Are you facing an upcoming legal proceedings? Join a psychologist and lawyer to learn how to stay in the good books in (and out of) court. Provisional psychologist and CCMF Alberta counsellor Tanis Moore will be speaking about managing emotions and behaviour during legal proceedings, while Calgary lawyer Charles Fair will speak about the legal side of your roles and expectations.

Charles Fair has been practicing law for nearly 30 years and founded Fair Legal because he is passionate about helping others, ensuring their rights are protected and that they are treated fairly. Fair Legal deals with Criminal, Family, and Civil Litigation matters.

Partnered with the Canadian Centre for Men and Families, Fair Legal provides monthly webinars on topics dealing with criminal or family matters.

WATCH: How To Conduct Yourself In (And Out) Of Court:

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: Good evening, everyone. My name is Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya. I volunteer with the Canadian Center for Men and Families, Alberta, and it is my pleasure to introduce tonight's presenters. Charles Fair has been practicing law for nearly 30 years. He founded Fair Legal because he's passionate about helping others, ensuring that their rights are protected, and that they're treated fairly. Fair Legal deals with criminal, family, and civil litigation matters. Charles is generously volunteering his time with CCMF Alberta to deliver monthly webinars on topics of common concern to the population that we aim serve. In other words, men struggling due to intimate relationship breakdown and turmoil.

At CCMF Alberta, we're committed to meeting men where they're at so that they can feel heard and validated and have conversations that matter to them. We help equip men to manage stressful situations, rebuild their lives after relationships fail, and stay connected with children. We recognize that providing mental health support for men leads to optimal parenting outcomes, a reduction in family violence, and lower rates of suicide.

And he's joined this month by Tanis Moore, a registered provisional psychologist, and a counselor with CCMF Alberta. She has published a peer reviewed paper in 2021 on male victims of domestic violence, and is a dedicated soldier in the fight for men's mental health and fair treatment.

And this month's topic is how to conduct yourself both in and out of the courtroom. Like all the topics we cover, it is potentially painful and contentious. All of you are here for a reason, and I hope that you'll take advantage of CCMF Alberta's other programs. If you want to access additional supports in the form of individual or group peer support, trauma recovery, counseling, or other legal education programs like this one, please visit our website at CCMFAlberta.ca. If you have questions, please send them either to Melanie Seneviratne, or to me, Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya - or actually, I'm on there as CCMF Alberta - and we will read them out loud to Charles and Tanis during the Q&A period. Please be advised, this webinar is being recorded. And, with that, I will hand it over to our presenters.

Charles Fair: Great. Well, thank you very much, Vanessa. This has been a great honor to work with CCMF over - I don't know how long it's been, it's been a year or two, I think, that we've been doing these - and I'm really happy to be able to support an organization like this because it's an underserved market, but very important.

So, today's topic is on how to do better in court. And this always has some different components, but I thought, well, let's start with: What are we doing in court? Why are we there? So the first thing is; This is a dispute resolution when communication has failed. And Tanis and I did a webinar for CCMF a few months ago, and we talked about communication strategies. And sometimes, despite our best efforts, the communication breaks down and you can't resolve stuff. So you end up going into court. And, essentially, the court is there to try to make a decision.

It's an adversarial system. That's the label that we put on it. That just means that there's two parties, or sometimes more parties, and each party gets to say their side of the facts. And then a judge has to make a decision as to how those decisions - judge has to make a decision based on the facts that the judge believes are true and what the applicable law is.

The other thing is that judges also will push parties to reach agreement and not just make decisions, because sometimes that makes the judge's job easier. So there is, sometimes, depending on the specific forum, the judge is trying to get the parties to participate in an agreement.

The comments that we're gonna have today also cover things like mediations and arbitrations and other forms when you're working with - or even four-way settlement conferences when you're trying to negotiate in what can be very stressful situations.

But I wanted to point out, on a very fundamental level, this is not a mechanical process, this is a human process. And that means that you might be expecting things to work in a very linear fashion, to be always very logical, and it just simply isn't. And that's why this topic that we have today is so important because it involves - because we're humans, we have human emotions. and so this is - I'm going to maybe let Tanis talk a little bit about our human emotions, what they are, and why do we need to understand them?

Tanis Moore: So, you know, human emotions, they serve a great many, you know, different functions, and they are there to help us navigate social systems but, you know, of course, unfortunately with the legal system, you are dealing with a lot of often incredibly stressful emotions, and basically expected to not outwardly display them in the legal system. You obviously have to be, you know, very professional about the matter. And this involves a lot of, like, self-control and managing stress in very stressful situations because these legal situations, you know, they're often involving very serious things. They're often involving people's families and livelihoods. So there is a lot to manage in those situations. So yeah, that's kind of a good summary of that piece. I think. Unless you have anything you'd like to add, Charles?

Charles Fair: So there's some common emotions experienced. We can just list them here. Anxiety, fear, anger, frustration. These are all things that we experience.

I'm just going to talk very quickly about shame and guilt because this is an emotional state that may have very little to do with the actual legal proceedings, and this is where I think it's important to have somebody that you can work through those issues because they have both a legal component and a psychological component. I can tell you whether I think that you're actually guilty of something, but you may still feel guilty. Tanis, do you have any comments on that?

Tanis Moore: Well, I mean, absolutely. There are lots of times where, you know, I'll be speaking to somebody who is, you know, perhaps going through the legal process, or experiencing divorce, or something like that. And, you know, they'll be experiencing emotions like, you know: "I feel so bad about how this went down. I should have recognized the problems beforehand. Perhaps this was my fault and I didn't even realize it." And so, you know, people will be expressing a lot of these feelings of, like, guilt that perhaps they could have done something differently in the relationship. Or, you know, just feeling bad about the way things are going. Or, you know, feeling the shame of even just having the relationship end. Many people experience that, like, with a sense of failure. So, you know, it's very different to, kind of, experience those feelings in, you know, a psychological setting versus, you know, a legal setting where guilt is a very specific, you know, legal concept. So it's a good point.

