Taking Back Your Power
Posts
🦚Judges & experts dismissing your evidence?

🦚Judges & experts dismissing your evidence?

Psychological tactics that bypass family court resistance

Rina Groeneveld
March 14, 2025

"Would choking be considered abuse?" the lawyer asked.

The judge rolled her eyes and replied, "Well, I guess choking would be a little different."

This chilling exchange, documented in the book "Framed: Women in the Family Court Underworld," by Christine Cocchiola and Amy Polacko, happened after a judge had already dismissed substantiated evidence of physical abuse, declaring that "grabbing a child and leaving marks hardly qualifies as abuse." Despite having a CPS report confirming physical and emotional abuse, the mother was told by her own legal team that she risked losing custody if she "insisted on raising the abuse" because it might make her appear "obsessed" and "alienating."

When court professionals dismiss or minimize evidence that contradicts their perspective, it's more than just frustrating. It can be devastating to your case and dangerous for your children.

Ego and corruption certainly play a role in some cases, but they’re not the only reasons why this happens. There are deeper psychological and systemic factors at work when judges, evaluators, and other professionals resist information that challenges their initial impressions.

Understanding these factors, and knowing how to work with them rather than against them, can make the difference between being dismissed as "difficult" and actually being heard in many cases.

When you’re facing family court or dealing with court-appointed professionals, one of the most challenging dynamics is presenting information that contradicts their current perspective without triggering resistance.

Why even experts resist new information

It can feel maddening when someone with authority over your case seems to have their mind made up. Your instinct might be to present the facts more forcefully, but here's why that usually backfires:

Confirmation bias: People filter for information that confirms what they already believe and reject information that challenges those beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance: When they’re faced with information that contradicts their existing opinions, people experience psychological discomfort and often reject the new information to keep things consistent.
Professional reputation concerns: Acknowledging a mistake could feel risky to a professional's standing and credibility.
Decision fatigue: Court professionals make countless decisions daily, leading them to rely on mental shortcuts rather than carefully considering new information.
Time constraints: Family court dockets are typically overcrowded, leaving little time for professionals to deeply reconsider established positions.
Deference to judges: Lawyers generally don’t like to annoy judges by being confrontational or presenting evidence that goes against the judges’ bias. They have to work with those judges in other cases, and judges talk to each other.

In his book The Diary of a CEO, Stephen Bartlett shares a thought exercise where you have to imagine that a man is holding a gun to your family member’s head, saying that he’ll pull the trigger unless you believe that he is Jesus. Can you make yourself believe this? No, the best you can do is to pretend that you have that belief.

Now, imagine you’re in front of a judge or a custody evaluator, telling them that their entire understanding of your case is fundamentally wrong. The psychological resistance you face is powerful. But, unlike the impossible gun scenario, there are ways to work with cognitive dissonance rather than against it.

Beating cognitive dissonance in family court

Lead with agreement

Start by finding common ground with their current position before you introduce new information. This establishes you as reasonable and collaborative rather than oppositional.

🚫Instead of: "Your recommendation doesn't address the key problems with the current arrangement."

✅Try: "I completely agree with your concern about consistent routines for the children, which is why I've implemented a structured schedule that includes..."

Frame information as complementary, not contradictory

Present your information as adding to their understanding rather than correcting it. This lets professionals incorporate new information without feeling that their initial judgment was wrong.

🚫Instead of: "The transition issues aren't about the children's anxiety, they're about the other parent's inconsistency."

✅Try: "Yes, I understand the court's concern about transitions between homes, and I've found that implementing a consistent pre-transition routine has significantly reduced the children's anxiety."

Let them reach the conclusion themselves

Present facts and evidence in a way that leads the professional to the conclusion you want them to reach without explicitly stating it. People are more likely to accept ideas they feel they've discovered themselves.

🚫Instead of: "My ex's work schedule makes this arrangement impossible."

✅Try: "The children need to be at school by 8:00 AM. According to these work schedules [present documentation], on alternating weeks..."

🚫Instead of: "The current arrangement is harming our child's mental health."

✅Try: "Here are Johnny's therapy notes from before the current schedule began, and here are the notes from the last three months. You'll notice the significant changes in his anxiety levels."

🚫Instead of: "My ex is neglecting our child's medical needs."

✅Try: "I've brought copies of all recommended follow-up appointments and attendance records. As you review them, you'll see the pattern of missed appointments during certain parenting times."

🚫Instead of: "I need more decision-making authority for school matters."

✅Try: "These are the response times for the last five school decisions that needed attention [show documentation]. The school requires answers within 48 hours, and these were the actual response times."

Each example provides clear evidence and also leaves it up to the professional to connect the dots themselves. This makes them more likely to internalize and support the conclusion.

Leverage third-party authorities

Court professionals are often more receptive to information from neutral sources they respect. Research, expert opinions, and professional standards can provide external validation for your position.

🚫 Instead of: "I know what's best for my child's development and this arrangement is harmful."

