Um, I happen to love it. I think it's a really, it's an honor to be in these people's lives at this time and really watch them strengthen. Um, you know, some of my, you know, most rewarding moments are when I have a client that comes to me and can barely finish a sentence that this person is so incredibly upset. They think their whole lives are, you know, completely blowing up.

And then they walk out so strong and they walk out really recognizing that maybe they were in a, you know, an abusive relationship in whatever context, and now they're open to being in a healthy one. So to watch that strength, that inner strength build, and also to be evidencing that for your children, which I think is so incredibly important. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, you know, I say a lot when we have clients that are in dysfunctional relationships and marriages. I say you're role modeling for your children. Like, just so you know, like, and I say a lot, how would you feel if your daughter or son came to you and described the same marriage you're in and said that they were in it, which you tell them to stay. And that's in essence what you're doing. Because if you allow them to watch these kind of dysfunctional relationships, you're, you're setting your, so you're setting up the cycle.

And so for me, it's very important. And I, again, I feel really honored that I'm in a position to kind of help people stop those cycles. So I do love what I do. Um, you know, people ask a lot, does it impact your marriage? Uh, you know, I joke all the time that it makes the fact that my husband doesn't put his dishes in the sink. I mean, dishes in the dishwasher, like a little less annoying. Um, just 'cause I know how much worse it could be, even though the dishwasher's obviously right in arm's length and they could just, he could just easily do it. But I do think it gives you a little context of how things could be. And, um, yeah, I feel really lucky. I love my job.

Amazing. It seems that you found meaning in what you do and that really helps you, uh, with that. But of course, for everyone else, or, you know, find meaning definitely, but also have that clear boundaries and find your own self protection that'll allow you to thrive with that meaning in your own capacity. Now, first of all, we got Dan Dina, um, who has said, I've been a DV advocate coach for over 10 years. I bring my legislative and finance background to my project, which provides legal, financial, and communication strategies to survivor struggling through family court. I think it would be beneficial for family law attorneys to partner with DV experts like me, who can help handle intakes and pinpoint the specific elements of dv. In a worst case, uh, DV experts can distill two hours of a client's worst case scenario, fears into a dozen bullet point questions for the attorneys, and a rough frame for discovery. How do attorneys feel about a partnership like this? Okay, I only read the question at the very end. Uh, how do attorneys feel about partnerships like this? I wanna ask Jacqueline this, you know what

I mean? I'll, I'll be honest, it has not been something that has really crossed our, crossed our paths before this. Um, personally I will say I don't work with many cases my firm does. Um, I personally probably do not have as many, uh, overt DV cases that said, you know, after this, I'm happy to <laugh>, you know, consider that. And it definitely, if I think if we had a case that really had evidencing of DV and it was a factor, um, that a court is considering, I think an expert would be an excellent idea.

Amazing. Um, and I think I know where Barry stands on that, uh, argument.

Well, you know, the most common question that we get as DV experts, um, and the same is true for DV advocates, is where can I find a good attorney for dv? Because most attorneys do not have the expertise. And even worse than that, because that we can overcome if they're willing to listen to a DV expert, but a lot of them aren't. And you know, one of the problems in the court system is that they very frequently retaliate against protective mothers. And as a result of that, many attorneys are afraid to present evidence of abuse, especially sexual abuse of children. And what that means is the court doesn't even have the opportunity to do what they need to protect the children. The courts aren't getting the information they need. And so we need attorneys who are willing to advocate for protective mothers. And, you know, we constantly are being asked by our clients, you know, do you know an attorney in this area or that area that we can get? If we could get attorneys who would like to work with us, um, you know, get more business, but you'd also help your clients more. And, you know, I'd love to see more of that. We're starting to see a few attorneys that we've worked with regularly come back to us, um, and we, again, we'd like more, you know, protective mothers need effective attorneys.