Charles Fair: Yeah. and sometimes it's just simply embarrassment. It's a public forum and you're gonna have to deal with that stuff.

So we've got a few other things. Well, what are the effects of emotions? And I see this a lot, interference with good decision making. Tanis, do you have any comments on that?

Tanis Moore: Yeah, well, like I was saying earlier, you know, when you're in the throes of those very stressful emotions, you know, anger, anxiety, guilt, stress, you know, that's often not very conducive to how one is expected to behave in a legal setting. And often if you're expressing those very, like, negative emotions like say, you know, in a high-conflict divorce, for example, it's probably going to reflect badly on you in a legal setting, right? You have to be very careful about how you express what you're wanting to express in the courtroom versus, you know, what might be safe to, say, vent in a counseling setting.

Charles Fair: Yeah, and that's my next point there, it gives the judge and others a poor impression. You know, one of the others might be a a parenting assessor professional.

Sometimes the decision making - like, literally, I was in a session yesterday and it was interesting to me how my client afterwards was saying that he thought that he may have really hurt his case because he, kind of, reacted and said, look, this little girl is our child. It's not just her child. Right? And he was concerned because he thought that maybe he had gotten out of line on that. And I assured him, well, this was actually just enough, right? You want to, sometimes you need to have a little bit, and that was just enough. And it was an important thing. And, because he didn't go overboard on it, that he was generally in good control of his emotional state. It was fine and it didn't have the effect that he was thinking it would have.

This is one that I see as well that if you're triggering on certain things, or you are making assumptions about what the other side is thinking or feeling about the situation, you can sometimes make very poor decisions because you're lacking that, kind of, objective perspective.

Tanis Moore: One thing that I just wanted to add on that point too is, you know, remembering that, like, the judge is there to, you know, handle the law side of things, to make the legal decisions. And you had mentioned to help push towards decisions sometimes. But I feel like a lot of people can experience this as being very, you know, very cold and even, kind of, clinical in a way and dismissive, perhaps. A lot of people - you know, these are situations that are dealing with very important matters of their lives. In fact, in some cases, their entire lives will be determined based on the outcome of the case. But for, you know, judges, for lawyers, unfortunately, a lot of it is very - you deal with many cases on a day-to-day basis. So there can be a lot of detachment there, right? So I think that a lot of people can assume that they're being regarded much more negatively than they might actually be being. Right?

Charles Fair: Well, and you think about, remember, this is a human process, and you know what, the judge is not some robot up there. The judge has to make sometimes very difficult decisions. And, you know, he's got to be able to make that decision without regard to how the parties feel about it. And so that is, I think, partly an explanation as to why the judge will sometimes come across as very coldhearted. And that is because they, to some extent, have to, kind of, detach themselves from it.

But sometimes judges will start reacting and get angry, themselves. I mean, it's a human process.

I was in a case once where one of the parties, it was a gentleman who was self-representing, I think, at the time, I was representing Mom. It was a child protection matter. And then the children's services had a lawyer. And the gentleman jumped up and was pointing the finger and making all sorts of accusations. And the judge stopped and just yelled at him and tore a strip out him and said, look, you know, in my business, it's very rarely the case that only one person is at fault. And so, you know, the man reacted and opened his mouth and he should have just realized, you know, just, it is what it is, what was going on, and pointing fingers, and that, was not going to be very helpful to him. And it certainly wasn't.

Maybe, Tanis, you can talk a little bit about this one, because this is one that, you know, we get into the legal system and - I'll just tell you, I had this bizarre experience. I went through my own high-conflict divorce, and I was stupidly self-representing I got to say. You know, I'm not perfect. It was a bad experience. And, one day, a judge made a bad decision. Not a particularly good judge, but I'm not going to say anything more about that. And, by the end of that day, I had this, like, intense pain in my stomach that I thought was - that I had to go to the hospital. I drove to the local clinic - and I will never forget this - there was this nice lady doctor there, and all she did was rub my tummy, and the pain went away. That was the mental wellbeing. It was, like, striking how much of an effect it had. And I just thought, you know, had I not had the benefit of somebody who just simply realized it was - she just needed to be a listening ear. You know, it was quite profound. Anyways, maybe you can talk more about that, Tanis?

Tanis Moore: Oh, absolutely. You know, when you're experiencing these kinds of situations, people often experience a great amount of stress. And, you know, as you know, when you're in one of those high-stress situations, all kinds of physiological things can happen. It really engages that sympathetic nervous system. So, you know, that really gets the cortisol flowing through the body. And, you know, we developed that old instinctual need to deal with the fight or flight, like we're gonna attack or run away. But, you know, oftentimes we're not really able to do that. So we can, kind of, experience that in a number of ways that are very highly stressful. Especially when these kinds of legal situations are, kind of, long and drawn out, as I often tend to hear with people. So, you know, this kind of stress, it can result in an acute sensation like what you just described, but it can also result in many different negative impacts on people's wellbeing. You know, like, trouble sleeping, increased risk of picking up illnesses. All kinds of really negative things that stress can have on the body.

But, you know, also, many people may feel like, oh, you know, I'm alone in this situation. Nobody else understands. You know, that's one of the most common things that we hear here at CCMF Alberta is people saying, you know, I really thought that I was all alone. I really thought that nobody would understand me. You know, I didn't think that I could open up to anybody about any of this. You know, all those kinds of thought processes. So that's why we really try to put ourselves out there as, you know, we understand we're here to provide that support, especially during those times where it feels like, you know, maybe you're all alone in this process.

Charles Fair: Yeah. And the other thing that can happen, with my case, and many, many cases, there's this emotional rollercoaster. Things are going well for you one day. And then the other side does something, and the very next day you come crashing down and you go: "Oh my God. You know, how do I deal with this?"

