Parental Alienation and the Law: The Case of Ty and Brynlee Larson
Parenal Alienation: What’s Really in the Best Interest of the Kids?
A listener wrote in, asking us to discuss in greater detail the concept of parental alienation. Many mainstream scientific groups say it’s not a legitimate diagnosis. What happens, though, when a lawyer brings it into a court case and the judge rules in favor of it? That’s what’s happening right now in Utah with the case of Brynlee Larson, 12, and Ty Larson, 15, who have barricaded themselves in their room because a judge ruled that their father should have time with them, even though they say he’s sexually and physically abused them in the past.
It’s an incredibly complicated topic, and Seth and Pete are here to break it down a bit in order to better understand the case, but also to help those in cases in which parental alienation is brought up and used on one side or the other. It’s a fascinating discussion that certainly shows how tricky it is to deal with this not just in legal cases but also in emotional challenges that come when parents fight this way over their children.
Links & Notes
Got a question you want to ask on the show? Click here!
-
Pete Wright:
Welcome to 'How To Split a Toaster', a divorce podcast about saving your relationships from TruStory FM. Today, your toasters behind the big wall.
Seth Nelson:
Welcome to show everybody. I'm Seth Nelson, and as always, I'm here with my good friend, Pete Wright. Today we've got a listener question on the subject of parent alienation in reunification and what happens when older kids take their future and present into their own hands.
Pete Wright:
This is a crazy story, Seth.
Seth Nelson:
I know, I've been following it.
Pete Wright:
It's absolutely bananas, and I'm so curious how this came up. And it's something I've been thinking about talking with you about for a couple of weeks, as we're recording this, the story of Ty and Brynlee barricading themselves in their home, in their bedrooms, to avoid being taken back to their father's house after court order, the family court order, is happening in real time. Ty is still Twitch streaming all day long and all night long and people are watching him and...
Seth Nelson:
So, set the scene, lay it back. You're a great storyteller. This is a horrible story to tell.
Pete Wright:
It is.
Seth Nelson:
But it's actually happening now. So, give the listeners a little background, because you and I have been talking about this, we've been following it. I don't want them to miss one bit of this.
Pete Wright:
Case is happening in Utah. Two kids, Ty and Brynlee, were ordered to go back to their father in a divorce case. They come back and say, "We're not going back to dad. He sexually and emotionally abused us for years. We're not doing that." In the course of the investigation, the kids go into, what they called, "a forensic investigation..."
Seth Nelson:
Psychological investigation. Mental health professionals came in, did some testing, had them take some tests, and they came out with a result.
Pete Wright:
Right. And that result is, "Yes, the kids were abused. We believe the kids." So, that is Utah authorities agreeing with the kids. The kids say, "We're not going back." Family court judge says, "You know what? We think we agree with the dad," who has now come back and his attorney stands up and says, "This is a case of parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome," and that this is effectively mom implanting these experiences for the kids in their minds that they weren't really abused. She's just trying to set them against dad to use them as a tool in their custody fight. Where we stand right now, the mental health community has come out in large part saying, "Hey, parental alienation syndrome isn't a thing. It's up there..." I think you and I were talking earlier, you said it's up there with senioritis. It's not a thing. It's not in the diagnostic statistical manual. It is not a syndrome.
It is a legal defense developed in the 1980s and '90s and used mainly to protect men who are accused of sexually abusing their kids. It does not meet, as they say, "court evidentiary standards." And Dr. David Corwin, Professor and Director of Pediatric Forensic Services at University of Utah and Past President of the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children, says, "It's an ideology that is not based on adequate research. It's one of the best offenses against accusations of sexual abuse. Claiming that a child has been programmed or coached by other parents creates enough uncertainty for a court to believe the easier narrative that a parent would lie rather than a parent would sexually abuse a child." So, we now have a rift between the mental health community and the legal community and a listener question. So, that's the story as it's happening in the news. And now I'd like to tell you what, moderately toasted but not burnt to a crisp, has written to us, if I may?
Seth Nelson:
Okay.
Pete Wright:
"Thanks for all the great discussions about ending a marriage and beyond. The legal insights into QDROs..."
Seth Nelson:
Quadros, come on. Quadros...
