...life can be translucent

Menu

Hiring a lawyer. 4.2 to 23

herrmyte

visitor
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
35
Reaction score
5
Hello All --

I have an 8 year old son and a co-parent. She has recently filed a request for order in court to change the custody from 50/50 to 60/40 timeshare. At the initial hearing she lied about me filing my taxes in her tax year but overall I felt like I was being railroaded and like she would have gotten what she asked for just by virtue of asking. I have the feeling she may have claimed a history of domestic violence even thought there is none just to bias the court against me. No evidence of that is required it seems one only needs to check a box on a form. I was not served in a timely manner (she did not even file a proof of service at all) so I was able to get a continuance on this basis. I asked to have time to find a lawyer and the judge told me that I had better come back with a lawyer or it will count against me. I have some time to consider it and I am thinking I may just try to do my best in lieu of burning my parents retirement money. My fear is that the judge may be so biased that even a lawyer may not help me and the money is wasted anyway.

So I asked: Respectfully, do I need to get a lawyer? (paraphrase I cant find the exact question) 4.2 to 23

I am tempted to think that I am being advised to go it alone. I have constructed a good argument and compiled some documentation that is a strong argument against her request. But sometimes reason may not necessarily prevail in court. In this context what do you think 4.2 to 23 is advising? Thanks very much
 
B

becalm

Guest
I think if the judge suggested a lawyer then get one BUT either way I think the reading says make your appeal from your childs perspective Obviously you shouldn’t ask the child but imagine it!!
 
F

Freedda

Guest
.... the reading says make your appeal from your childs perspective Obviously you shouldn’t ask the child but imagine it!!
Interesting interpretation. And i am curious, can you tells us more about this - where do you get this meaning / understanding of the reading from?

Thanks, D.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
I have some time to consider it and I am thinking I may just try to do my best in lieu of burning my parents retirement money.

So I asked: Respectfully, do I need to get a lawyer? (paraphrase I cant find the exact question) 4.2 to 23

I am tempted to think that I am being advised to go it alone.

I think the reading says you can go it without the lawyer.

You (the inexperienced in court)
can manage. You are the young one in the line, who is capable of managing the household.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
I wonder what "Receiving a wife, good fortune" is telling you? Could it be a reference to your actual wife? (Are you on speaking terms with her?) Or a partner like a lawyer?

Any chance you'd qualify for a public defender, Legal Aid, or any such thing like that? Are there any organizations which provide legal help in matters like this (lawyers who volunteer to do such work)?

I'm sure you're not legally required to spend your parents' money - their resources surely won't have anything to do with your eligibility for legal assistance. Only your resources would count. (Although maybe you already know you wouldn't qualify. There's probably a vast gap between being able to qualify for legal assistance, and actually being able to afford a lawyer. :rolleyes:)

Here's something Hilary says in WikiWing about 4.2:
A tremendously fresh, open line. Why should today bear any resemblance to
yesterday? If you have no set expectations, anything could happen. The challenge is to
hold and nurture this state of not knowing, not to be in a big hurry to fill it.

In an example of my own in WikiWing (not a very clear one, unfortunately - I probably shouldn't have put it in there) I concluded this line might mean to look at things with fresh eyes.
 
Last edited:

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,888
Reaction score
3,169
I experience 4.2 as describing a person who is inexperienced and naive. If being so is not a problem - like if you were asking about a situation where it's appropriate to be young and foolish - then this could be an encouraging answer but in this case you are going up against someone who has already shown a willingness to fight dirty AND the judge has actually come out and told you you need professional representation so there's a very real danger that trying to get by on your good looks will lead to 23. Splitting Apart.
I think you are being advised to at least consult with an attorney. It may not be as costly as you fear.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
I wonder if this is an example of the question causing some problems. Herrmyte, you asked a yes/no question, and Yi doesn't have hexagrams that mean just "yes" or "no."

I tried to mentally re-phrase it as something like, "Yi, what do you have to say about me needing a lawyer?," but personally I'm still confused. There's striking disagreement among us who have answered, and I think I can see various sides:
  • of course you need a lawyer; you must acknowledge your own ignorance; you don't know what you don't know
  • no you don't need one, it'll be fine to go it alone
  • it won't matter what you do, the judge will 'receive your wife' and decide it's in your child's interest ('the child governs the home') to rule against you?
What would you think about starting over with a different question? Maybe something like, "What if I go to court without a lawyer?," or "What about getting a lawyer?," or "What difference would it make to have a lawyer?"