And, you know, there's a limit to how much the lawyer can provide, how much support the lawyer can provide, and that's why it's useful to have a multidisciplinary approach. But we'll talk about that more later.

The other thing, this is, kind of, obvious, if your emotions are all out of whack and you're getting assessed for parenting - a parenting assessment for custody or parenting time - and you don't have good regulation of emotions, it's probably not going to go so well for you.

So, Tanis, maybe you can talk about some of this. Do you want me to just put 'em all up here or do you wanna just -

Tanis Moore: Sure.

Charles Fair: I'm controlling the slides so I know what's here, so -

Tanis Moore: Yeah, exactly. Well, I know this one too.

But, anyway, so I came up with kind of a list of stress management techniques that one can do, you know, both in and out of the courtroom for, kind of, managing those acute feelings of distress. So these are some good grounding techniques that people can try. And the first one is, it's something called, like, both deep breathing and progressive relaxation. Now, progressive relaxation is when, you know, you start by tensing all of the muscles in your feet, and then take a deep breath and then breathe out and relax all the muscles. And then you keep doing that, you know, up the legs, up to the trunk and your arms, until you're finally tensing up your entire body. Taking in a deep breath and then releasing. And, you know, you don't have to be quite so dramatic about it. I was just doing that for demonstration purposes. But this is something that you can do relatively discreetly and it is a good way for, you know, really, kind of, controlling those physiological sensations in the moment and, kind of, helping to relax the body down. So that's what that one is.

Charles Fair: Yeah, I've used that to fall asleep when I'm particularly wound up about something.

Tanis Moore: Yes. Yeah, same here actually.

Another one is calm place meditation. And, you know, obviously you have to be a little bit careful using this one when somebody's trying to talk to you so that you don't space out.

But, other than that, what this basically looks like is trying to, you know, just envision a place that you find very relaxing. So maybe like a beach, or, you know, a forest, or a mountainside, or whatever it would be, and just try and engage your senses as much as possible to envision being in that place.

It's a good way of, kind of, detaching from the stress of the moment and placing yourself in an area that you find calming and relaxing. And it can be a good way to, kind of, just, you know, separate yourself from the moment. So that can be another good technique for managing stress.

So you can go to the next one.

So another one is mindfulness practices. So this is almost - in some ways, almost the opposite of the one that I just talked about. So, part of mindfulness is, sort of, really developing an acceptance of the negative emotions that you may be experiencing. Because a lot of people, you know, they experience negative emotions like, you know, stress, anger, anxiety, and their first thought is: "I have to get this out of mind. I don't like these feelings. I don't want to feel these feelings. I have to push it out of my head." Whereas mindfulness, kind of, it's much more complicated than I can get into in a webinar but a lot of it involves, you know, developing a sense of acceptance over these emotions. Taking a moment to really feel what those emotions are, kind of like, doing to you in the body, and just allowing them to have a moment. So that way, you know, you're better able to, kind of, move on from them after you've taken the time to really sit with those emotions and, kind of, process them for a moment. So that's what that one basically looks like.

Now, the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Method. Again, there might be some limits to this, but it's, you know, like, five things that you can see. Four things that you can, like, touch. Three things that you can hear. Two things that you can smell. And one thing that you can taste. So, it's basically a grounding technique that forces you to, kind of, you know, draw attention to things in your environment and, kind of, draw yourself out of the stress of the moment. It's basically about, kind of, arresting your senses so that way you can focus on something else. We like to think that we're great multitaskers, but really our brain is actually quite terrible at fixating on multiple things at the same time. So if we force ourselves to engage with things in the environment, then that can take us out of feeling those stresses a little bit, even for just a moment, just to, kind of, get control of ourselves.

Charles Fair: I'm going to add one that's not on the list, and this isn't going to be applicable to everybody, but I was facing a particularly stressful situation and, I don't know whether this was a good idea, but while I was driving, I used prayer beads, and by the time I reached my destination, I had a sense of calm that whatever was gonna happen - it wasn't a feeling that I couldn't do anything about it, but that I was calm and prepared to deal with whatever was going to happen.

Tanis Moore: Yeah. I like that. You know, it's - and I know that you said it's not necessarily applicable to everybody, but I mean, like, it doesn't necessarily even have to be something religious for those who it doesn't apply to, it can be, like, any kind of focus. I had a client a long time ago, they had a lucky rabbit's foot on their key ring and they would use that because it was, kind of, soft and they could, like, use that to distract themselves in moments of anxiety. But it can be any kind of thing like that, really.

Charles Fair: A coin in your pocket or something.

Now, this next one is: "Visiting the courthouse or learning procedures in advance." And I'll just mention that one because not everybody goes and visits a courthouse, but I think it's really important to - if your lawyer forgets to tell you what's gonna happen, ask. Right?

You know, we're humans. We make mistakes and we don't always - think about it, because we're there all the time, it's kind of like an extension to my office, you know? So I'm not stressed there. And so your lawyer may not remember that your experience may be very different from his or her experience. And so, ask about what to expect, you know?

So, what I'll do is, say, I'll talk about the layout of the room, whether it's a courtroom, or whether it's a boardroom where there's gonna be some questioning, or whether it's a mediation or JDR with the judge, I go through the procedures and what to expect. And then when we get into the room and then it starts unfolding the same way - hopefully, the same way - I've described it, that can help calm things.

The next one is mental rehearsal. And this, I think, can be helpful. This is something that your lawyer has to do as well because you wanna rehearse in your mind how you're going to deal with whatever comes out.

This is a human process. There's a great deal of unpredictability. And, of course, that feeling of loss of control over what's going on certainly contributes to the anxiety level. But, if you can rehearse it in advance - again, this may speak more to the lawyer getting ready - but it can help as well if you know what's gonna happen and what to expect.

So these are some generic topics here.

