S01.E12: This is That Moment

[MissLucas]

Why would they need a nanny to supervise Ellie's visits - regardless of whether they started right there or in a year? It looked to me as if they both were already retired and planned to take care of Alfie themselves. It never crossed my mind that a nanny would be involved in Alfie's upbringing. But even if that had been the case I doubt Matty or Edwin would not have make sure to be the ones doing the supervising.

As for him going through withdrawal - that was brutal. I had not known that you were not allowed to soothe a baby when they go through the worst. And auntie Google isn't particularly helpful - one site recommends skin to skin contact and another recommends wrapping. Either way having to witness that must be haunting and goes a long way to explain Matty's hard stance.

I feel relatively neutral about Alfie except that I think it's wrong how his grandparents involve him in their schemes. AFAIK long-term effects of baby withdrawal are possible - they can show as developmental or behavioral issues. However from what we've seen so far the show is not going there.

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

On another front, I wonder if the revelation that Alfie was born addicted to drugs has affected the opinions of all the Alfie haters in the forum (or at least, the Alfie non-enjoyers).

Not this one's; he's still an annoyingly archetypal character played by an inadequate actor.  They've now given us more information about him, but that's all that has developed thus far.

[Bastet]

I was distracted during part of Thursday night's airing, and now I've re-watched:

The flashbacks to the custody dispute gave great insight into the family dynamic, particularly Ellie crying to Edwin, "Dad, make her stop," and Edwin mouthing, "I'm sorry," after Matty did the hard work of testifying that Ellie is a completely different person when she's using and should not have custody of Alfie at that time.

Regarding the discussion of whether Matty meant Ellie could have supervised visitation now and regain custody after a year of sobriety or nothing until Ellie put together a full, consecutive year: On first watch, I thought nothing other than the former.  Upon re-watching after reading the discussion, that's still where I come down, even though I see the ambiguity.  The only thing that, in my mind, supports the other theory is telling Ellie to hold onto the toy, like she won't see him at all in the interim.  But I think it's just telling her to keep something he loves at her house, so it can be a treat when he returns to living with her rather than only seeing her when she comes to visit. 

Matty has heard Ellie say she's clean, she's working a program, she's been scared straight, before -- including when Ellie said she was clean in announcing her pregnancy and then Alfie was born addicted.  Now she's just found out three months was a lie, it's actually just a month.  Ellie begs her not to take Alfie away, which prompts her to mention the year -- I think she's saying they'll have custody for now, but if Ellie can manage a year's sobriety, they'll relinquish.  Ellie offers, "You can test me every single day," and Matty parrots, "You can have supervised visitation every single day."  I take this as her saying yeah, we'll take it day by day, you seeing him safely and proving your sobriety, and revisit this in a year.  

This tracks with how you acknowledge addiction is a disease and the person is fighting it needs support in that battle, while also protecting the vulnerable child who can be - and has already been - damaged during the times addiction wins -- knowing Ellie should not have custody, step in to provide that, but maintain a relationship between mother and child via supervised visitation until Ellie emerges with the upper hand and tools for ongoing success against the disease, because reunification is the goal. 

The guilt and anger Edwin and Matty each feel, sometimes in conflict with each other, is so realistic in being completely natural yet objectively not wholly justified.  The "Do.You.Blame.Me?" confrontation and "Sometimes" admission was very well done.

Olympia and Julian jailed for contempt and realizing how low they'd sunk, not as well, but it had something to it and I did enjoy - despite the Tums product placement - the judge's increasingly agitated reactions to the antics of Frick and Frack.

I saw criticism of Olympia's juvenile reaction to Elijah's text, and I agree, but also think it somewhat worked (at least in this show's universe) in that she shared it with Matty because it happened when she was right there (if Olympia had done it later, I'd cry every kind of foul), it was brief and she switched her attention to Sarah, and as soon as she realized what had really happened after mentioning it to him, she played it off well.

I came into this thread expecting to see criticism of the ex-husband in the case as a caricature, and am glad not to find it.  The moneybags who hides assets in having child support calculated, walks out with the walking stereotype of a trophy girlfriend who started as his affair partner, claims "parental alienation", and ultimately files for full custody he never wanted until it became an act of revenge and a way to get out of paying -- been there, seen that time and again even in my limited dealings with family court (I used to run the legal clinic of a DV shelter, so divorce and custody was part of that) and a frequent story for those who handle it regularly.  Paloma's desperate panic given his power was nicely established.