So Barry, I can respond to that a little bit. Um, part of the problem is that courts will say to you, and sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, that should you bring this case and make sexual abuse claims and you lose, you're going to lose custody. And so the fear becomes for these mothers is that who knows what a court's gonna do? Who knows what a court's gonna believe, who knows what a child is going to say. And so, I mean, and I will say, as I say this out loud, I think to myself, more of a reason to have a DV expert. But at the end of the day, that is incredibly scary to a mother who knows this person's abusive and says, okay, so if I take a chance in a court system, which, you know, to your point, isn't educated, isn't in a situation where they're willing to give the time, um, it is, I mean, think about it, like it would be terrifying that if you ultimately go through the court process and it does not do what it's supposed to do, and now not only are you losing, you know, you're losing your child to an abuser like that is the worst that can ever happen.

And so it's very hard. It's, it's like a, it's a just a really big risk. And I, in my experience, um, and again, I have personally not had a ton of experience, but as I said, my firm has. But I know we had a case once where a mother, um, you know, and I was a little on the peripheral of this case, but I will say I remember the mother had concerns and, but she was scared to do it because it has been, the message is pretty clear that you better have an iron shot case. And, you know, these are subjective views that people have. And so iron shot just doesn't really exist.

I, if I could just give you some facts, because you are absolutely right. And the research is this, um, mothers involved in contested custody make deliberate false reports less than 2% of the time. And that finding is particularly about child sexual abuse. But the Meyer study, which is the main outcome study, found that when a mother raises concerns about possible child sexual abuse, and the father counters with the alienation tactic, custody courts disbelieve 98% of the cases, which means that the co courts are getting a very high percentage of these cases wrong. And, you know, of all the ACEs, child sexual abuse is the most harmful. So if the answer is we can't raise child sexual abuse because the court doesn't know how to handle it, it means we're gonna ruin a lot of children's lives. The ACE study found that in the United States, one quarter of our children will be sexually abused by the time they're 18. You know, that's outrageous. And it's because not just the custody courts, but many systems within our society are failing our children. And the solution ultimately has to be for the courts and for the other agencies to do a better job. Not that we're gonna let children suffer more abuse. We've gotta change that.

Yeah. I mean, I, I couldn't agree with you more. And you know, the, you brought up the alienation. You're right. I mean, people throw around the term alienation as a defense constantly. I mean, that is, if a child does not like to be with their parents for whatever reason, they claim they're being alienated. There's no look inside, there's no, you know, being a little bit responsible and recognizing that, you know, whatever role you played may be infiltrating why this child is reacting the way the child is reacting. But yeah, I mean, I, it's, I wish I had a good answer and I wish I could take you and bring you to all the courts and say to all the courts like, you need to listen. Um, 'cause it is incredibly scary. I mean, those stats you just said actually made my stomach hurt. Like, that is just awful.

Now I also have one other question, which, um, I had selected because a lot of the registering questions were kind of on a similar sentiment. And that's, uh, by Sherilyn, uh, who's also here as an advocate. Um, now what are the clearest signs that a parent is weaponizing systems, police reports, GS therapists, school complaints, uh, repeated motions, and how should a lawyer respond when that pattern is the actual strategy, Barry?

Well, the problem is, you know, all of the different court professionals, judges, lawyers, evaluators, head coordinators, uh, GS with very rare exceptions, do not have the domestic violence expertise that they need. That's part of the findings in Saunders. Um, but it hasn't caused these professionals to try to get the training that they need. And too often they're not even willing to listen when there is somebody with that training. Um, as we've said earlier, there, DV is a specialized area of knowledge, and the other professionals need to recognize it. Saunders recommends a multidisciplinary approach. If we could get into that, if the other professionals would recognize that just as they have specialized training in their field. The same is true about DB experts. If we could pull our knowledge and expertise, we could better protect children, which is presumably what we all want to do.

Yeah.

Okay. Um, Jacqueline, do you have anything to add on to that?

I mean, I, I, I just agree and <laugh>, I mean, I wish I, I wish I could come up with an answer of any type. I mean, I see what happens and, you know, and it happens, you know, even in a non dv fully specific situation. But just, you know, the hostility that exists between parents and how it infiltrates their children. I mean, when you speak about the issues about heart attacks and stuff, I've spoken about that, uh, not specifically with dv, but just abusive situations and negative situations. And I, I have read a study about how that impacts your life later on, just the stress of living in these dynamics. Um, and so, and, and, you know, it's an, it's an interesting thing and you do have to get somebody who's gonna pay attention. And unfortunately, again, it goes back a little bit also to the fact that these courts are completely overburdened.