Pete Wright:
I know man. I just fail lingo 101... "... Parenting plans, high conflict partners and judge, paralegal, co-counsel interviews were super helpful in navigating a divorce that has left me toasted, both emotionally and financially, but not burnt to a crisp. This week's episode about parallel parenting mentioned parental alienation, a topic that I've been meaning to suggest for some time. Seth described it as a known and legally accepted psychological condition, but I've heard other parenting experts call it a sham. While this may be a 'check your local jurisdiction' type situation, a deeper dive into the acceptance, legal ramifications and what to do about it, would be awesome. Also, a recent ProPublica article about the extreme case in Utah seems pretty topical as a jump off point for a possible discussion. Keep up the great work. Best regards, Lightly Toasted." Thank you, Lightly Toasted.
Seth Nelson:
First off, this is an excellent question. Well-thought-out, well drafted, and the best name for a listener ever. So, props, appreciate that, Lightly Toasted. Okay, so let's back up a little bit. There's a book out there, Pete, it's underneath my pillow right next to all my Florida Statutes, DSM-5-TR. Love it. Love it.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders. So, basically what this book is, and there's others out there too, but it's a comprehensive and current and really a critical resource for clinical practitioners about, what are mental illnesses? When someone says, "I don't want my kid to get labeled" or "I don't don't want to be labeled," this is the book that labels you.
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
Okay. And there's others out there. But it's my understanding that there is not parent alienation in this book. It is not a mental disorder.
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
Okay. So, that's psychology.
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
In case law around the country, but check your local jurisdiction, there is a concept of parent alienation, which seems exactly like it sounds. It says you, one parent, are trying to keep the children from the other parent. Wanted to pull out Florida Statute 61.13, which is in Florida, our statute, that the court will lay out the 20 different factors that they have to consider in determining what's in the best interest of the child. Just to show you how this concept of parent alienation is actually in the statute, though you will not find those words, "parent alienation." Here's what it says, "The demonstrated capacity in disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship to honor the time-sharing schedule and to be reasonable when changes are required." So, when I read that, to "encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship," that is with you, the parent, and your children, and with the children and the other parent.
Pete Wright:
So, you're going to use, as an attorney, subsection A to define the set of behaviors that would otherwise be included in the term "parental alienation." Is that a fair statement?
Seth Nelson:
That's an excellent statement. More than fair. It's perfect. Because here's what I do in court and what I do when talking to clients, and I'm going to broaden this a little bit to narcissist, to a mental abuser, to parent alienation. When you have these labels that get tossed around in court all the time, I believe the judges become desensitized to them. They hear it all the time. And when you hear something all the time, it is the boy that cried wolf. So, I don't use the terms. I tie the behaviors to the statute and how those behaviors impact the children, so I can get the same underlying information into court without a label.
Pete Wright:
Sure.
Seth Nelson:
Because when you give it a label, you're going to run into this problem. Is that a psychological label? Is that deemed to be an issue in Florida Family Law or any of your jurisdictions? You'll see the term come up because the history of it was used in divorce cases, right?
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
Trying to get kids back, saying, "Look at what mom is doing keeping from dad."
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Right.
Seth Nelson:
So, let's talk about this specific case. This case that children are saying, "I've been mentally and physically abused." There's one part of the state of Utah that agrees with them, department of children and family, whoever, whatever the organization is, the governmental entity that goes in and looks to see whether a parent is abusing the child. Then you have another part of that same government, the court system, saying, "Nope." So, which one has the power? And then how is that power actually exercised? And that's right in the middle of where these kids are. So, the court system says, "Bring the kids back to dad."
Pete Wright:
That is where I would've started, with who has the power? To answer that question, it's the judge. The judge has given an order. But the fascinating twist here is the police that go get the kids decide to exercise different judgment.
Seth Nelson:
That's correct. Now, ultimately, that judge can go and say, "You're going to execute my order." There is another way... Let me just back up a minute, we're still on "who has the power?" There's a third entity in Florida that also might have the power, and it is a different branch of the same tree, and that tree is the judicial system. You have the family law court and then you have the dependency court.
Pete Wright:
Well, I don't even know what that is?
Seth Nelson:
I'm about to tell you. The state or an individual can bring a case in dependency court and say, "These children are being abused. These children are being neglected." The dependency court takes precedent over the family law court in Florida.
