He didn’t want to sound paranoid so he didn’t say anything and then when he’s changing his password he took a screenshot showing the family tablet had accessed his Gmail 28 minutes ago.

I have been sitting on this information since the end of May because I was waiting until I could secure my client one overnight with his kids. Once we have that it will be difficult stopping our momentum towards 50/50 custody.

Now that our overnight is secure and we have a custody review hearing coming up at which point I’ll keep up pressure for an additional overnight, it was time to send my Evidence Preservation Letter.

Of course I sent that on a Friday. Just in case no one left the office early, I sent it in the morning. Why not ruin both a Friday morning and the weekend?

I gave them until Monday morning at 9:00 am to pick one of the two computer forensic experts I found, and turn over the tablet.

Opposing counsel’s office reached out hours later in the afternoon saying that the attorney was going to be in court all day Monday and they need time to talk to the wife, it will probably be early next week . . .

I said no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114091)

I also presume this is incredibly common?

What kind of sanctions will this result in and how mad will be the judge?

How does this help with custody? Just demonstrates that the mom is a lying cunt?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114093)

Not a criminal lawmo but I believe it’s a violation of federal and state law. Invasion of privacy or something blah blah.

Not common. Extremely rare. Once I had a client snooping on his wife’s and attorney’s emails because wife was using her Microsoft email and it was under his account or something.

I sent him a CYA email telling him it’s a federal crime, I want nothing to do with it and to stop immediately, but other than that I don’t see this happening.

I’m asking for $10,000 in punitive sanctions plus attorney fees.

The judge will feign mild concern.

It might unintentionally result in my guy getting to 50/50 faster.

I actually had to have a Come to Jesus talk with my client telling him this was going to cost maybe $10-20k to see through with the most likely outcome being zero punishment for her.

It demonstrates more than just dishonesty. She breached her fiduciary duty for one. Violated her husband’s attorney client privilege. Breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. You know, really bad shit like that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114133)

I'm so glad my divorce was amicable (and I got bored of reading her texts and e-mails).

Btw, it MIGHT be a federal crime, but she'll claim she had implied permission for authorized access. Zero chance feds get involved in this fact pattern. Also if you and your client were sitting on your rights this may be the rare case of correctly arguing the doctrine of laches.

tyvmf that last paragraph. Starting my day with a good laff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114146)

I hope this is jumping the shark. If not....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121946)

Or the judge is a woman, in which case LJL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114919)

A mail app or the gmail app will simply check in to his account in the background, whether or not anyone else is looking at his emails.

Judge: "The only violation that I can see here is your client's poor opsec, Counselor."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114198)

This woman, who isn't a lawyer and has no ethical duty, is fighting for custody of her children - and people are mad she opened up emails that were beeping on a device in her living room in order to address the husband's concerns?

"Why can't I live with mommy"

"Because she technically violated the digital records act of 2002."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114219)

this is so clearly unethical ljl at saying this with a straight face.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121683)

"In Illinois, when a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation or Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage is filed, and either party is served with the summons and petition or files an appearance, certain prohibitions automatically go into effect for both parties and their agents. This is often referred to as a "dissolution action stay" or automatic orders.

These orders generally prohibit physically abusing, harassing, intimidating, striking, or interfering with the personal liberty of the other party or their children, and concealing a minor child from the other parent. These automatic stays are in effect until a judgment is entered, the case is dismissed, or a further order from the court is issued. "

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49114598)

He didn’t remember that he was still logged into his Google account on the family tablet. He had other things on his mind as he did not see the DVTRO coming, had to suddenly move in with his parents, couldn’t see his kids, etc.

Wife went into the family tablet and accessed his gmail account and read his emails with me from September through May. That’s a lot different from leaving an email open on your computer when someone walks by.

I revise my rating. Your hypo is 148.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49115712)

I’ve said at least TWICE NOW (I’m shouting because you are obviously hearing impaired), that I’m only seeking $10k in punitive sanctions and attorney fees and that custody isn’t an appropriate remedy.

I’m starting to lose patience with your pretentious ignorance. The burden of proof in family court is a preponderance. Are you sure you know what that means Mr. Super Lawyer?

I’m not asking what it means in whatever ivory fucking tower your fat tattooed ass is sitting in, but what it means in an actual courtroom and not in YouTube or TikTok comments.

I only need to prove by a preponderance that the bitch snooped. Once I do that her credibility is shot. She would lose any factual dispute regarding custody, any close calls will go against her so it creates something called “leverage”.