✅ Try: "According to Bowlby’s research on attachment in young children, which is widely cited in family court cases..."

Ask thoughtful questions

Questions can be more effective than statements when you’re challenging someone's thinking, as they invite reflection rather than triggering defensiveness. When professionals come to conclusions through your questions, they’re more likely to see these insights as their own. Open-ended questions are especially powerful.

🚫 Instead of: "This schedule is clearly harming Johnny's academic performance and needs to be changed."

✅ Try: "Looking at Johnny's recent school performance, how can we create a schedule that improves his academics?"

The person asking the questions controls the conversation. By thoughtfully guiding professionals through your concerns via strategic questions, you’re influencing them without directly challenging them.

Be the adult in the room

Stay composed, especially when you're faced with resistance. Your calm, measured attitude is a positive contrast to emotional reactions that might be coming from the other side. It also enhances your credibility.

When a judge or expert dismisses crucial evidence, you might be tempted to argue. Arguing with a judge or expert makes them dig their heels in. You don’t want to get stuck in quicksand, sinking deeper as you struggle against their resistance. You’ll most likely lose the argument, increase their resistance to your perspective, and look less credible.

Even if you do “win” the argument, you’ll have lost something far more valuable—their goodwill and their view of you as cooperative.

Try these approaches:

🌊 Practice strategic patience: Sometimes information needs time to sink in. Plant seeds of information thoughtfully, then give them space to grow.

❓ Ask a question: Questions slip past mental defenses that automatically reject contradictory statements.

🔄 Circle back strategically: If a point isn't landing, don't hammer it. Make a note, and find a more receptive moment to reintroduce it with fresh framing.

👂 Listen actively: Sometimes showing that you're truly hearing concerns creates reciprocal openness to your perspective.

💡 Offer solutions, not problems: Rather than highlighting what's wrong, present thoughtful alternatives that address underlying concerns.

❝

It is important, when facing court proceedings, to relinquish the desire to see the narcissist punished for his behaviour in the civil family court and realign your thought process with that of the family court system.

Rachel Watson, How To Annihilate A Narcissist In The Family Court

Putting it into practice

When you’re preparing for your next court appearance or interaction with an evaluator or other third party:

📚 Research thoroughly: Know the person’s background, previous decisions/recommendations, and priorities.

🗂️ Organize your information: Present it clearly, concisely, and in a logical sequence.

🎯 Practice your delivery: Stay calm, respectful, and always focused on the children's best interests.

📬Follow up appropriately: Provide any promised information promptly, and in the requested format and channel.

Remember, your goal isn't to win an argument but to get the best outcome for your children. Sometimes that means playing the long game, letting go of the immediate satisfaction of being right, and strategically presenting information in ways that can be heard and integrated.

By understanding the psychology behind resistance to new information and adapting your approach accordingly, you can absolutely boost your chances of positively influencing the professionals involved in your case.

What strategies have you found effective when you’re presenting information to court professionals? I'd love to hear your experiences. You can let me know by responding to this email.

TRANSFORM YOUR FAMILY COURT EXPERIENCE

Do you feel like your voice isn't being heard in family court? Are you struggling to get professionals to consider crucial evidence about your children's well-being? I'm here to help you find a way through this.

I've helped numerous parents develop effective communication strategies that overcome resistance and get their evidence considered, even when they're facing skeptical judges, evaluators, and court professionals.

Book a free 30-minute discovery call and leave with clarity on your specific challenges in family court and what goals you need to prioritize.

Your ability to influence court professionals can make all the difference in your case outcome. Let's take that critical first step together.

Want to know more about what I do?

Did someone forward this to you?

Resources

I don’t usually start a resource recommendation with the negatives, but here we go:

The author of How To Annihilate A Narcissist In The Family Court, Rachel Watson, is Scottish, so the book mostly refers to the Scottish legal system (yes, it differs even from the English one), with some references to terms used in other English-speaking countries. It contained a few typos and grammatical errors, which made me cringe but which I was willing to overlook.

I felt it was a bit too short and the later chapters could have had more practical suggestions. Also (a biggie, I know, for US readers), it’s written in UK English. Apparently one commenter on Amazon complained about the spelling of “behaviour.” Some people might object to the use of “empath” and the pronouns it uses for abuser and victim.

Now to the positives:

Watson offers a comprehensive approach to dealing with the unique challenges of litigating against someone who expertly manipulates the system. The book provides practical tactics for building your case, presenting evidence effectively, and countering the common tactics narcissists use to influence court professionals.

What I really liked about this book is how it combines legal strategy with psychological insights, helping you not only understand the resistance you face in court but overcome it systematically. It’s a handy little book to have in your toolkit.

Although I think it’s vital to put your own oxygen mask on first by doing everything you can to make the current broken system work to protect your children in your case, advocacy is also super important.

Even if you don’t have the bandwidth to engage in advocacy at this stage of your journey, or you’re concerned it might negatively affect your case, it’s good to know that you’re not alone and other people have your back. So, feel free to sign up for this webinar that’s happening next Tuesday.