Five More Mistakes Self-Represented Litigants Commonly Make

In a previous blog, we discussed five mistakes that self-represented litigants commonly make during Arizona divorce cases. In this writing, we will discuss five more mistakes the attorneys of Huffman-Shayeb Law, PLLC frequently encounter when dealing with pro se litigants.

1. Having Unrealistic Expectations. One of the most common mistakes we see from self-represented parties is the filing of incomplete documents. Sometimes the error can be obvious, such as failing to fill out a box or section on a self-help court form. Other times, the error is less obvious. Self-represented litigants may forget to ask for something from the court at the beginning of the case because it is not clearly suggested by the court form. These types of errors can have major consequences for a divorce case. For example, failing to fill out the section pertaining to jurisdiction or background facts might result in the divorce case being dismissed, wasting both time and money with a refiling. Other times, the case may all the way to a trial before a litigant realizes they may have forgotten to request something like spousal maintenance or a reimbursement for marital waste, resulting in the inability to make those claims in a final divorce decree.
2. Failing to Thoroughly Review at the Evidence. Inexperienced litigants can also sometimes neglect to thoroughly review all of the evidence that will be placed before the judge. A document or recording that is given to the court for consideration can often large amounts of information and judges sometimes prefer to have the parties point them to specific details to consider. However, some judges will review entire documents and consider details that the parties themselves may have missed. For this reason, failing to fully to review an item of evidence before submitting it to the court can be problematic for a few reasons. First, a document or recording might contain information that should have been brought to the judge’s attention or that should have clarified with additional evidence. Second, a document might contain irrelevant information that should have been omitted, both to make it easier for the judge to review the document and to avoid the risk of creating unhelpful bias. Third, a document might contain sensitive or confidential information that should not be in the public record, such as a full account number or social security number.
3. Being Emotionally Reactive. Family law cases can be very emotional, but showing anger, interrupting, or arguing with the judge or other party can undermine a litigant’s credibility. At the end of the day, if two parties present conflicting testimony with no corroborating evidence, the judge will have decide which party is more believable. A party who is calm and collected can seem reasonable in their account of what happened and, in this way, may be more believable. Also, over-the-top displays of emotions can be construed as emotional dysregulation and may harm a litigant’s position on child custody matters. For example, in making orders on legal decision-making for a minor child, Arizona courts may consider whether it is feasible for the parents to make joint decisions and, if not, may have to decide which parent is likely to make decisions that in the best interests of the minor child. If a judge feels that a parent’s emotional dysregulation interferes with that parent’s ability to make decisions that in the minor child’s best interests, they grant final say authority or sole legal decision-making authority to the other parent.
4. Failing to Present a Coherent Position. While litigants can technically present alternative positions, or even inconsistent positions on separate issues, doing so can at times harm credibility. Sometimes litigants will make a serious allegation, like the presence of child abuse, but then agree to unsupervised parenting time. Other times litigants might admit settle child support and advise the court they do not need financial support to care for the child, while still insisting on spousal maintenance. Even if parties agree to the terms of a settlement, judges have to ultimately approve the settlement before its terms are adopted as court orders. Judges are required, under Arizona law, to enter child custody orders that are in the best interests of the minor children subject to those orders. So, if a party attempts to maintain the position that there is child abuse while entering into a settlement agreement that would theoretically continue to expose that child to the risk of abuse, a judge may reject the agreement. While positions often evolve and change during family law cases, it remains important to maintain coherent positions—both to preserve credibility and to ensure that judge understands what the parties are attempting to accomplish in the case.
5. Making Vague or Incomplete Requests. Failing to formally request child custody, child support, spousal support or protective orders means a litigant may not get those kinds of orders at the end of the case—even if they might be obvious. When a party starts a family law case, they are required to file a petition that outlines everything that is requested. That petition has to be served on the opposing party, so that the opposing party has knowledge of everything that is being requested in the case. With that information, the opposing party has an opportunity to investigate issues and gather evidence for the court to consider. The court usually cannot lawfully enter orders on issues that do not appear in the petition because the opposing party would not have had a meaningful chance to investigate the issues and prepare for trial. More practically, a judge is not a mind reader and cannot be expected to know what a party is requesting unless that party clearly and fully explains what is being sought. Typically, as case nears trial, judges will require statements in which the parties explain what issues remain to be decided and what their positions are on those issues. For these reasons, it is critical that requests are fully and clearly stated both at the beginning of the case and throughout the proceedings.

The attorneys of Huffman-Shayeb Law, PLLC have a practical, commonsense approach to handling family law cases in the State of Arizona based on years of experience in the field. Our attorneys can and do provide clients with tips and best practices for successfully reaching the finish line in their cases. If you are looking for experienced, thoughtful representation in an Arizona family law case, contact Huffman-Shayeb Law, PLLC to schedule your consultation today! Our attorneys are here to help.