Sarah's ignorance of pop culture from before she was born nicely popped up again, this time with not knowing what "Let's get ready for Kramer vs. Kramer" meant.  She was also funny visibly counting to five following Olympia's recommendation -- and when she failed to, leading to the wildly inopportune yet wholly accurate description of neighborhood watch organizations (and I got a chuckle at the neighborhood watch lady joining the chorus of calling Sarah and Billy "You two").  I hope they tone down her lack of social skills, as she's funny as a cartoon but a much more interesting character when they give her layers.

While I'm being verbose, let me finally highlight a set decoration and wardrobe choice I love every time, seen again in this episode's opening scene:  The Kingston bedroom scenes are perfectly done -- that luxurious bed she climbs up into and the collection of silky pajamas they wear.

Edited February 26 by Bastet

[possibilities]

5 hours ago, MissLucas said:

Why would they need a nanny to supervise Ellie's visits -

Someone upthread suggested maybe Elie could have kept custody with a full time nanny, and that Matty and Edwin could afford that, instead of removing custody.

I was reacting to that suggestion.

I am not taking a position on whether Matty was suggesting visits every day or no visits until after a year of sobriety, because I think the dialogue was unclear on that.

But I agree that a nanny would not be useful to supervise visitation, either. In some situations, a social worker would supervise, and intervene if the parent did anything harmful to the child during a visit. Edwin and Matty could serve in this role, as well, as long as they are very clear on intervening if anything unhealthy is happening, and as long as Elie demonstrates that she is sober and not behaving in ways that would further traumatize Alfie.

Because Elie has had more of an emptional presence in the episode, her feelings about losing custody have been more under discussion, and because Alfie is such a bland character and really hasn't shown his feelings about anything, and we haven't seen flashbacks to his trauma, I think people are underestimating how bad his experience apparently was, and how much damage an unfit parent can do, even during visits.

I believe in putting the best interests of the child ahead of the distress of the parent. I also think that it's not helpful to the parent to handwave their harmful behaviors, and that it does not help addicts to make excuses for them. The addiction is dangerous to them. You can understand the disease and still be clear on needing to fight it, and hold people accountable. It's a very difficult situation, and the ability to hold both the love and the firmness at the same time is a real challenge.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Maybe not quite the same, but seeing the child (I’m blanking on his name), rocking back and forth, covering his ears while his parents screamed at each other, reminded me of and episode from L.A. Law in its first season. Abby, one of the new associates, was going through a divorce but her abusive and drunk ass of a husband, who resented her success or that she had a job or whatever, kidnapped their 5 year old. In helping on a divorce case-both parents were using their child as a cudgel and Abby tore into them. It was one of the best episodes from that time.

Not quite the same here, but like I said, it did remind me of it.

[shapeshifter]

11 hours ago, Bastet said:

I saw criticism of Olympia's juvenile reaction to Elijah's text, and I agree, but also think it somewhat worked (at least in this show's universe) in that she shared it with Matty because it happened when she was right there (if Olympia had done it later, I'd cry every kind of foul) and as soon as she realized what had really happened after mentioning it to him, she played it off well.

Now that you've reminded me/us of this brief bit, I wonder if it could lead to Mattie tripping up, like if she suggests to the wrong person at the wrong time that Elijah and Olympia are sexting?

[Bastet]

On 2/22/2025 at 5:56 AM, seacliffsal said:

It also seemed like they are changing the timeline.  It used to be '10 years' but seems to be '14 years' now.

Ten years is from the statement the documents the firm hid could have taken opioids off the market ten years earlier (earlier than what?), from how long ago Ellie died, and how long ago Matty last practiced (so she probably retired to raise Alfie).  Fourteen years ago first came up last episode, as when Senior poached Shae, when she was a marketing analyst for a third party company which had Wellbrexa as a client (with the theory being since she wasn't qualified, the Jacobson Moore hire was a reward for whatever she did re. Wellbrexa), and then in this was affirmed as when the documents in the Wellbrexa case went missing.

On 2/22/2025 at 5:56 AM, seacliffsal said:

Oh, and to add, the basic premise in the premier was that Alfie chose the name Matlock because he used to watch the show with his mom and they enjoyed it.

