Pixel Tracker

Wednesday, November 21 , 2018, 5:03 am | A Few Clouds 48º


Brian Burke: About Your Divorce (Letter 12)

It's important to understand the differences between — and implications of — a trial and a hearing

Dear Nora and Nick:

I concluded the last letter by telling you that if you want a decent and dignified divorce — one that will end with both of you feeling like a “better person” — you are not doing well. You’re in the bottom 15 percent of divorcing couples in South Santa Barbara County. This minority has asked the Superior Court to get involved in their very personal business by ordering the other party to do something (such as pay support, relinquish the family dog, turn over the children, etc.).

The request for an order is made in writing and a “hearing” in front of a judge is scheduled in order to hear both sides. (Recall that the 15 percent includes cases in which a hearing was requested but the problem was resolved by the parties before the hearing; in other words, the court considered no evidence and made no decisions.)

It can get worse. Less than 4 percent of the divorcing population requires an actual “trial.” This small minority uses most of the court’s resources, which are often of no benefit. Researchers qualified to make the observation have said that within this group there is a high incidence of families dealing with various addictions. There is also a high incidence of individuals with “personality disorders,” which is a diagnostic category psychologists and psychiatrists use for a number of pathological conditions.

The difference between your 15 Percent Group and the 4 Percent Group is that the first involves one or more hearings and the second involves a trial, so you should know the difference between the two.

. . .

A trial is a big deal. It’s the Rolls-Royce of dispute resolution. In almost all cases a trial can include a jury. Fortunately, there have been no juries for divorce trials since the enactment of the “no fault” legislation in 1970.

At the heart of an Anglo-American trial is the notion of admissible evidence. During the past 500 years, experience has led to a distinction between the type of information that tends to be reliable and the type of information that’s inherently unreliable. The Rules of Evidence have evolved to eliminate unreliable information and to include reliable information in the judicial decision-making process. The reliable information is called admissible evidence, and the unreliable information is called inadmissible evidence.

The judge protects the jury from seeing or hearing inadmissible evidence. When a judge decides a case without a jury, there is no one to protect the judge from inadmissible evidence. In that instance, the judge will usually hear testimony and read documents even if one side objects and claims inadmissibility. The judge’s rulings on objections tell the lawyers what information will be considered in making the decision. In other words, a judge, unlike a jury, will see and hear inadmissible information. However, the judge’s final decision will be made only on admissible evidence; the judge is required to treat the information found to be inadmissible as though he or she had never been exposed to it.

The admissibility of testimony and documents “offered in evidence” is tested by the use of “objections.” Here are four common examples of how it works:

» “Objection, irrelevant.” The question seeks information that’s not logically related to any contested fact; the testimony would be a waste of time.

» “Objection, incompetent.” The witness does not have personal, firsthand knowledge of the information he’s being asked to provide. This is not an insult; it’s simply a way of saying the witness wasn’t in the right place at the right time to provide reliable information.

» “Objection, hearsay.” Hearsay is secondhand information. Admissible testimony must come from a live witness who claims to have firsthand knowledge. The witness must give testimony in the courtroom so the other side can conduct a cross-examination in front of the judge or jury to expose weaknesses in the testimony. While there are several exceptions, hearsay testimony is generally inadmissible.

» “Objection, calls for an opinion.” If a witness responded to a question with, “It was a horrible accident,” the testimony is an opinion. Regular witnesses can give opinions about sobriety, the authenticity of a signature and the value of their own property. Otherwise, testimony is limited to information obtained by the witness via the five senses.

A hearing is an abbreviated, or summary, trial. Hearings are held on matters incidental to what’s really in dispute. In divorce, hearings can concern temporary support, temporary arrangement for children, temporary use of property, requests for attorneys’ fees and rulings concerning what must be provided as part of the discovery process.

Live witness testimony is a chief characteristic of a trial, but in a hearing witnesses are rarely called. Instead, testimony comes from declarations, which are written, factual statements made under penalty of perjury. Each of the statements made in a declaration is supposed to meet the criteria for admissible evidence.

In your case, both lawyers claim the other has loaded declarations with statements both inadmissible and inflammatory. By inflammatory, they mean the judge is being given information that reflects badly on the other person even though the law prohibits the judge from using the information in making a decision. The inclusion of negative information the court is not allowed to consider is a frequently used and particularly unprofessional tactic. Both lawyers have filed requests asking the judge to strike, or eliminate, the inadmissible language in the declarations filed by the other.

I’ve looked at the file. Your lawyers are right; each has filed declarations loaded with information containing statements clearly inadmissible as evidence. This is done on the theory that, once the judge has read the statement and ruled it inadmissible, the “bell has been rung” and it will influence the judge’s thinking even though it is not supposed to. Each lawyer is damned by showing how the other lawyer cheats, so neither passes this litmus test for professionalism.

Your friend,


— Brian H. Burke is a certified family law specialist practicing family law and mediation in Santa Barbara. A researcher and educator in the field of divorce and family conflicts, he is also the creator of the Legal Roadmap™. Click here for more information, call 805.965.2888 or e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >