The Chancery Court does not prosper under black and white thinking. The issues presented revolve almost exclusively around the things that happen behind closed doors and deal with the most precious things in our lives. Custody disputes, conservatorship, guardianships, divorces, and even disputes amongst neighbors and business partners seldom have an all-or-nothing resolution and, as such, viewing your case as a zero-sum game is short-sighted strategically and extremely short-sighted outside the court house.

As a quick refresher, a zero-sum game basically refers to a mindset where if one person gains then another necessarily loses. If I take an inch, you lose an inch. If I get five dollars, someone loses five dollars. Gains and losses exist in perfect balance.

There is an attractive simplicity in the balance of zero-sum thinking, but such thinking stands inapposite to the goals of the chancery court: equity. The mandate of the chancery court is to craft equitable remedies to issues in which the law cannot designate a set remedy (very generally). Unlike the circuit courts that apply fact to laws and provide resolution based on those laws, the chancery court has to apply laws to facts and craft the result based on those facts, with the mandate of doing equity i.e. be fair. For example, in a car accident case the law defines negligence, it sets out traffic laws, and sets out damages, the attorneys put on a case to present their version of the facts, arguing that they either do or do not satisfy the law, and the jury (or judge) then makes the decision. The judge basically calls balls and strikes if it is a jury trial and just applies the facts to see if they satisfy the law in bench trials. On the other hand, the chancellor must take a broad set of laws that provide broad governance to behavior and figure out the appropriate response. For example, there cannot be a specific mandate regarding custody because every custody case is different. Zero-sum thinking, which requires a clear winner and loser, simply does not work in family courts because there are no real winners and losers. Everything happens on a spectrum. Therefore, if you go into the court viewing your case in such black and white terms, you will simply miss the boat altogether. What you are asking for is, by and large, impossible.

More importantly, it also stands inapposite to common sense. If you think only in terms of winning and losing, you have already lost. In a legal world in which your relationship with the other parties often continue to some degree after the case is resolved, being the burn it all down party or the even just the overly bitter party is a poison pill. The court is going to see who is the grudge holding jerk and who is the person who sees the situation for what it is.

In the custody context, if you consider your ex getting time with the children as you losing time with the children, you are building resentment immediately into the co-parenting relationship. If you build resentment into the co-parenting relationship, you will make your kids miserable and will dilute your case if it ever does have to go back to court. The inevitable litany of pettiness and passive aggression is like flicking the same spot on an apply over and over again, eventually that spot will rot right away regardless of how soft you flick it. You will go back over a serious issue, but you’ll either emphasize the wrong thing because that is what has driven you crazy for years or your legitimate complaint will get buried in a sea of whataboutism.

In a property settlement context, locking in so tight on if they get it, I don’t get it mentality forecloses effective negotiation and effective litigation. To the latter, the problem is obvious. Wanting things simply so the other side does not get it makes you look like a petty fool. The former is perhaps more devastating. In Mississippi, property is divided equitably, which, again, is most easily understood as fair, not equal (giving an able bodied 42 year old doctor 1/2 of of the entire estate and his disabled wife of 20 years 1/2 of the estate and no alimony is not fair, he will continue to earn a substantial sum while she will be sitting in a leaking boat). Because the estate is viewed as a whole and the court has a great deal of discretion in how it divides the estate, isolating on any one asset or debt not only shows your hand but misses the point. In negotiating a property settlement agreement, you want to get a better deal than you are likely to get in court. You weigh all the risks, including the cost, financially and emotionally of trying the case, the emotional toil of dragging out the divorce, the size of the estate, and your needs, and then make a personal decision as to what you are willing to agree to. Your lawyer will advise you of your rights and the likely outcome, but it is the client who has to make the final call. Obviously, if you are judging things from a zero-sum perspective, you force yourself to either take massively damaging and unnecessary risks or to settle for something much less than what you are worth (for some people, punishing themselves or being overly conciliatory is a real issue). However, if you view in gradient degrees, you can make the more effective assessment of value and risk, and, if you are smart, exploit the zero sum thinking on the otherside, whether by negotiating what you want based on some erroneous point the other side is making or showing their true character on the stand.

