And so that's the risk you

run.

You need to outline and explain every deficiency.

That's what it means by every issue.

You have to be very specific and discuss it.

Usually when the opposing party, I think it was Judge Saltman that said this, that when the opposing party can explain the issues as well as the other side, you know you've had an effective meeting and conferring.

And too often, we see these boilerplate objections without any thought that they're just rote objections, vague and ambiguous, where everybody knows.

And so if you can take control of that and work it out and get past whatever the hump you need to get past is, I think that makes it better for everybody.

I, I, and I worry about the limits of the judicial process, so I am a big believer that mediation is the way to go and that the idea that you'll get a crowning victory in court, uh, is unlikely.

So I think for me, w- i- in intake, I listen to the parties, I identify or at least do my best to try to name what the problem is.

Is it a process? Uh, a lot of times they just wanna talk about who the better parent is and why they should have custody at a certain time, or why they shouldn't.

But my blunt question after listening to a lot of the complaints, 'cause I do think people wanna be heard, is, are they a good parent? He might be a horrible husband, she might be a horrible wife, they might be terrible with finances, but are they good to the kids? Everybody forgets that this is a child-centered program, or at least it should be.

The goal is really keeping the, the children at the center of the process, not in the middle of the, of the parents' conflict.

So all the decisions really need to be filtered through the impact on the children.

And I do also want to carry on to what you said earlier.

Yeah