Pete Wright:
Wait a minute... Can you-
Seth Nelson:
So, I'm going to explain this to you.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. I'm confused because it sure sounds like dependency court should be a part of family court. It sounds like that's not the case.
Seth Nelson:
It's not, though the judges will communicate to see who has the power to handle and listen to this case, and here's the example. We all know that the family law court is a slow moving process. Dependency can act a bit quicker. So, what happens is, you have a final judgment, you have a parenting plan. They're supposed to be doing a 50/50 time-sharing schedule, and they're at a baseball game and the parent, the father I'm going to use in this case, is coaching the team. He's one of those overzealous, Little League coaches, coaching their kid. His kid strikes out bottom of the ninth. He goes up there and hits his kid in front of a handful... Everyone in the stands sees it. This is my hypothetical. Mom takes the children home. If I file an emergency motion in court, a judge might say, "This isn't an emergency. Something bad happened, I want you to come in later, let's talk about it." But the reason it's not an emergency is because the children are safe with mom.
Pete Wright:
Right. Okay, so emergency is the kids are still actively being hit by dad?
Seth Nelson:
Correct. Now, some judges rule differently on what they deem 'emergency' is. There's a case in Florida that defines it, what have you. Dependency court will swoop right in. You report that to Department of Children and Family, they come out and investigate, they say, "These children are not going back to dad." That happens quicker. And now that there's a dependency order, it takes precedent over the family law court. From the description you said in the Utah case, I'm unclear whether there's a dependency case. It said the authorities, the mental health professionals, have deemed this to be believing the children. Family court has not. I don't know that process. I'm not licensed in Utah. I don't live in Utah. I think I've been to Utah once. So...
Pete Wright:
Okay. But in terms of our efforts to armchair this case and with a full-throated caveat, check your local jurisdiction, if this case were happening in Florida, this would be an example where you would go to dependency court...
Seth Nelson:
That's right where I would be.
Pete Wright:
... to figure this out. Okay. And-
Seth Nelson:
Yep. I would see if they agreed and took jurisdiction. Now, let's assume that they say, "No, there is no abuse," and now you're back in family court and the judge rules, "Go back to dad," and now the kids barricade themselves. In essence, it's the same problem. The kids are barricaded in a house.
Pete Wright:
Well, I have a caveat question to your dependency court. Is this barricade situation, is this considered an emergency?
Seth Nelson:
I would deem this to be an emergency.
Pete Wright:
Oh, okay. Me too, but, you know?
Seth Nelson:
And what I would do is go into court and say, "Judge, I want you to incarcerate Mom because she's not encouraging the kids to go to..." And now we're going to go to something else, "reunification therapy." I would say, "Judge, you have children barricaded in a house. The police are not executing your order, because you can go to court and get a pickup order saying, 'go pick up those children'. We appreciate that they're in danger. So, what's our next step? We want reunification therapy." I would try to dial this back and say, "Let's not pull the kids out and send them over to Dad's, because at their ages, when Dad falls asleep that night, they run right out of the house."
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
But they certainly have a breakdown in this relationship and therefore I would ask for what's called "reunification therapy," where the mom is required to take the children, first on their own without dad there, to meet the therapist. And at the appropriate time, bring dad into the room so they can start talking. The therapist would be meeting with the children, would be meeting with Mom, would be meeting with Dad all individually, potentially... Potentially in groups, the two children together, the two children separate. Maybe one child with Mom, one child with Mom the other time. Maybe the children and Mom all together, and then bring Dad in one at a time, ultimately, hopefully all together where everyone could get on the same page. I am not advocating, to be very clear to our listeners, that if the children were sexually abused, that they should have to do this. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, if I represent-
Pete Wright:
Aren't you saying that implicitly, by saying that they should incarcerate Mom?
Seth Nelson:
No, because I'm not making a judgment... And this is why people hate lawyers. I'm just going to say it. If I represent Dad, these are the actions I would take. I would say, "Judge, you already found that that wasn't true." I'm not making the finding on whether this... Or did this happen or did not happen? Now, if I knew specifically that my client said, "Yeah, I did that," I just wouldn't take the case. I'm out. I'm not required to represent someone that goes against my moral code. So, very clear, I'm not making a judgment on the truth of the matter asserted.