Not the kind of leverage you encounter on your HVAC job but the negotiating kind.

If you want to know more about family law you can just ask me. You don’t have to be an asshole unless that’s part of your shtick or something. Anyways, peace brother, it’s been fun.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49115773)

It may have no impact on custody but good luck to this woman on her next DVTRO attempt. Actually, I revise what I said. It WILL affect custody because when she invariably claims the husband is abusing/neglecting the children, the judge will remember that this woman doesn't play fair and it will color his view of her claims.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49116089)

He’s dangerously ignorant of family law. chilmata’s strategy (using the breach to undermine the wife’s credibility) is standard practice, and judges do penalize sneaky behavior in custody cases, even if no criminal charges stick.

Verdict: 80% troll, 20% clueless contrarian. Either way, not worth engaging seriously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121679)

Anyway, let chilmata be chilmata. He’s having fun and trust me he won’t hurt himself or his client with this motion. Motions like this don’t backfire in domestic relations court like they would in civil court. They won’t get any traction either but the judge politely refrains from asking movant or his counsel why they are such dumbasses as to leave the email readily accessible in the first place, or the deeper questions about whether the privilege was waived by chilmata assuming he didn’t previously counsel client specifically to change his email access on all devices.

Practicing law in domestic court is less law and more just plain social work and what judge wants to beat up on a poor abused “social worker” who has to take shit from hysterical clients all day every day.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49120514)

Also your point doesn’t do the client much good if the CL is found to have waived it because he didn’t change his passcodes on shared devices, does it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121488)

Edit: would add that this situation would make me add a warning slip to my intake packet and have future clients sign it to acknowledge i told them to change their email access codes and not to use a shared line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49115401)

I used to love those moments. I’ve lost my fire and can’t muster the energy to care about most of my cases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49120516)

I hate dealing with custody in general to be honest. It's extremely important because it impacts the lives of kids who usually have no say in in any of it. I just don't want to be the one to deal with those issues anymore. It's stressful and emotional. I agree there definitely are the gatekeeper moms who alienate kids, but I also think there's plenty of shitty dads who'd rather blame their ex-wives for their bad relationships with their kids than take responsibility.

I'd much rather fight about financial issues than kid issues.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49122075)

Maybe the DV process isn't as abused there as it is here.

The problem in California is the "3044 presumptions" which refers to Family Code section 3044.

When a judge makes a finding of domestic violence it creates a "presumption" that the perp is an "unfit parent" and unfit parents cannot have legal or physical custody of their kids until they "rebut" the presumption.

That means they have to be supervised with their kids.

Right now we are setting DV trial in Spring/Summer 2026.

So when mom files a DVTRO against dad, if it is granted (95%) then dad will be restrained and supervised with his kids until trial.

If dad loses trial THEN the 3044 presumptions kick in and it usually takes 4-6 months to rebut the presumption of parental unfitness.

How do they rebut the presumption? Take a DV class, take a parenting class, show the judge the certificates and pretend you learned something.

It is the 3044 presumptions that lead to all this DVTRO abuse. Its bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49122106)

The judges have gotten better and it’s really hard to get a FRO now. The calendar is also moving faster so it’s harder to abuse the system. Even with an FRO supervised parenting is rare unless the DV involved the kids.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49123077)

At least in this County we have a presumption that both parents should have equal custody unless there is a really good reason why they shouldn't which trumps the stability/continuity argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49124895)

is this woman contesting 50/50 purely out lf spite? how often does this happen? any common threads you've noticed in bitter scorched earth shrews you've noticed that men should consider a red flag?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121723)

A lot of women actually do take on the primary caregiver role even when both parents are employed and I'm sure it feels unfair to share custody equally when the mom was doing the majority of the child raising prior to separation.

One particular pattern I noticed is that when the mother cheats on the father, she will go WWIII scorched-earth, file DVTRO, make up false allegations with the ultimate nuclear bomb being sexual abuse allegations against a child.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49121945)

the cheater shit makes sense. women versus accountability are undefeated. the times ive seen women flip out the most are when they are 100% in the wrong and got batty manufacturing reasons about how theyre not. i wouldnt be suprised if many of those women would pass a polygraph asking whether those fabrications were justified, and may even pass on whether claims conclusively disproven actually happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49122104)

thanks for fighting the good. candidly my experience here is doing some pro bono restraining orders and guardian ad litem. guardian shit is super sad but i had a lot of fun with TROs in exactly the way you've described. i think you described is baseball bat law and ljl it really is. thanks for the content brother.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#49122286)