Divorce Corp. tries to be a documentary reminiscent of an expose, but it is really a preach to the choir documentary that mingles justified criticism with self-interested griping and a lack of understanding of the law, which sadly undermines the entire enterprise and demands a do-over by a more objective filmmaker. If I was a layperson, i.e. not a lawyer, I may have bought Divorce Corp.’s criticism completely, but the documentary tipped its hand, and I am glad that I have enough independent knowledge to not fall for the okey doke. I think that it is acceptable for a documentary to openly favor a side, but Divorce Corp. has an objective veneer, which is deceptive.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an attorney, but because I work for the state, I earn the same amount of money regardless of how many or few cases I have or how long it takes to resolve disputes. Because I am not an authorized spokesperson for the state and legally must protect the customers’ privacy rights, I will not discuss my job’s details. Because of the nature of my job, I do file appearances in my state’s family and probate court, but the court does not employ me. The judges in my state do not get elected, but appointed. I occasionally do get involved in divorce cases, but try not to because I do not want to add another position in an already tense and complex situation. My unspoken goal is to do as little as possible to exacerbate tensions in a relationship while establishing what is appropriate per the law and customers’ requests. I do not take sides and the best interests of the child factors into what is appropriate, which means neither parent may be happy with my objectives. Sometimes I am a lightning rod or a scapegoat for unhappy parents, which may not be fun for me, but is preferable to them being frustrated with each other since they need to have an open positive line of communication in order to raise a child. The reality is that most people who come to court are fine and simply disagree about a couple of issues so they have a judge decide. There are difficult cases because some people can be difficult. The system is far from perfect, but the system is made up of mostly well-intentioned people who can still make mistakes because we are human beings. Some people, including judges, are better at some tasks than others. Maybe I am lucky to practice where I practice, but in over thirteen years of practicing, the imperfections did not last long or were eventually rectified.
What did Divorce Corp. get right? Some attorneys do exacerbate tensions between parties in court. The court should guard against conflicts of interests. Electing judges is problematic.
Was Divorce Corp. neither right nor wrong? The court can be difficult for a pro se litigant to navigate, but there are people willing to help. Divorce Corp. should have argued for more resources.
Divorce Corp. focuses on the egregious conduct of child specialists, which sounds like an appropriate area to focus on. Focusing on the child specialist’s training and work conduct is a great idea, but when they veered into the child specialist’s personal life and sexual history, it felt homophobic. If the child specialist is a child abuser, obviously his or her personal life is relevant, but it felt like de facto discrimination, “Can you believe this gay guy is deciding whether or not I am a good parent!” He can be an awful child specialist, and his sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
What did Divorce Corp. get wrong? Divorce Corp. suggests that a jury, not a judge, should make a decision. The idea of a jury deciding a case in family court seems absurd to me. I don’t think that the filmmaker fully fleshed out this idea, particularly the invasive questions that you would have to ask a prospective juror. If you are offended that a judge is deciding what is happening in your life, just wait until John Doe or Jane Doe, whom you would judge as an awful spouse or parent, gets to make decisions in your life. Remember how Divorce Corp. treated the child specialist. Imagine doing that to ordinary people on a daily basis.
Divorce Corp. does not like the best interests of the child and privileges the idea that the parents have a right to raise his or her child. I absolutely think that this is a mistake though I do not discount that parents should ideally raise his or her child. Divorce Corp. does not take into account that sometimes neither parent is thinking objectively about the child’s well being because the parent is caught up in a disagreement with the other parent. Parents can love their child and want the best for them, but children are human beings too, and I prefer the Danish approach to this area of law: the child has a right to access to both parents so it is the parents who must adjust to the child, not the child accommodating the parents. Children have rights. A relationship should not be a zero sum game. Divorce Corp. is obsessed with kids, but never actually asks the kid what the kid wants.
Divorce Corp. also tries to tout a Scandinavian model by just looking at Iceland or Sweden to say that alimony should not exist and men and women should be treated equally financially. Superficially there is nothing wrong with that statement, but if unpacked, it is filled with incorrect assumptions. It assumes that men and women are not treated financially the same in the US by the courts even if the actual US economy does treat them different financially. Iceland and Sweden has tons of legislation and done an incredible amount of legwork to make equality a reality whereas in the US, we don’t, but our courts do pretend that men and women face the same economic reality. Divorce Corp. wants to pick and choose how US should emulate other countries without embracing everything that makes that policy possible.
Divorce Corp. never showed both parties’ perspective, but only the aggrieved parent’s side, and the aggrieved parent never reveals why the court claims that it ruled against him or her, which is not the aggrieved parent’s responsibility. The creator of Divorce Corp. needs to watch Rashomon. There are three sides to every story, and one of those sides is the truth.
Divorce Corp. never clearly establishes at the beginning of the film that different states have different ways of appointing or electing judges and different rules. There is no national law. In addition, Divorce Corp. only focuses on married couples, but later on tries to include disputes involving unmarried couples, which I think is relevant, but Divorce Corp. treats them as an afterthought and seems to be unaware that the laws are different in both situations though the results are supposed to be the same.
Divorce Corp. complains that attorneys use financial statements to determine fees. The court needs parties to file a financial statement because parties ask the court to determine financial matters, and the court needs information about the parties’ finances to do so. Maybe some attorneys do use the information to gouge his or her client for fees, but financial statements are not innately conspiratorial. Divorce Corp. discusses “support” payments, but does not differentiate between child support and alimony.
When Divorce Corp. does look at child support, it is annoyed that the child does not literally get the money. Hand your paycheck to your child and see how many of your bills get paid. Divorce Corp. ignores the reality of why the custodial parent gets the money and not the child. If you could hand the money to the child and expect that the child would act like an adult, then child support would not be necessary.
Divorce Corp. really lost me when it tried to argue that it does not make a difference in a child’s life when a kid goes from a poorer parent’s home to a wealthier one. Again Divorce Corp. uses a child to make an argument that only benefits one of the parents. I have been a poor kid. It makes a difference, and to pretend otherwise is a lie. Divorce Corp. inadvertently reveals an unfortunate reality: that not all parents want the best for their children and would prefer to keep the money.
I noticed that Divorce Corp. kept interviewing an attorney about an Indiana case who was not licensed to practice law in Indiana. Um, what? Divorce Corp. made a case about a father who was incarcerated into a freedom of speech case. Divorce Corp. claimed that he was jailed for writing a blog. Divorce Corp., have you ever heard of Google? I decided to Google Dan Brewington in Indiana to read the court documents. I’ll let you decide for yourself if Divorce Corp. willfully mischaracterized his incarceration to further the filmmaker’s agenda.
If I had the time, I would research every aggrieved interviewee’s case to find out the whole story. Divorce Corp. hinted at its bias when it sympathetically showed clip after clip of litigants attacking court officers and judges. Divorce Corp. claims that lawyers who benefit from the system will always defend it, but never explains how Divorce Corp. got so many attorneys to agree to an interview to complain about the system.
Divorce Corp. claims that it wants reform, which is always necessary, but Divorce Corp. has adopted the voice of a single aggrieved party. If Divorce Corp. was really concerned about children, it would have privileged children’s voices and concerns, not the parents or financial concerns.