I think this is - the emotional side of lawyering is something that I think is not well or formally recognized. When lawyers go to law school, we're taught the law. We're told how to manipulate or organize the facts to fit the law and present it to a judge. There's very little attention to emotional issues. In fact, there's almost a derogatory attitude towards it. The example will be given of the the lawyer who charges, you know, hundreds of dollars an hour and his client is sitting there in tears in front of him and he says, well, here's a box of Kleenex, but I just gotta remind you of my hourly rate. Not particularly empathetic, and doesn't really assist the client in, yeah, okay, maybe they can get a grip on themselves, but that's a pretty harsh way to do it.

I think this is important. I've always felt that. I personally have a background in social anthropology, so I think of legal problems as happening or occurring in a framework of our social relations, our own internal psychological stuff, our family background, our personal experiences, our culture, religion sometimes. All of those things can have an impact on how you approach legal disputes and how those disputes can get resolved because it can get in the way of resolving the disputes effectively. But also some of those framework issues can assist in reaching creative solutions.

This one's an interesting one. Ethics of emotional expression.

So I had a lady client who, every time she was describing the facts of her case, she just turned into a puddle of tears. And I was worried that she was so out of control that this was not going to go well for her in court. And I said, you know, you, a little bit of emotion is good, but too much is bad. And she got on the stand and it was, like, she nailed it perfectly. She just had the right amount of tears at the right moment. Oh my God, did I just create a very manipulative person or did she just come by that naturally?

This is a topic - and I'm just putting it out there - it's an issue that I think lawyers need to be aware of, but I don't think it's possible to cover the topic adequately. There's lots of things that can be said about it, so, there - I'm gonna bail on that one and go on to the next point.

Impact of emotions on the lawyer/client relationship. On this one, that happened, you know, within this last week was really significant to me because I thought, wow, this client was triggering off things that didn't mean what he thought they meant, and his view of the was, like - it was like black and white. We had managed to achieve things that were, by the letter of the law, virtually impossible to achieve. But, of course, he didn't realize that I was achieving them without addressing the letter of the law, because if I did that, then, of course, he wouldn't have been able to get there. So it was kind of, I'm not going to say sneaky, but I was just deflecting attention from the legal principles and focusing on the basic reality of the situation that this gentleman had a very good, positive relationship with his three-year-old daughter and that was what was important, not the the limited legal rights that he had. And so we were able to advance his position significantly.

But, what's interesting is that, you know, his initial expression to me was of upset. So that means, well, wait a second, I'm a human too. You don't think I have emotions? So what I've had to learn over the years is to say, okay. All right. So you're feeling upset, but that's not me. Right? So, do I get defensive? Do I get angry? Do I argue with them? No. I accept the fact that his perceptions were what they were. But, you know, I've got, actually, a little bit more than 30 years experience of law now, and maybe I've got a little bit more of an edge, and not all lawyers are necessarily going to react perfectly.

So, you've got to remember that, you know, if you're taking it out on your lawyer, you know, they're not just, you know, human punching bags, right? So, if you're having emotional stuff - and that's why I think it's important to maybe get some help with a counselor, a psychologist or whatever, it's not an expression that there's something wrong with you, but it's something that can be very helpful. You know? Hopefully your lawyer understands that you're going through an emotional rollercoaster through this litigation, and that the lawyer can live with that and accept it and help you through that, but, you know, maybe the lawyer's not so good at it.

So, anyways, that was my comment on that. Anyways, I don't know if there's any questions. We've kind of covered a lot of stuff here. There's more that we could talk about the topic, but, again, put your comments, in if you haven't already, to Melanie or Vanessa, and I think we've got some time for questions.

Melanie Seneviratne: Vanessa, do you have any questions that have come through to you?

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: Not yet.

Melanie Seneviratne: I've only got two questions and they've actually, they're not really related to the topic today, so - we haven't really had any other questions.

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: All right. I have one. Is there, is there anything that you should be careful about saying to a mental health professional?

Tanis Moore: Well, I mean, in terms of - I mean, I'm trying to think of what that might mean. But there is, for counselors, a very, very strict, you know, patient therapist confidentiality clause, right? Nothing that is said in the room is to be shared with anyone else, with a few very specific exceptions. And those are, you know, if you have a direct intent to, you know, commit suicide or, you know, harm to others, or if there is child abuse involved, or mentioned, in those cases we do have a duty to, you know, report to the relevant authorities that, you know, there is that risk of harm. But any of the, you know, the details of your situation, again, there's confidentiality in the room with the therapist.

Now, you know, cases can be, you know, subpoenaed, but, again, the therapist in that case - there is client privilege as well, and a lot of what is shared in court, there would have to be strict, you know, client permission. We would have to have explicit permission to be able to share certain details. And, if those details needed to be shared, most of them would be heavily redacted and only what was relevant to the case would be shared.

But, you know, in most cases, that's not anything that's subpoenaed. It's not usually asked for. In fact, in my experience so far, you know - and, admittedly, that's a little bit limited yet - but a lot of times the therapist's notes are not subpoenaed like that. When you go and talk to a counselor, most of the time that's just strictly between you and the counselor.

Now, I don't know, Charles would probably have more experience with that having had, you know, 30 years of practice, but I don't know how often you have a counselor file request.

Charles Fair: Well, yeah, I've been able - there's a little bit of a difference between the confidentiality between a patient and a psychologist, and between a client and a lawyer. Tanis has mentioned some exceptions, and those exceptions are - it's a shorter list for lawyers.

So the only thing that we are obliged to do something about is if there is a real risk of harm to a third party. And then, even then, we can't disclose in a way that would identify the source of our information. So the procedure would likely involve me contacting another lawyer to have that lawyer contact the police and say there is a credible threat to X person's safety, you know, with enough details that they could actually take action on it. And that would be that. And so the source would be completely secure. So that's one difference between the confidentiality issue.

