Hiring a lawyer. 4.2 to 23

[Liselle]

Just came across something Hilary once wrote that made me think of this thread.

...it should be possible to look at the relating hexagram that each line points to and find the attitude to use to create the desired result.

(This is a bit out of context. I think she was talking about getting a feel for a hexagram's lines in general, without necessarily having cast any of them - exploring the zeitgeist, so to speak.)

But in this case, as another angle to think about...

Hexagram 4 is probably recognizable as Herrmyte's worry: he "doesn't know" quite a few things, starting with whether he needs a lawyer.

The moving line -
'Embracing the ignoramus, good fortune.
Receiving a wife, good fortune.
The child governs the home.'

Several people (Trojina and Rosada, at least) have sensibly pointed out that what's most important here is getting the best result for Herrmyte's son. Could that be what Yi means by, "The child governs the home"? Not that an 8-year-old should run everything, or be asked to make grown-up decisions or choose between parents - more like his best interests should govern the court proceeding.

Back to Hilary's advice - "look at the relating hexagram that [this] line points to and find the attitude to use to create the desired result." In this case that's 23 - Stripping Away, removing from, exposing or being exposed. Vis a vis Herrmyte's question: stripping away the customary protection of a lawyer? Appearing in court just as himself, exposed? Might a "lawyer-layer" somehow get in the way, act as a barrier to a good result?

 

[moss elk]

Back to Hilary's advice - "look at the relating hexagram that [this] line points to and find the attitude to use to create the desired result." In this case that's 23 - Stripping Away, removing from, exposing or being exposed. Vis a vis Herrmyte's question: stripping away the customary protection of a lawyer?

This is a good exercise, but it has to be done correctly. The main message of 23 is seen in line 5, and the Image: The one above is giving to the one below.
The other lines are about the consequences of not giving to the one below.

 

[Trojina]

Several people (Trojina and Rosada, at least) have sensibly pointed out that what's most important here is getting the best result for Herrmyte's son. Could that be what Yi means by, "The child governs the home"?

Yes, that's what I said ….but you're saying it like it's a new idea I'm not saying you're copying I just don't understand how you'd think this hasn't been said numerous times. I wonder what you'd think I meant both here and in the 4.2 thread in CC....and that sounds tetchy but I don't mean to sound that way I'm just confused.

 

[Liselle]

This is a good exercise, but it has to be done correctly. The main message of 23 is seen in line 5, and the Image: The one above is giving to the one below.
The other lines are about the consequences of not giving to the one below.

Here's what you said in WikiWing, the "Hexagram as a whole" section:

Keep in mind that the Stripping is a Taking from
The Image and line 5 show Giving.
(M.E)

To me that sounds like you think 23 overall could have two main messages.

Plus, 23's Oracle, which by definition is a theme, is about stripping, not giving:
'Stripping away.
Fruitless to have a direction to go.'

And, I still wouldn't rule out that maybe this could be settled in an Image way, if it's remotely possible for Herrmyte to talk to his ex-wife and find out what this is about, and then decide whether he wants to fight it, or be generous like the Image says.
'The heights are generous, and there are tranquil homes below.'

But Herrmyte didn't say how he gets along with her - we have no idea if they're on speaking terms.

(Edited to add: also I have no idea what court involvement is legally required, etc. etc. It might be that even if they're on decent terms, they're not allowed to just make a private agreement, even if they'd happen to agree. Maybe they'd still have to go through the court, appear in court, to make a change to the formal arrangement. But in any event, I think the reading is saying "no" to a lawyer.)

Yes, that's what I said ….but you're saying it like it's a new idea

I hadn't seen it in such a clickety-clickety way with the reading, though.

"The child governs the home" = "The child('s best interests) governs the (court proceeding)." That part, yes, is what you and Rosada said.

But then - how that connects with hexagram 23, per Hilary's suggestion, to actually create an answer to the question, "Do I need a lawyer?"

We'd all been all over the map as far as an actual answer to that question, and I feel on firmer ground with "no" now, because I can see how it ties nicely to the reading, and I couldn't see that before.

 

[moss elk]

To me that sounds like you think 23 overall could have two main messages.

Yes, that's what I think,
or in one sentence:
Give or things will be Taken from you.

 

[herrmyte]

Also - hang on - does this seem odd to anyone?


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?

Right now we have an agreement to claim our son on taxes every odd year. So being able to claim him every year will make a large financial difference. The difference in terms of scheduling is the current 3-4-4-3 schedule versus what she proposes now a 4-3 weekly schedule in her favor. So shed have him from Sunday morning until Thursday morning dropoff at school every week. It is significant in several ways

 

[herrmyte]

I just got back to this thread and read all of the commentaries it has been helpful. Thank you everyone for your thoughts. Several things resonated.