These judges are overburdened. You walk into a courtroom, you have about six minutes tops to present your case until the next one's coming on. And, you know, there are just piles high. And, you know, I know a lot of really good judges who I think would love to be able to do a better job, and they just don't have the time to do it. And it's, it's a, that's really where I think one of the major problems comes in. In my ideal world, I'd like to think if people had more time and there were more resources, we may be in a situation that this is not happening to the degree that it is.

There we go. Okay. Uh, just to wrap things out over here, uh, Barry Haley has asked, where can we find the study on the 2%?

Um, that's the Bala study. Um, might remember that the last time I appeared. Uh, Nicholas Ball was the other guest. He was the lead author of that study. Um, so you should be able to find it online. Um, it's certainly cited repeatedly in our book. Um, it, it's really basic. And, you know, there are other studies that have similar concerns. The, the problem is that the alienation theories have sought to spread a myth that women frequently make false reports, and that's just wrong. But, um, if you look up the Nicholas Ballas study, um, you know, you should be able to find that information. And I should also mention, if you look at the Saunders study, the Saunders study sites, the ballast study in many places

Right now, uh, we are here at our final round of questions. And, uh, my next question to you is, Barry, what intake workflow helps lawyers really identify coercive control before custody positions are shaped?

Um, you know, it's interesting. Somebody asked me about a new law in Utah that is designed to include coercive control. And, you know, coercive control is part of domestic violence. You know, one of the things we like to tell the courts is that most domestic violence is neither physical nor illegal. You know, it's all these various coercive and controlling tactics. And those tactics cause the stress that the ACE study talks about that ruin children's lives. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. I think at the start of the DV movement, courts were only concerned about physical abuse. And that turned out to be a mistake. And yet, even today, very often you'll hear court professionals talk about, well, you know, there was no physical abuse, or it was relatively quote minor. And so they don't feel the need to protect children, and in not protecting the children, they're ruining their lives. And that's what needs to be changed, that the tactics that are called coercive control are more than enough to ruin a child's life. So we should pay attention to it.

And bringing that up, um, in the discussion in a way that is productive is the task at hand. Um, there was a registering question that, um, I know we are going to be tight for time, so let me, let me see, let me see what we can do. Jacqueline, uh, uh, right. Yeah. This question is great. What signs tell you a family law firm is truly serving complex clients better, especially in high asset or high conflict matters? Over to you.

What, what was the first part of the question? What was the, what was the

What, what are the signs, the signs that tells, oh, sorry, I didn't hear that part.

Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, the signs of people, I mean, generally if you're dealing with people that are dealing in the high net worth space, dealing with people with complex, um, asset structures, business structures, things like that, if you're dealing with people that run hedge funds that are dealing with entertainers, like people that basically are dealing with kind of the type of cases that are not necessarily straightforward, W2 employees, odds are mm-hmm <affirmative>. They're gonna be in a situation where they'll be able to, uh, evaluate, you know, complex assets and, and different types of income streams.

Okay. Uh, I'm just gonna give things moving here because the of the tight time schedule. Um, otherwise, I, I would've had so many follow up questions right there. Uh, but Barry, uh, how should legal teams coordinate with advocates, clinicians, or experts without weakening case strategy? This is the key question.

Well, I think context is important. The research is important, and we need to put it together. We should all be allies in trying to protect children. And I think one of the things, you know, we haven't really touched on tonight is that the courts developed a lot of mistaken practices, a lot of mistaken assumptions, and they never changed that when the research came out that they were wrong. One of the things I love about Cure's law at about the Save Child Act is it specifically says, stop doing the things that are harming children. Because a lot of times, you know, no judge wants to hurt children, but they're used to doing things, they're comfortable doing things that are harmful. And so we need the professionals to be open to doing something differently, to take a look at the new research, stop doing what is harming children mm-hmm <affirmative>. And start using the research to protect children. That seems obvious, but it's not happening in most of the courtrooms.