The other thing is that there's a difference between a treating health professional and a professional who's retained for the purpose of an assessment. So if a psychologist is doing an assessment, like a parenting assessment, or a psychological assessment, or, you know, sometimes there's a forensic psychological or psychiatric assessment, where you're trying to determine whether there's certain risk factors involved or whether, you know, a person's psychological profile might be relevant in those cases, the expert can be, you know - to some extent has an obligation to provide the information about that assessment. Obviously, their conclusions.

And I've had varying degrees of success in getting behind confidentiality bill. I had one case where I was advised - this is early on in my career, but it was really striking, and I talked to a colleague and said, look, there's this child psychologist that's gonna be testifying - and they said, well, get his notes. Okay. So I got his notes. And he had done things like a Rorschach ink blot test as a way to determine that my guy shouldn't have custody. Or even parenting time. And, well, I got my guy regular ever overnight alternate weekend, kind of, access at the time. But I had to cross-examine that psychologist and I used his notes.

In other situations that I've been involved, in the courts will seal those medical records. So I've had to go to the evidence locker in the courthouse and view the records to know what's in them, but you can't take copies of them. The judge can take a look at them and hear arguments about whether they should be admitted or not. The whole thing is sealed. When there's discussions about those records, everybody's excluded from the courtroom except the particular party. So there is a recognition that, even when the records are relevant, that they need to be treated carefully.

I recently tried to poke at a psychologist, maybe that's not the right word, but cross-examine a psychologist, and the judge just kept shutting me down in terms of trying to get at the underlying reasons. I don't think the judge was right, but, you know, I can't win 'em all, as they say. So. Okay.

Anyways, it was an excellent question, Vanessa, about confidentiality and stuff, so -

Tanis Moore: And hopefully that, kind of, gives some answers on that. I mean, you know, I feel like, in most cases, you know, people should feel comfortable talking to a therapist about what's going on because, you know, even if they're feeling like a lot of negative emotions, like, that's not the sort of information that I think, you know, would be likely to make it into a court anyway.

Charles Fair: Yeah. I think a court recognizes that therapy is important. And so why would we interfere with that? Right? But if somebody is claiming damages based on their the psychological injuries they've suffered, well, that's gonna become relevant. You know, you wanna make the claim, you've gotta produce the records.

There's some interesting things as well. Like, the psychologist will do a test, administer a test, but the actual test won't be disclosable. And there's a couple of reasons for that. I don't know, maybe I'm just gonna say one. What we don't want is people to, kind of, learn the test and fake it. Because that interferes with the court's fact finding mission.

You don't wanna be over-prepared when meeting with a psychologist that is going to be doing an assessment because that psychologist can - they have ways of detecting whether you've prepared for it. Or they try to.

Tanis Moore: Okay. We've got some questions now, so -

Charles Fair: Okay. All right.

Melanie Seneviratne: So how do you deal - we've got a bunch, so keep your answers a little bit short.

Charles Fair: Okay.

Melanie Seneviratne: How do you deal with the emotional overwhelm of false allegations?

Charles Fair: Ah, man. That's where you need a team approach, right?

You know, here's one thing that I will regularly say to people. We can't control what other people do, think, say, or feel. And, unfortunately, that includes, we can't control whether somebody's gonna make false allegations.

What we can do is control how we react to them.

And there's some interesting human dynamics that come in to play here. Ironically, if you become defensive, you are more likely to be regarded as

Sorry.

There we go, sorry about that.

Same time every day.

Because you can't control what other people are gonna do, or what they have done, all you can do is really focus on what is really important. And that is, in the case of you're facing false allegations, you gotta work with your lawyer about how to deal with it, and it may be a slow, difficult process. And that's where I think getting the support of counselors, or psychologists, is really important because it is very difficult to deal with. And there are strategies to deal with it on the legal side, but they do take time. And, of course, you don't want to jeopardize that by inappropriately emoting in court because of that - you know, you overreact emotionally, that will validate the judge's impression - or the impression that the other side is trying to create in making the allegations. So, you know, getting some counsel to do that.

And the other thing is that sometimes the false allegations have a certain amount of - they gotta get life somewhere. So the other party, the party making the false allegations, might take something that's got a little bit of a truth to it, right? That's where it's easy to feel defensive and overreact to the situation because they've taken a thing that's true, and you go, well, wait a second that didn't have the significance or meaning that you think it had. Well, I don't know. What if you're triggering for all sorts of psychological reasons and you don't realize what's going on? That's where, yeah, getting some help is really helpful.

Melanie Seneviratne: So, in follow-up to that, it's kind of related, another question. So, can a client refuse to speak in court for fear of not being able to control their emotion?

Charles Fair: Well, that's, that's why it's important, if you are in a high stakes, high emotional, thing, you gotta do your best to have a lawyer. Because you don't know what to respond to and not respond to - even if you're a lawyer, it's hard to figure that out, as I learned the hard way. You know? Because you lack that objectivity, and your emotions are running rampant, and you react to something. Yeah.

Melanie Seneviratne: Okay. I have a couple more here that are kind of related together. So, the first one is: How much do you feel that character references can help in a case? And when do you present that in court

And, in connection, kind of, with that is: If you wanted to have your therapist talk on your behalf in court to show you're getting help, or be able to point out certain discrepancies, would or could that be beneficial or worse?

Charles Fair: Okay. Well, I'm not gonna answer the question directly, but I'm gonna make some comments.

So the particular strategy in any case has to be worked through, I think, with a lawyer to know what's appropriate.

In terms of getting the psychologist to testify on your behalf, it's possible to do that. There's a couple of questions there. One is character evidence, and the other is a professional assessment.

This is why I can't give a good answer to that because it really depends. Because if you start calling character evidence, if it's not a professional, what the character evidence - is not actually somebody's opinion as to whether you have good character, the character evidence is that - it goes like this: Well, sir, have you had the opportunity to discuss so-and-so's character with people in your community? Yes I have. And, sir, what is the reputation that Mr. X has in the community? He has a very fine reputation. And that's about it. So that's standard character evidence. And, depending on the kind of case it is - again, the rules are a little bit different in different venues - the character evidence is a dangerous box to open. It's like a Pandora's box because you might be saying, well, I've got lots of good character. But now you have quite the possibility that the other side is going to read evidence about your bad character.