I wonder if the third one - what difference would it make - might cover more possibilities in one question? But it's not good to parrot what someone else thinks you should ask - it has to seem like a good question to you.

It's also possible to ask pairs of questions, one from each side of a dilemma: "What if I get a lawyer?" and "What if I don't?"
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Also - hang on - does this seem odd to anyone? :???:
She has recently filed a request for order in court to change the custody from 50/50 to 60/40 timeshare.

I'm perplexed why anyone, namely your wife, would find it compelling to go to court to change the custody arrangement......by a whopping 10%. 😐

I wonder what her reasoning is? Does 50/50 cause some logistical problem (schedules, transportation, etc.) that 60/40 would somehow solve or make easier?
 
B

becalm

Guest
Interesting interpretation. And i am curious, can you tells us more about this - where do you get this meaning / understanding of the reading from?

Thanks, D.
The judge said to get a lawyer so it’s a no brainer. They’re in charge listen to them.
Hexagram 4 is can be about the Innocence of the Young. Line 2 speaks of needing a fresh perspective like that of a child.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
Line 2 speaks of needing a fresh perspective like that of a child.

Nope, not at all.
(you are thinking of line 5)

That the young one can manage the household is a picture of the young ones competancy.
 
Last edited:
B

becalm

Guest
Nope, not at all.
(you are thinking of line 5)

That the young one can manage the household is a picture of the young ones competancy.
Hmmm okay but unless my reading skills have deserted me....
 

Attachments

  • 9F4A5233-53BF-423D-9B4F-6E988F17A959.png
    9F4A5233-53BF-423D-9B4F-6E988F17A959.png
    165.2 KB · Views: 16
  • C274C3CA-FC3D-442B-89C2-B1AD8ABF869B.png
    C274C3CA-FC3D-442B-89C2-B1AD8ABF869B.png
    94.8 KB · Views: 13

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Hilary's commentary in WikiWing which says that is definitely line 2. Just to be sure it didn't accidentally get moved to the wrong place in WikiWing, I checked the pdf of her original contribution (screen clip below), and it's line 2.

It is a bit hard to see how she gets it. I suspect because of 23 as the zhi gua, but beyond that I can't explain.

hilary-ww-4-2.JPG
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Herrmyte, I said this earlier, and then wondered if it was too much opinion / not enough Yi, and deleted it. But I'm putting it back with the warning that it's largely my opinion, with a little bit of trying to make the line fit. So take it with quite a few grains of salt.

Opinion: I'm not sure I'd spend an amount of time and money that was important to me to fight anyone about 10% of anything. If you manage to find a cheap or free lawyer, fine, but using a significant amount of your money or your parents' money, over such a small change to the arrangement... you'll have to decide if it's worth it.

(Presumably court isn't free for her, either - I'd love to know why such a small thing is this important to her, and why it ever even entered her head in the first place to go to court to ask for 10% more custody. The only thing I can think of - unless as M.E. said, logic doesn't apply - is if it's not so much that she wants exactly 10% more custody, as that she wants your child one more night a week for some specific reason that - again for some unknown reason - she's not telling you.)

Attempt at justification: "Receiving a wife, good fortune." Maybe...receiving / being open to your ex-wife's demand, not fighting her over it? If you're at all on speaking terms, could you just ask her, in a spirit of curiosity?

The other two phrases are harder. Maybe in line 2 it's okay to ask some simple, child-like questions? Or maybe what Becalm posted?
'You get more bees with honey.' A non-threatening and lighthearted attitude works wonders. Just look how children achieve their desires through an innocent and playful attitude that adults simply cannot refuse.
and so forth.

23 can be about excavation, about stripping the surface off of something to expose what's underneath - maybe another justification for trying to find out what's really going on?
 
Last edited:
F

Freedda

Guest
Herrmyte,

It seems you have a range of responses / interpretations here, so I might as well add my two cents. Take it if it seems useful to you.