So, that would be one way to do it. I say, "Judge, we want them to go to therapy. There's obviously a major problem here. And if they refuse and Mom doesn't take them, then the only person you're going to be able to hold accountable is Mom." And let me tell you, that makes things happen. Now, if Mom wants to go to jail and the kids want to sit in that room barricaded, they're coming out, they're going to run out of food and water, and I'm not making light of this situation. This is how serious it is.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Well, the way they talk about it. They're having food delivered... Delivery services... Eventually, I have to imagine they're going to run out of money, more than anything else. They have phones...
Seth Nelson:
But people will keep... People are going to take their side that they don't know the truth of the matter asserted. They see it as a cause and they will keep supporting those children, which really, does that sound like being in their best interest?
Pete Wright:
None of this sounds like in their best interest... None of this is their best interest.
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, about 10% of children live with a parent with an alcohol use disorder. Seth, if you are accused of having an alcohol abuse disorder and you're in a divorce situation, how do you even start to get through that process?
Seth Nelson:
Deal with it head on. You don't want to go to court and say, "No, I don't," because then it's going to be this whole credibility issue, "Is she more persuasive than you?" Will she make up facts that all you can say is "No, that didn't happen." And judges, I think, tend to error on the side of protecting children.
Pete Wright:
And so, what do we do to protect children? We got to get the data.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. And you get the data by using Soberlink. It is a little handheld device. It's a breathalyzer. You blow into. It has facial recognition so it knows that it's you, and it's real-time, independent, third party verification on whether or not you have any blood alcohol content. And if you do that day after day after day, and it's 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, when you go to court with all of that data, that is going to be impossible to refute. You've saved yourself a lot of time, money in attorney's fees, and you've proved to the judge, which is the only person you have to prove this to, not to your ex-spouse or your spouse that you're divorcing or the parent of your children that you're having trouble with, you prove it to the judge, this issue goes away. And that's why Soberlink is so important from the person being accused.
Now, Pete, if you're the one that's worried, you're getting independent real-time verification, so you can breathe a little easier, knowing that on this day and this time when the kids are getting in the car at pickup, the person does not have alcohol in their system. But if they do, you get to go get them. If they do, the cycle starts again, they have to test for another six months or whatever the case may be, if you can get an agreed order or an order of the court.
Pete Wright:
So, if you're in this situation, yeah, you got to start collecting that data, build your own case, take back control in a process that feels like you have little of it. The best part is, you can save 50 bucks right now off of your device. Just get started at soberlink.com/toaster. That's soberlink.com/toaster are great... Thanks to Soberlink for sponsoring the Toaster.
I want to talk just a little bit more about the reunification process because in this case specifically, they're referring to reunification, not as reunification therapy, but as like a sleepaway camp, a reunification camp that can cost the parents up to 30 grand a week. Is that the kind... Do you have experience with those sorts of things? I don't know how that works. I don't know if Mom and Dad are in camp too, or how... What does that look like? That also doesn't necessarily seem like best interests of the kids.
Seth Nelson:
Those camps are for the extreme cases where they know, as in the authorities, the judge knows that if they go to, what I would call, "typical..." In quotes, "... reunification therapy," you go every Thursday from four to five.
Pete Wright:
For as long as it takes?
Seth Nelson:
For as long as it takes. Sometimes people agree that if we're going to do reunification therapy, the therapist can come in not to say what happened specifically, but can give the court updates. "Judge, we're making progress. Judge, this isn't happening."
Pete Wright:
So, that implies that there is a potential... An additional potential fork in the road for these kids. Let's just say we take the side of the kids, that there was an abuse in their history, that they are of an age where they're, let's say, sort of cemented into this position where they're not going to come back to Dad. Even if they come back to Dad by force, they're certainly never going to come back to Dad by emotion.
Seth Nelson:
Well, here's one of the questions. We have a 10-year-old and a 16-year-old...
Pete Wright:
Yeah.
Seth Nelson:
Back to Florida Statute. Check your local jurisdiction.
Pete Wright:
One's going to age out first.