And one of the things to remember is that the court is ultimately not there deciding cases based on who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. They're deciding cases based on the facts, not, oh, well, you're a good guy, therefore you win. Okay?

Now, second part of that is the professional assessment. There's two ways that a professional can assist. One is by providing a critique to your lawyer about the questions to ask an opposing assessment that's been done. And that can be useful.

The other is to present an opinion as to psychological fitness. Now, I did have one case where the other side had obtained a forensic psychiatric report to state that their client was of low risk of doing whatever. And I was just itching to cross-examine on that one because I thought that - you know, just because an expert says something, doesn't mean it's not open to attack. And, ultimately, it's the judge who has to make the decision, not the expert.

So, a discussion about whether an expert is a good idea in any particular case is one that has to be really well thought out. And, just because an expert says it's the case, doesn't mean it's a good opinion. Just saying. I've seen lots of experts where I've had to - going, oh my God, these conclusions don't follow from the premises and, so, this is ridiculous.

Tanis Moore: And, furthermore, just to add something as well. You know, a lot of times, you know, a therapist will see somebody in therapy and that person will be presenting, you know, their emotions on the situation. They'll be presenting their opinions, the way they're feeling about something. But, let's just say a therapist were called to speak on them, the therapist will be able to say, yes, I have seen this client under these circumstances, and if they were to ask anything about the situation of the family, for example, you know, a therapist wouldn't be able to say anything about that because the only thing they would be able to say is: "I have spoken to this client. I know his perspective, or her perspective on this." Right? So that therapist may have very little to speak on the overall facts because they've only got one side of the story, right? So, you know, in that case, a therapist could have a very strong allegiance with their client, but still have very little knowledge of the other person's perspectives.

Right. So, you know, they wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of legal support.

Charles Fair: Yeah.

And the other thing is that, once a good solid professional/patient relationship has developed, the professional, the psychologist, cannot assist any further with, say, an assessment of the situation, you know, trying to do, like, couples counseling or parenting assessment, they just can't - I mean, if they were to try, and somehow people were to let them, by the time it got into court, somebody would be able to just tear it to pieces. I can say, from my own experience, I went through, you know, five different marriage counselors and - I went to one counselor for just some help with some work-related stuff, and then she says to me, she says: "Well, I think we should get your wife in here to maybe help sort this stuff out." Oh my God, it was such a disaster. It was, like, yeah, it was very bad.

Tanis Moore: Good reason why multiple relationships are to be avoided.

Charles Fair: Yeah. Yeah.

Melanie Seneviratne: So I've got some, actually, a couple really good questions. So I'm gonna tie a couple of them together.

This one may be more for Tanis, but, would you recommend any specific way to go about finding mental health professionals who support people through separation, divorce, and perhaps alienation?

Well, I mean, CCMF.

Tanis Moore: Yeah. Other than CCMF. I mean, honestly, a lot of therapists, you know, they'll, kind of, list on, you know, maybe their website, or, like, a Psychology Today profile, or something like that, the kind of, like, specialties they have. Any practice experience. Any trainings they might have had to, kind of, support clients through various situations. And, honestly, I would just say, like, being on the lookout for people who list of that kind of experience would probably be most helpful. But also, you know, a lot of therapists do have, you know, like, free discovery call appointments as well that don't cost anything, that are maybe, like, 15 to 20 minutes, to, kind of, get a sense for, you know, is this something that you do? And that could be a good chance to ask them, free of charge, if that's something they'd be able to help with. Or, you know, if they have any colleagues that they know that would be able to support with that. So, that would be what I would suggest.

Melanie Seneviratne: Okay. Sorry. Make sure I'm not muted. Okay. The next question.

So, these two go together. So the first one says: "I found online that Alberta courts consider somebody with mental health issues an unfit parent." That's one comment. The second one is: "In family court, would the judge hold my diagnosed mental health disability of PTSD and others against me?"

Charles, you might need to do this. I know that's a very loaded question. There's a lot more to it, but -

Charles Fair: I'm gonna give you one perspective, and Tanis may correct me on this. My personal belief is that mental health issues occur on a continuum. All of us have a little bit of crazy in us, to put it, kind of, funnily, and some of us have more than others.

And here's another thing is that the court doesn't punish mental health. What the court does is consider whether or not this is going to have an adverse effect on a child, if it's a family law dealing with children. Because they have to make a decision based on what's in the children's best interest. And so, it really is going to depend on the specific facts of the case.

The other thing that I can say is that I've often seen courts bend over backwards to support a party that is making real attempts, making real efforts, to change whatever's going on. Right?

So you see this especially - you know, I was representing one Dad who had had some serious drug and alcohol issues. And he had done a couple of residential treatments. And I think he was past the second one. He was getting regular drug testing. It was clean. It was getting in a much more supportive relationship. And, as he said, you know, the problem was that - a lot of the background was he and his ex were really heavily into the party lifestyle and so part of his rehabilitation was getting out of that. Well, his ex was saying, well, no way am I gonna agree to him having anything other than supervised parenting time, and nothing overnight, well, I went into court and pointed out the efforts that the client was making to deal with this. His acknowledgement of the issue and his efforts to deal with it. And yeah, he got regular, you know, the overnight parenting time that he was looking for.

And I think on the mental stuff, that's not related to substance abuse, I think it might be a little bit more complicated, but Tanis you might wanna add some comments on that, but it seems to me that if somebody's acknowledging their issues, and recognizes - and this is partly mindfulness, this is self-awareness - these are skills that I think - I never give up hope that even somebody facing mental health issues can work with a professional and get somewhere. Because why else do we have professionals do this but to actually make a difference in people's lives? And if they can show that they're making some improvement, yeah, it might be a long, difficult road, but it's worth it. Right?