And what a great point to really, uh, segue into the final key takeaway. Uh, now I do want to ask both of our panelists for the golden nugget of our conversation, uh, that you, you would want our attorneys listening in on the call to really take away and implement right away, starting tomorrow for a better world with, uh, less dv. Uh, Jacqueline, how about you? What's the key takeaway here?

I think the key takeaway for me, I'll say specifically, is really learning about the role that DV experts are playing. Um, as I said, it was not something that really crossed my path, and I've been doing this for over 25 years, and I, and it's not something that you hear about very often. So it is a tool that I'm gonna take back to my firm Absolutely. And, and hear about it. I mean, and talk about it with everybody. So for me, it's really that, and, and just recognizing how important it's to be educated, whether it be on finances, going through a divorce, or whether it be, you know, and being able to witness and be aware of whatever DV that's going on in your home to your child, et cetera, to really be open and to see what's going on and, and protect your kids

Check. That's great takeaway. And we're so happy that even at least one person, um, has a new perspective on the issue. Uh, Barry, how about yourself? What's the key

Takeaway here? Um, if I'm, if I'm not being too crass, I, I would really like to mention, um, my book, um,

There we go. Preventing

DV and Child Abuse. Because what we found is, um, it, we have this new research and the research, you know, in one way it's sad because it means that what we're doing now is so much more harmful than we can imagine, but it's also exciting because given the financial and other costs of tolerating domestic violence and child abuse, that could be a huge incentive to change everything. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, we spend a lot of time on the anti-smoking crusade because that would, what they did there, which saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars we can do by reducing domestic violence and child abuse and, you know, so it's a huge incentive. And we can imagine the Cancer Society in their Heart Association taking a weed for the same reason that they did with, uh, preventing smoking. And so if we can get the right, right leadership, we could do something that is hugely different and could really change our world in some wonderful ways. I think most people don't understand that everybody is spending in the United States, everybody is spending $11,000 a year to tolerate domestic violence. And, you know, if we can recover even a chunk of that, it would change our country in the most wonderful ways, in addition to making the children in our court say it.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Barry, um, for that wonderful, wonderful reminder. And, uh, where can the people find your book, by the way?

Um, it's published by Civic Research Institute, and the only place to buy it is from the website. Um, but it is available now as you can see. So if you go to the website, civic Research Institute, look for preventing domestic violence and child abuse, and I hope you'll take a look at it. I, I would love people to share it with judges and lawyers and other professionals and, you know, 'cause I think if they understand the harm that the present practices are doing, our love for our children will cause us to make the changes that we need.

And that brings us to the end of one of the most meaningful conversations we have hosted on this show. A heartfelt thank you to Barry Goldstein and Jacqueline Newman for the wisdom and the urgency they brought to this discussion. Barry reminded us that Ace and Saunders, two of the most important pieces of research in this field are still being ignored in courtrooms across the country. Even though we have known the signs since the late 1990s, Jacqueline reminded us that family lawyers are not just legal advocates. They are role models, witnesses, and sometimes the first person to help a client see what a healthy relationship can look like. Barry left us with a number that should stop every one of us cold. The United States spends roughly $11,000 per person in every year, tolerating domestic violence, recover even a fraction of that. And we change everything and we save children's lives in the process.

Now, a quick reminder about our sponsor, equal marketing, the work family Lawyers do is some of the most important work in the legal profession. And the families who need you most are searching online right now for someone they can trust. Equa builds the visibility systems that put your firm in front of those families with the targeted SEO content and intake support that convert inquiries into clients, they are offering a complimentary marketing strategy session worth $900, where a senior strategist researches your firm before the call. Book it at www.dominantlaw.com/msm. Um, before we go, please follow the Dominate Law Podcast and share this episode with one family lawyer who would benefit from the conversation. I'm Don Aisha. Thank you for the difficult, vital work you do for the families. Count on you. We'll see you in the next episode.