Ultimately, you should know the rules of the game you are playing and the Chancery Court is simply not playing a zero-sum game. If you insist on playing in that manner, be prepared to get left holding the bag.

This is unfair.

I only want what is fair.

The judge is being unfair to me.

I hear these sorts of statements and my eyes automatically begin to roll. Notions of fairness are wildly subjective, jejune, and inevitably small-minded and self-centered. What you think is fair for you inevitably seems unfair to the other person. What is just, on the other hand, requires looking outward for an honest rendering of the facts and reflecting inward to balance multiple interests to determine what resolution is correct and reasonable. In the legal world and in the moral world, we deal with justice, not fairness. Justice is for grown-ups; fairness is for children.

Regardless of my distaste for complaints about fairness, people tend to find the concept of fairness much easier to grasp than justice. Often my job centers on teaching parents about justice by recontextualizing the question of fairness to its proper nexus - the kids. After all, the polestar consideration of the chancery court is the best interest of children, and no parent can say with a straight-face that they do not want the best for their kids.

So the question becomes: What would be fair for the children? The answer, unfortunately, must be that nothing about this custody issue is fair for the children. They did not ask to be in a custody dispute, they did nothing to contribute to it, but they must suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions. Recognition of this truth helps provide the correct perspective for assessing a custody case. Once a parent agrees that the entire situation is fundamentally unfair for the children, then we can begin to work our way towards a just result.

First, should the children even see the other parent? Sometimes the answer is no. If the parent acts violently, abuses drugs and alcohol, and/or refuses to take any steps to remedy their destructive behavior, the child may legitimately be better off not seeing that parent. The just result requires removing the toxic parents permanently from the child’s life so that the child may live with the stability he or she needs to be safe and to recover from the trauma of having his or her parent(s) choose vice over their children.

Often the parent demanding fairness for themselves perpetrates the violence and/or abuses drug or alcohol. Unsurprisingly, these people often blame the unfair world for their self-inflicted problems. However, denial about their own role in the destruction of their lives does not always blind them to objective truth. Then the question becomes whether it is fair for your child to experience life with an addict or to witness violence, regardless of the perpetrator. Of course, the answer must be no. If it is anything else, then the court already has its answer. But if a parent agrees that the child should live his or her life without exposure to violence or addiction, then the parent must take steps to demonstrate a commitment to a violence and/or addiction free life. N.A., A.A., Rehab, DVIP courses, anger management, regular drug tests, counseling, therapy, etc. These are the tools through which a parent can prove his or her dedication to a better life. If a parent refuses, again the court has its answer. If the parent complies (and also behaves correctly) then the court also has an answer.

Parents will often blame the other for such behavior or endeavor into whataboutism to call into question the fairness of the inquiry or the requirements placed upon them i.e. she’s the real addict, she’s the real abuser, she’s the one who got arrested, I don’t have a problem but for her. Again I role my eyes at the immaturity. It does not matter what the other parent did because it does not change what needs to be done. If one parent takes the steps to assure the court that he or she has remedied their ways and the other parent has only whined and complained about how unfair it is, then the court has its answer. It is fairer for the child to have one parent who has remedied his or her ways than two parents who refuse to address any issues.

Questions of violence and addiction exist in only a percentage of custody disputes. Parental disputes exist in all. What is fair for the child is for the parents to put aside their personal grievances and work as a team to provide the child with the best life possible. What that means is consciously and consistently choosing to take the high road. The other parent gets under your skin? So what, act like an adult and toughen up. The other parent antagonizes you? So what, act like an adult and don’t take the bait. The other parent won’t share information? So what, act like an adult and get the information yourself. The other parent makes you angry? So what, act like an adult and hold your tongue. Do not give the other parent an excuse to act like a petulant child, behave yourself like a responsible, well-adjusted adult, and you will always end up looking like the responsible, well-adjusted parent. That is best for you, best for your kid and best for your court case. The result may not appear fair to the other parent, but, god-willing, you will see the justice in the court’s decision.