In the season five finale of the television comedy series Seinfeld, George Costanza laments his many failures and the dismal state of his life at that point. His friend and sounding board, Jerry Seinfeld, suggests to him that “if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.” Taking the bit by the teeth, George goes so far as to take the radical step of telling the truth to Victoria, an attractive woman he meets. Rather than making outlandish claims to being an architect or marine biologist (his go-to faux professions) or using his phony alias, Art Vandelay, George states unequivocally: “My name is George. I am unemployed and I live with my parents.” Victoria is impressed with George’s transparency and honesty and agrees to go on a date with him. On a roll, George lands an interview with the New York Yankees; and in continuing to embrace the philosophy of “The Opposite,” he criticizes the owner, George Steinbrenner, for slipshod management of the team and lands a job with the team. Ultimately, George even moves out of his parents’ home – coming to a full embrace of the art of doing the opposite.

While there is seemingly little that one could expect to learn from George Costanza about relationships, let alone parenting and custody litigation, the notion of “The Opposite” is one that frequently comes to mind when helping many clients navigate the unusual world of custody litigation. The instincts of many clients are, if I am being honest, no less poorly honed than George’s were. This is not a criticism of clients; it is a simple recognition that the venue and process in which they find themselves is one they are not knowledgeable about and cannot unpack without guidance. Clients often speak, write, and act in ways that they believe are going to make them look favorable to the Judge, the custody evaluator, or the child’s representative/guardian ad litem. However, their efforts often do not have the intended effect and are routinely viewed as representing the opposite of what was anticipated. Complicating matters further, the other parent is often himself similarly.

This can show itself in the parent who has binders of organized materials showing every single time the other parent was 10 minutes late to a pickup or drop off. It can be a parent who can rattleoff a list of negative traits of the other party longer than Martin Luther’s theses but cannot suggest a single positive parenting trait. A parent who insists upon punctilious adherence to strict interpretation of vague or hortatory language in court orders might perceive of herself as being a model litigant, but such grudgingness can also be seen as a sign of rigidity or a sign of that parent having no capacity for flexibility, generosity, or cooperation.

With these clients that I typically conduct a series of re-framing sessions, designed to provide what Jerry gave to George at Monk’s Café – the gift of “The Opposite.” Everyone involved in the family law system have seen a lot. The patterns and approaches taken by litigants to “win” or to gain a leg up in the litigation are well known and easily recognizable. It is only through an intuitive and deep understanding of what drives perceptions, opinions, and outcomes in litigation that a client can come to see the self-inflicted wounds they create by speaking and acting in ways that are not actually designed to win anything except the satisfaction that comes from being right. All too often, Clients trip themselves up in litigation because of the fixation upon needing and wanting to be right. They often want vindication, approval and approbation. Judges, by contrast, do not care about who is right – they want to arrive at good (or at least less bad) outcomes. There is a significant chasm between those two goals. George Constanza needed to impress. He dreamt up exotic careers and names to operate as masks for the fact he was unemployed and living at home. When he embraced radical authenticity – his world changed for the better (at least temporarily). There is a critical lesson there for litigants and participants in custody matters: honesty, not excuses. Graciousness, not guilt. Benevolence, not blame. In the custody setting, a credible parent worthy of being trusted is a parent who owns their errors, shows growth and development, acts in a “kidcentric” manner, and demonstrates patience, flexibility and forbearance. No parent ever easily admits that their conduct is not emblematic of those things. But it often isn’t. It is my job to help folks see that.

Attorney Brendan Hammer may be reached at [email protected] or 312-497-5619.