Setting the reading aside for a sec - I think you should hire a lawyer, and one who is experienced in family and divorce matters. For good or ill, you already feel that the deck is 'stacked against you' and whether that's true or not, it is definately an attitude that will not get you far with the judge. I think you need someone experienced to counter your inexperience.

Also, you've asked for more time so you could hire someone to represent you. To come back now without that person could make you appear disingenuous to the judge.

So, taking a bit of a different look at your reading, with Hex. 4, there are two trigrams (the 3-line figures that make up the 6-line hexagram). Thinking of you as being represented by the inner/lower trigram, Abyss (or Water), and the situation or your co-parent as the upper trigram, Mountain: it could be that you are faced with a very formidable and unmoving person or situation, whereas you might be feeling unsure, overwhelmed, and even scared of the situation and what might happen - and maybe you feel that you're being carried along without your consent (instead of feeling like you're 'going with the flow').

With the second line moving (4.2), the resulting hexagram becomes 23, which now has the lower trigram of Earth (Mountain is still the upper). This might be suggesting that you take a 'down to earth' approach to this situation by 'embracing the inexperience(d)', which might logically mean to know what the limits to your inexperience are, and to act accordinginly, eg. maybe to hire someone with more experience whom can advise and represent you.

As aside, I wonder if the line from 4.2, 'involving the woman is promising' might be suggesting that you hire a female lawyer?

Anyway, I hope my take on this has some merit - though I could also just be making the Yi's response fit my opinion, though I don't think so. Regardless, I think it's still good advice.

Best, David
 
Last edited:
F

Freedda

Guest
....I'm perplexed why anyone, ... would find it compelling to go to court to change the custody arrangement......by a whopping 10%.
But it really ends up going from an equal split to one that's 20% one-sided. Besides that, I don't think I can - or have been asked to - second-guess anyone's motivations here, so I'll just stay with the question about hiring a lawyer.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Well yes, of course, it's obviously up to Herrmyte what he wants to do - and I've never been divorced (or married in the first place), much less tangled up in custody disputes, so I have no idea what this is like.

I talked about it because I'd missed that detail the first time I read his post. All I'd noticed (while reading badly :paperbag:) was:
  • his ex-wife is taking him to court over custody
  • his ex-wife is saying untrue things about him
  • he feels he's in a position of having to either represent himself, against the direct orders of the judge, or spend his parents' retirement money on a lawyer
I assumed at first - from not noticing details - that she was trying to get full custody. That's what the acrimonious custody battles I've ever heard of are about.

Then when I finally saw it's not anything close to that, a big "huh?" went off in my head - what's going on here, and is it worth his parents' financial security, or his own (possibly, unless he can find affordable legal help)?

But none of that would have been important if I'd thought I understood the reading. Then I'd just talk about what I thought the reading meant. But to this minute I really have no idea what Yi's saying.

I'm also still wondering if asking a different question might help.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
Hmmm okay but unless my reading skills have deserted me....

I think you can read just fine,
It's just that you are referencing commentary instead of text.
(And a bad translation at 'cafeausoul', look for better source material.)

Without having seen the reading, I would have advised him to get a lawyer.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
(And a bad translation at 'cafeausoul')
Hilary says much the same thing, though, as I quoted.

(Not that Hilary can't mess up - it's just she usually doesn't, as far as I can tell...)
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,426
So I asked: Respectfully, do I need to get a lawyer? (paraphrase I cant find the exact question) 4.2 to 23

I am tempted to think that I am being advised to go it alone. I have constructed a good argument and compiled some documentation that is a strong argument against her request. But sometimes reason may not necessarily prevail in court. In this context what do you think 4.2 to 23 is advising? Thanks very much

I think you are being advised to go it alone from the reading. I mean you clearly don't know what you are doing which is why you got 4. The line makes me think of your palms open and upheld, 'I don't know what I'm doing'....however it could indicate your choice of lawyer I guesss.

I mean this is one for common sense from your POV given no one here is in your shoes. The whole thing is a tragedy for the child of course who gets sliced up and portioned in all of this and the child is all that matters here.

Actually I wonder if the line points to the child deciding who s/he wants to be with ? I don't know if anyone said that already - this thread seems long and complicated ………...