Seth Nelson:
Right. But hold on, before we even get there, under the statute in Florida, the court may consider the reasonable preference of the child if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding and experience to express a preference. I get the question all the time. "When does the child get to decide?" I say, "When the child's 18 and no longer a child." And I've had judges in Hillsborough County force a 16-year-old child to move across the country to come back, and basically said, "If this child does not come back, then I'm going to submit an order to incarcerate the parent, and I'm going to have the sheriff's officer here in Florida reach out to the other jurisdiction, the other state, to make sure that happens. It's going to be a warrant for their arrest." When you do that, things happen. I know that blows your mind, but having a parent incarcerated for not facilitating time-sharing to the other parent with children of this age is not uncommon.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three cases right now. Like boom, boom, boom. So, reunification therapy, going all the way back to these camps, when it's such an extreme case that they know if they're just going every Thursday at four o'clock to five and then they pick up their cell phones and they have the connection with the outside world, especially in this case where it's being live-streamed, that judge is going to be like, "You know what? None of these people have a business in this case. My job is to protect these kids. And I think protecting these kids, one, gets them out of the spotlight of the media and social media. Two, get them to a place that works on reunification therapy..." Because this judge thinks that the abuse did not happen, "and I'm going to send them to a place where the parents have to go and those therapists are going to handle that reunification to see if and when it will ever happen." To your point, there's a 16-year-old, court systems are slow, could age out...
Pete Wright:
Age out, and be at a point where there are choices to be made that otherwise might separate the two of them.
Seth Nelson:
That's correct. And by two of them, you mean the parents?
Pete Wright:
Well, and the kids.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. That was my question, is it also... Now we have a... Two years from now, a 12-year old that's spent two years locked in their room.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Right.
Seth Nelson:
No one thinks that's in their best interest.
Pete Wright:
No one. Right. Okay. This is obviously a super complex situation that is, as I said, it's unfolding right now. Mom is... The judge has criticized Mom for continuing to "wash the children's clothes and facilitate bringing food to the barricaded room because it continues to enable rejection of their father." So, it sounds like, just in the act of having the barricaded kids in their room... Not doing Mom any favors in her house.
Seth Nelson:
Right. So, now let me represent Mom.
Pete Wright:
Please?
Seth Nelson:
Okay. "Judge, the children of these parents..." And I'm in court here, "are barricaded in the room. And I appreciate this court does not like the fact that my client is providing them with food, shelter, and clothing. What are you asking her to do?" And the judge, when you lay the question, be careful as a lawyer asking a question, the judge is going to be like, "Stop doing that." So, I said it the other way, "She's a mother, of course she's going to bring her children food. Of course she's going to make sure they have clean clothes. And these are all the things that if she was not doing in a typical divorce case, you would be taking the kids away from her. The exact thing you're unhappy about now isn't the actual acts of feeding children and clothing children, it's the fact that you believe, the court believes..."
"And the father is arguing that this is facilitating them 'not seeing Dad'. The facilitation of 'not seeing Dad', I do not think is occurring here. I think we have a bigger problem where they are locked in a room and she can't make these kids go to reunification therapy. How many social workers does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, as long as it wants to be changed."
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Right.
Seth Nelson:
"So, sometimes bad facts make bad law and we don't want that to happen here, Judge." And here's the problem for Mom and Mom's attorney. "What's the solution, Mr. Nelson?" The judge appears over his glasses or her glasses from the bench up way up above. And I say, "Judge, there's no contact with the dad. It's an extreme. No one thinks that this is a great outcome but... And I appreciate the judge doesn't believe this to be true, but the kids do. They believe they've been abused."
Pete Wright:
And the other branch of authority in the governmental system believes it to be true.
Seth Nelson:
Right. And ultimately you have one kid who's about to be 18 in less than two years, and that child's going to make their own decisions when they're 18. And there could be a lot of harm by forcing this upon them now. And this problem did not start overnight and this court's not going to end it overnight. And you can do all the orders you want, but sometimes the court system isn't set up to solve these problems. And judges aren't going to like to hear that, but I'm going to tell it to them straight, "And judge, you have to act on what's in the best interest of the child and you ultimately get to make that decision." But that's why when I'm representing Dad, I just say, "Judge, order everyone to barricade the house. Order everybody to... Order Mom to be vacated from the home." That that's why I'm doing that.
Pete Wright:
Meanwhile, the judge says the children "do labor under the misperception that they are in the driver's seat and are free to determine when, where, and on what terms parent time will occur. They are not."
Seth Nelson:
Correct. And let me tell you, judges fucking hate it when people don't follow their orders.