The situation is evolving we have been through one mediation session that was not fruitful at all. We just held our positions. Just to clarify - getting 60/40 would assign the right to claim our son on taxes every year, a sizable financial gain. Also we have a 3-4-4-3 currently that she wants to change to a 4-3 in her favor. This means that she would have him from Sunday morning through Thursday school dropoff every week. As things stand this longer version of the week is switched several times during a year. This is a substantial change in the amount of time I would be with him.

So I have consulted with a lawyer on Tuesday, several weeks after the failed mediation session, and I left with an unratified (unpaid for agreement) to have him do limited scope representation. This means he will speak for me on the day of court but we will go with the response I prepared myself. Her request for order paperwork is sloppy and ill-conceived and illogical. It comes from an emotional point of view. And in court she cried and I think it was starting to fly.

I went to a sliding fee law office just before and they would not see me because of a conflict as it was described. I suspected that she had been there already as the mediation center we attended gives the same referrals. Hence the full price lawyer above. (Free consult then 350/hr and 3500 retainer for full scope representation and 750 for an appearance at hearing only) So I am now concerned that she may get her act tightened up when she has some legal representation. She may or may not I dont know.

We now have another mediation session scheduled in 13 days and the court date is in 42 days. If I choose to submit an amended response ( I rushed to respond in 6 days. She did not even submit a proof of service at all) I would have one week after the mediation session to submit it. I think its reasonable to think that she is trying to use mediation as a stall tactic.

So I just asked: Is X a good fit for this case? 1.1.5 to 50

My initial impression is to think that he is good but I should hold off on hiring him in either capacity ( I hear that money is never returned) but if the second mediation fails then go with him at full scope. Meanwhile, Id be preparing supporting evidence and refining my arguments for an amended response. He said the burden for a standing court order modification is 'substantial change in circumstance' and not the lower standard 'best interest'.

He suggested it may be possible to turn it back on her to 'scare her straight' but I dont want a legal battle that drains money from her - she maintains a household for my son that he needs and I dont want to take away any of her financial resources as it pertains to claiming taxes.

Another thought I had from reading various interpretations is that I should look around in the meanwhile, per a suggestion above and one I heard from my analyst, and find a female attorney. At full price I can pick and choose. My analyst mentioned that she can do 'woman talk' and communicate with the female judge much better than a man. So conclusion in this case would be to find then hire a female lawyer

I was also interested in Rosadas suggestion so I will do the reading now:

Respectfully, please describe what is best for the child? 58.1.4 to 29

Resolve the matter in mediation. It is possible if we can speak and listen from the heart. Wonderful answer I wholeheartedly agree. This was from one search result I clicked on. Maybe it will mean something entirely different to others with more experience

I also wonder if this refers to reconciliation? I have suggested this and we have moved in that direction not without difficulty and heavy suspicion from both sides. i.e. we met for tea to talk about matters, I then slept over her house after things fell apart at the end of the tea (her mother and brother live with her and my son was there also so I was on the couch but we all spent the evening together), then last night we met for a meal. I'm not sure it continued our momentum it may have been the stopper on the thing.

I will stop here. Thanks for your comments and interest

 

[Liselle]

Thanks, Herrmyte. It doesn't seem right to me that you could end up providing 40% of the support, but be allowed to claim 0% of it on your taxes - and therefore a small change becomes, in reality, a big change requiring expensive court battles - but I'm completely ignorant of how this works.

Also crummy that you can't use the sliding-scale office just because your ex-wife got there first.

Not sure about your 1.1.5 reading - 1.1 does seem to say not to use X. (Is X the male attorney you had a consultation with?) 1.5 could mean you'll find some other "great person," as you said, maybe a woman. (It's stupid that judges are swayed by things like that. Argh.)

Also, 1.1 isn't an absent dragon so much as a dormant dragon, and 1.5 can sometimes mean that your own best judgement is strong and perfectly capable of flying - so I also like your idea of doing as much of the work yourself as possible, and keeping an attorney in abeyance for the bare minimum.

I also like what you said about your 58.1.4 to 29 reading. 29 - danger, complication, chasms - recede into the background, maybe?

Of course both readings have to make sense together, somehow.

 

[Liselle]

He said the burden for a standing court order modification is 'substantial change in circumstance' and not the lower standard 'best interest'.

Am only guessing at what this means, but if it means it'll be harder for your ex-wife to get this change through, that seems significant and might play into both readings. Hexagram 50 can mean consolidating a change, and 29 can mean repetition.

 

[herrmyte]

Yes, that's what I think,
or in one sentence:
Give or things will be Taken from you.

I hadnt read this until now but it is a good interpretation. I have recently told her that I will let her have some of the more minor requests. I am only standing firm on 50/50

 

[herrmyte]

Just a quick update - we reached an agreement in mediation. Over all of these comments the one that stayed with me most was "give or things will be taken from you". In court the judge signed off on our document. However, the apparently hostile female judge was replaced by someone who was more sensible it seemed. Good luck there. Thanks for your comments everyone