Just ask the child what she wants and go from there. If both of you decided to adhere to what the child wanted there wouldn't a lawyer needed.


However that is a massive burden of choice to place on a child who is already split up between several homes with parents haggling over her.

Oh I see becalm suggested taking the child's viewpoint I see, yes that's pretty clear IMO. What either of you want doesn't matter it is what the child wants that matters although it is, as I said too weighty a choice for a child who shouldn't have to be in this position. However you could try and see it from the child's perspective as becalm suggested. I think the stripping in 23 could be the pain of the child who is alone with choices, but nonetheless it's good fortune for the child to choose.

Copying what I wrote in Yi Academy where the line is being discussed

Makes me think of the stripping of the orphan which is central in so many kid's books - Harry Potter to name just one...the Secret Garden...there's tons of them where the child is stripped of all the ordinary decision making people - and makes their own life in a more free way which ends up as fortunate.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Okay, thank you for answering here, Trojina.

Question - do you think Herrmyte should approach his ex-wife himself and make this suggestion (to let it up to their son, or to get his opinion)? Herrmyte hasn't said what kind of terms they're on, if they speak at all.

Herrmyte hasn't mentioned any sign from the judge that the child will decide this or be consulted about it, although maybe that will happen, I have no idea.

Or do you think Herrmyte should just go to court (without a lawyer), and try to suggest that to the judge? I also have no idea if people are allowed to make suggestions to judges like that - I really have no clue.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,426
I don't k now it's not my problem to sort out I am just saying how the reading struck me - I have no views on what this person 'should' do that's all for them to sort out amongst themselves. I do think this is a pretty literal answer, the question involves a child there's a child in the answer and the child is the one who matters.

Can you tell me how to delete threads in CC please ?
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
the question involves a child there's a child in the answer
I see your point, and maybe that's how it will end up in real life. The question was about hiring a lawyer, though - but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time Yi veered away from the question to say here's what the crux of the issue really is.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,426
He asked

So I asked: Respectfully, do I need to get a lawyer? (paraphrase I cant find the exact question) 4.2 to 23

he asked if he needed to hire a lawyer but if the decision is with the child he will not need to hire a lawyer. I don't think Yi veered from the question at all, it hit it head on. How to leave it to the child is a whole other matter. It could be that somehow, through the child, the matter becomes unnecessary, things sort themselves out.
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,888
Reaction score
3,169
Interesting how the hexagrams seem to so aptly describe the situation:
A difficulty involving Splitting Apart the custody of A Child.
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,888
Reaction score
3,169
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask the IC, "Describe what is best for the child."
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask the IC, "Describe what is best for the child."
Good suggestion. Maybe for background? Or maybe a bit of a tweak, something like, "How can I best advocate for my son in this proceeding?," because then Herrmyte could act on the answer.

If Yi answered by, for instance, describing the best living arrangement, that's largely not under Herrmyte's control.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
he asked if he needed to hire a lawyer but if the decision is with the child he will not need to hire a lawyer. I don't think Yi veered from the question at all, it hit it head on. How to leave it to the child is a whole other matter. It could be that somehow, through the child, the matter becomes unnecessary, things sort themselves out.
To the extent I understand the line (which is far from well), that seems like it could fit. But it would all have to happen before the court date - and out of court. If he and his ex-wife are on speaking terms, maybe it could...
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,426
So I asked: Respectfully, do I need to get a lawyer? (paraphrase I cant find the exact question) 4.2 to 23

I am tempted to think that I am being advised to go it alone. I have constructed a good argument and compiled some documentation that is a strong argument against her request. But sometimes reason may not necessarily prevail in court. In this context what do you think 4.2 to 23 is advising? Thanks very much

Yes I also think 'letting the child govern the home' can be letting the inexperienced take care of things so in this case I agree it would seem to favour going it alone.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
But it would all have to happen before the court date - and out of court. If he and his ex-wife are on speaking terms, maybe it could...
Or not...maybe it could end up that the judge will allow this to happen in court, with him/herself as mediator or something? Maybe the line, the "fresh, open" side of it, could also mean that the judge really isn't the grouch he/she appeared to be?
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top