Pete Wright:
Not doing them any favors here.
Seth Nelson:
That's exactly what other judges have said to me, that exact concept, "16-years-old, Mr. Nelson, he doesn't get to decide. I do."
Pete Wright:
Mm-hmm. And as you've told us before, the fact that they ended up in court and giving the judge the condition to decide or the option to decide, what could they have done to not end up in court in this case?
Seth Nelson:
Right. Who knows? Settle the case, get mental health counseling earlier. Who knows? I don't know the backstory, right?
Pete Wright:
Sure, right.
Seth Nelson:
And I've had cases where the kid went and talked to the judge, where the judge says, "I find that the child has sufficient capacity and knowledge and disposition and understanding to have a preference, and it's very clear to me what the child's preference is." I don't agree.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. All right. Well, everybody, obviously we've solved this problem for both sides at the same time, so, yes...
Seth Nelson:
Right. Reunification therapy at 30 grand a week. A lot of money.
Pete Wright:
It's a lot of money. It's a lot of weight.
Seth Nelson:
And what will have to happen is, the court's going to have to find that they have the ability to pay it, right?
Pete Wright:
Right. It opens a whole new sort of can of worms, right?
Seth Nelson:
That's right. You look at all the financials. Part of the problem is in the law, is parent alienation a legal concept? You have to check state by state. It's getting picked up. I kind of see it as a catchphrase. That's why I said at the beginning, I go to specific behaviors and how those impact children. And I look to my statute in Florida where it gives me that as one of the factors to do. It's definitely creeping up in the appellate courts though.
Pete Wright:
Well, I'll tell you, as the non-lawyer on the show, it's extraordinarily frustrating to listen to you play out both sides and feel like you have a case on both sides. That's hard. In a case like this that feels so uncertain and to feel like everybody's right in this way, and so I don't envy you.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, and I will also tell you who I don't envy in this case. Obviously the kids, let's start with them. They're obviously going through trauma. There can really be no debate about that, when you're barricading yourself in a room. The parents are struggling, whether they caused it or not, they're struggling. And then you have a judge, I feel bad for the judge. These are the cases who's-
Pete Wright:
Who's human, right?
Seth Nelson:
Right. These are the cases that judges don't want to hear. When you have very difficult decisions to make, and you are a human being who's making those decisions, that's not always fun. And they will have to put their personal beliefs aside, apply the law to what they deem to be the facts to the best of their abilities, and come to a decision. And sometimes it's not clear. So, there are no winners here.
Pete Wright:
No winners except, let's say, Lightly Toasted for asking this question. Thank you so much for writing in to the show. We so appreciate it. We so appreciate you giving us the opportunity to devote an entire episode on this incredibly complicated issue. This story, we wish, obviously the kids and families and everybody working on this case in Utah, all the best in navigating very rough waters toward finding the best path for the kids and the family. If you have a question and you'd like to get us to try and devote an entire episode to your question, just head over to howtosplitatoaster.com And click on the 'submit a question' button. We'll go ahead and we'll talk about it.
Seth Nelson:
I can think of a couple questions they could do for a whole show.
Pete Wright:
Oh, so is this like a 'stump the chump' kind of thing?
Seth Nelson:
No, I'm going to throw it out there. If someone asks a question, "What are your favorite Hanukkah gifts, Seth?" I think we could do a whole show on that.
Pete Wright:
We can do a whole show... All right.
Seth Nelson:
Pete, 12 days of Christmas. What do we got?
Pete Wright:
Yep. You have to ask the question first. These things don't answer themselves, so we're going to start with that. Thank you everybody for downloading and listening to this show. We sure appreciate your time and your attention. On behalf of Seth Nelson, America's favorite divorce attorney, I'm Pete Wright. We'll see you next week right here on 'How to Split a Toaster', a divorce podcast about saving your relationships.
Speaker 1:
Seth Nelson is an attorney with NLG Divorce & Family Law, with offices in Tampa, Florida. While we may be discussing family law topics, 'How to Split a Toaster' is not intended to, nor is it providing legal advice. Every situation is different. If you have specific questions regarding your situation, please seek your own legal counsel with an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Pete Wright is not an attorney or employee of NLG Divorce & Family Law. Seth Nelson is licensed to practice law in Florida.