And I think that there's - and this is, you know, this is just me talking, I don't know whether there's any law to support this or not - but I think of the legal system, takes place in a society where we have this notion of redemption. We have this notion of of turning your life around. And the culture supports that. And the judges are no different. You go in front of a judge and he sees somebody who's dealing with a bunch of issues, you know, who's recognizing that maybe he's got some mental health issues and maybe it's the kind that can be treated with medication, maybe it's the kind that can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, whatever it is, and the judge is gonna say, you know what? This is important for the child. Think about the benefit to the child of seeing a parent who has come to grips with whatever demons are in their life and has sorted that out. Whether it's PTSD or other kinds of diagnosed mental health issues, the parent is coming to grips with it. Why wouldn't the judge - now, what's interesting is that is an argument that is easier to make if you're not the person making it. In other words, it really helps to have a lawyer right.

Tanis Moore: Yeah. I mean, I just, I agree with, you know, your assessment that there's different levels, right? So I think the only time that would start to become a problem is if, you know, there's any evidence that it has demonstrated any negative impacts on the children. For people, you know, like Charles said, that are actively getting help, that are actively, you know, like, taking medication if they need that, or who are otherwise, you know, just getting regular support, I would think that that would reflect favorably rather than, you know, unfavorably. And, you know, one thing to note too is that, you know, just going and seeing, like, say, a counselor is also different than, you know, say, going to a psychiatrist. Or somebody who does formal assessments, who, like, gives you an actual diagnosis of, you definitely have this. Or, you know, if you go to just a counselor and kind of talk about things that are going on. Or say, oh, you know, I'm feeling down because this is going negatively for me. Or I'm feeling a little bit depressed because things are bad, or I'm feeling anxious because I have to go to court, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean that, like, you know, a counselor would say you have major depressive disorder, or that you have an anxiety disorder or something like that. That would then be qualified as a diagnosis, right? So it's kind of a complicated thing. But, in most cases, I don't think that that would reflect negatively on you. Again, unless it was demonstrating an inability to properly care for children.

Charles Fair: And here's another thing. I was dealing with a case where, again, I was representing Mom, and the couple of kids, and one of them, Dad had no contact with, for whatever reason, but the other child had - I think the Dad was paranoid schizophrenic, which is a significant mental health issue, but he was having parenting time, and when it became a parent that his child was also having similar issues, he had his own condition sufficiently under management that my client was comfortable that it was appropriate for him to have a decent amount of parenting time, partly because of the support that he could provide his child.

So we're talking about a significant mental health issue, and yet that wasn't an obstacle to him. He wasn't being completely shut out of the child's life. In fact, in some senses, it was an asset.

So, yeah, you gotta have the objectivity that comes from having legal representation to really help make that argument. Because, you know, if you got any kind of vulnerability, shall we say, and it doesn't take much to poke at you and get you to - you know, somebody knows how to push your buttons and get you to unwind and fall apart on the stand, yeah, it's not gonna go so well. Right?

H

Charles Fair: So there's some common emotions experienced. We can just list them here. Anxiety, fear, anger, frustration. These are all things that we experience.

Charles Fair: Yeah. and sometimes it's just simply embarrassment. It's a public forum and you're gonna have to deal with that stuff.

So we've got a few other things. Well, what are the effects of emotions? And I see this a lot, interference with good decision making. Tanis, do you have any comments on that?

Charles Fair: Yeah, and that's my next point there, it gives the judge and others a poor impression. You know, one of the others might be a a parenting assessor professional.

But sometimes judges will start reacting and get angry, themselves. I mean, it's a human process.

So, Tanis, maybe you can talk about some of this. Do you want me to just put 'em all up here or do you wanna just -

Tanis Moore: Sure.

Charles Fair: I'm controlling the slides so I know what's here, so -

Tanis Moore: Yeah, exactly. Well, I know this one too.

Charles Fair: Yeah, I've used that to fall asleep when I'm particularly wound up about something.

Tanis Moore: Yes. Yeah, same here actually.

Another one is calm place meditation. And, you know, obviously you have to be a little bit careful using this one when somebody's trying to talk to you so that you don't space out.

So you can go to the next one.

Charles Fair: A coin in your pocket or something.

So these are some generic topics here.

This one's an interesting one. Ethics of emotional expression.

Melanie Seneviratne: Vanessa, do you have any questions that have come through to you?

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: Not yet.

Melanie Seneviratne: I've only got two questions and they've actually, they're not really related to the topic today, so - we haven't really had any other questions.

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: All right. I have one. Is there, is there anything that you should be careful about saying to a mental health professional?

Now, I don't know, Charles would probably have more experience with that having had, you know, 30 years of practice, but I don't know how often you have a counselor file request.

Anyways, it was an excellent question, Vanessa, about confidentiality and stuff, so -

Tanis Moore: Okay. We've got some questions now, so -

Charles Fair: Okay. All right.

Melanie Seneviratne: So how do you deal - we've got a bunch, so keep your answers a little bit short.

Charles Fair: Okay.

Melanie Seneviratne: How do you deal with the emotional overwhelm of false allegations?

Charles Fair: Ah, man. That's where you need a team approach, right?

What we can do is control how we react to them.

And there's some interesting human dynamics that come in to play here. Ironically, if you become defensive, you are more likely to be regarded as

Sorry.

There we go, sorry about that.

Same time every day.

Melanie Seneviratne: So, in follow-up to that, it's kind of related, another question. So, can a client refuse to speak in court for fear of not being able to control their emotion?

Charles Fair: Okay. Well, I'm not gonna answer the question directly, but I'm gonna make some comments.

So the particular strategy in any case has to be worked through, I think, with a lawyer to know what's appropriate.

In terms of getting the psychologist to testify on your behalf, it's possible to do that. There's a couple of questions there. One is character evidence, and the other is a professional assessment.

Right. So, you know, they wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of legal support.

Charles Fair: Yeah.

Tanis Moore: Good reason why multiple relationships are to be avoided.

Charles Fair: Yeah. Yeah.

Melanie Seneviratne: So I've got some, actually, a couple really good questions. So I'm gonna tie a couple of them together.

This one may be more for Tanis, but, would you recommend any specific way to go about finding mental health professionals who support people through separation, divorce, and perhaps alienation?

Well, I mean, CCMF.

Melanie Seneviratne: Okay. Sorry. Make sure I'm not muted. Okay. The next question.

Charles, you might need to do this. I know that's a very loaded question. There's a lot more to it, but -

The other thing that I can say is that I've often seen courts bend over backwards to support a party that is making real attempts, making real efforts, to change whatever's going on. Right?

So we're talking about a significant mental health issue, and yet that wasn't an obstacle to him. He wasn't being completely shut out of the child's life. In fact, in some senses, it was an asset.

ow To Pick A Good Lawyer

hthttps://youtu.be/9cOMETlPNuU

Calgary Men's Divorce Rights Lawyer Charles Fair

Canada’s divorce and family laws are governed by federal and provincial laws. Family lawyers represent their clients in court and negotiate disputes between spouses and family members. Charles Fair has been practicing Divorce and Family Law for almost 30 years. Fair Legal handles all types of divorce, custody and family legal matters to protect your children, property and you. Contact us at 1 (403) 239-2249 to schedule a confidential meeting with a member of our legal team.

Give me a call and I can put my years of experience in divorce and family law to work for you.

Transcript

Fair Legal Webinar - How To Pick A Good Lawyer

Charles Fair: So there's some common emotions experienced. We can just list them here. Anxiety, fear, anger, frustration. These are all things that we experience.

Charles Fair: Yeah. and sometimes it's just simply embarrassment. It's a public forum and you're gonna have to deal with that stuff.

So we've got a few other things. Well, what are the effects of emotions? And I see this a lot, interference with good decision making. Tanis, do you have any comments on that?

Charles Fair: Yeah, and that's my next point there, it gives the judge and others a poor impression. You know, one of the others might be a a parenting assessor professional.

But sometimes judges will start reacting and get angry, themselves. I mean, it's a human process.

So, Tanis, maybe you can talk about some of this. Do you want me to just put 'em all up here or do you wanna just -

Tanis Moore: Sure.

Charles Fair: I'm controlling the slides so I know what's here, so -

Tanis Moore: Yeah, exactly. Well, I know this one too.

Charles Fair: Yeah, I've used that to fall asleep when I'm particularly wound up about something.

Tanis Moore: Yes. Yeah, same here actually.

Another one is calm place meditation. And, you know, obviously you have to be a little bit careful using this one when somebody's trying to talk to you so that you don't space out.

So you can go to the next one.

Charles Fair: A coin in your pocket or something.

So these are some generic topics here.

This one's an interesting one. Ethics of emotional expression.

Melanie Seneviratne: Vanessa, do you have any questions that have come through to you?

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: Not yet.

Melanie Seneviratne: I've only got two questions and they've actually, they're not really related to the topic today, so - we haven't really had any other questions.

Vanessa Farkas-Brahmakshatriya: All right. I have one. Is there, is there anything that you should be careful about saying to a mental health professional?

Now, I don't know, Charles would probably have more experience with that having had, you know, 30 years of practice, but I don't know how often you have a counselor file request.

Anyways, it was an excellent question, Vanessa, about confidentiality and stuff, so -

Tanis Moore: Okay. We've got some questions now, so -

Charles Fair: Okay. All right.

Melanie Seneviratne: So how do you deal - we've got a bunch, so keep your answers a little bit short.

Charles Fair: Okay.

Melanie Seneviratne: How do you deal with the emotional overwhelm of false allegations?

Charles Fair: Ah, man. That's where you need a team approach, right?

What we can do is control how we react to them.

And there's some interesting human dynamics that come in to play here. Ironically, if you become defensive, you are more likely to be regarded as

Sorry.

There we go, sorry about that.

Same time every day.

Melanie Seneviratne: So, in follow-up to that, it's kind of related, another question. So, can a client refuse to speak in court for fear of not being able to control their emotion?

Charles Fair: Okay. Well, I'm not gonna answer the question directly, but I'm gonna make some comments.

So the particular strategy in any case has to be worked through, I think, with a lawyer to know what's appropriate.

In terms of getting the psychologist to testify on your behalf, it's possible to do that. There's a couple of questions there. One is character evidence, and the other is a professional assessment.

Right. So, you know, they wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of legal support.

Charles Fair: Yeah.

Tanis Moore: Good reason why multiple relationships are to be avoided.

Charles Fair: Yeah. Yeah.

Melanie Seneviratne: So I've got some, actually, a couple really good questions. So I'm gonna tie a couple of them together.

This one may be more for Tanis, but, would you recommend any specific way to go about finding mental health professionals who support people through separation, divorce, and perhaps alienation?

Well, I mean, CCMF.

Melanie Seneviratne: Okay. Sorry. Make sure I'm not muted. Okay. The next question.

Charles, you might need to do this. I know that's a very loaded question. There's a lot more to it, but -

The other thing that I can say is that I've often seen courts bend over backwards to support a party that is making real attempts, making real efforts, to change whatever's going on. Right?

So we're talking about a significant mental health issue, and yet that wasn't an obstacle to him. He wasn't being completely shut out of the child's life. In fact, in some senses, it was an asset.

Charles Fair

Calgary lawyer Charles Fair brings over 30 years of experience to Fair Legal in criminal, family and civil litigation. Charles draws on his personal experiences related to each field of law which helps him to understand and relate with each of his clients. He is compassionate, caring, and will always be your champion for justice when life gets messy.