He didn't say he watched it with her.  When he said in the pilot they chose the name Matlock because it reminds them of Mom, Edwin said he can still picture her, glued to the TV and telling everyone she was going to be a lawyer just like her mom when she grew up.  So Ellie watched it as a kid.  Alfie has seen it, too, because he describes the pattern all the episodes follow, but never said he watched it with her.  

Edited February 28 by Bastet

[Chicago Redshirt]

I was wondering about Elijah's text: are we sure that he in fact meant to text the other woman? Because if so, it seems to me one of two things should have happened.

If he had previously realized that he sent a text to Olympia that was meant for Other Woman, he would have sent Olympia a follow up text saying "My bad, that was meant for someone else." Especially because there was ample time between when the text was sent and when Olympia came to talk to him in person.

If he hadn't previously realized that he made a mistake, he should have been like, "Whatchu talkin' bout, Olympia?" when she started to raise his text.

Given that it is hard to accidentally text someone -- the name of the person you're texting is right at the top of the message, after all -- and given that I find Elijah petty and semi-shady in general, I think it more likely that he's playing mind games with Olympia. Having a woman he's in the early stages of dating come to his office also strikes me as odd (unless she also works for Jacobson Moore, which maybe she does).

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Given that it is hard to accidentally text someone -- the name of the person you're texting is right at the top of the message, after all -- and given that I find Elijah petty and semi-shady in general, I think it more likely that he's playing mind games with Olympia. Having a woman he's in the early stages of dating come to his office also strikes me as odd (unless she also works for Jacobson Moore, which maybe she does).

100% agreement, if for no other reason than you can’t tell me if Elijah was like any other normal human sending a flirtatious text he wouldn’t be checking every 5-10 minutes for a reply - and had opportunity each time to notice his “mistake” - especially after an hour or more has passed without a reply.

Purely MHO but (a) I don’t think Elijah is anywhere NEAR as okay with this breakup as he lets on, and (b) I also suspect this whole “I want you back / no I don’t” schtick of his is demonstrative of a really nasty mean streak which (to date) he has been hiding VERY well - from us, anyway.

[eel2178]

23 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't know if I would trust an over-the-counter kit with someone as much of a confirmed liar as Ellie is. Then again, Ellie has apparently worked her way around other tests that are presumably professionally done, so shrug emoji?

I'm sure Ellie's mother would have no qualms about following her into their home bathroom and watching her pee in a cup to be sure that the specimen had clearly come directly from her.

[Bastet]

10 hours ago, Nashville said:

Purely MHO but (a) I don’t think Elijah is anywhere NEAR as okay with this breakup as he lets on, and (b) I also suspect this whole “I want you back / no I don’t” schtick of his is demonstrative of a really nasty mean streak which (to date) he has been hiding VERY well - from us, anyway.

He didn't hide it during the case where he and Olivia were on opposite side of the firewall (where she represented the widower against the company that hadn't maintained its buildings), when he was petty and vengeful because he was pissed she'd called things off.  He wound up admitting it and apologizing before saying he was going to go work in the Dallas office for a while, but that kind of behavior is usually not a one-off.   So if it turns out he's still playing games, just lower key, it won't be a shock.  But I'd like if he's genuine.

Edited February 27 by Bastet

[psychfan]

On 2/21/2025 at 12:39 AM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Only after Ellie had been clean for a year.  So not for 11 months.  

I thought the clean for a year was to revisit custody, that thing with keeping his lovey with Ellie for when he went back home.

[christie]

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

On another front, I wonder if the revelation that Alfie was born addicted to drugs has affected the opinions of all the Alfie haters in the forum (or at least, the Alfie non-enjoyers). As someone who falls into the latter category, I don't think I am any happier with the character, but I am curious. Does he know about the custody battle over him, about his mom neglectfully letting him burn himself, about having been addicted to drugs? Have there been any lasting effects from his addictions and his baby seizures? Does he have any actual memories of his mother? Have Matty and Edwin been truthful about Ellie when talking to Alfie or doing a lot of spin. Is the "MWBSP" thing extra BS?

Knowing that Alfie was born addicted to drugs doesn't change my opinion of him. As to the other questions you've raised:

It's highly unlikely that Alfie remembers his mum since he was 18 months old when she died.

So far we haven't been shown that Alfie has some lasting effects from his drug addiction or his seizures; on the contrary, he's been portrayed as some computing wiz kid.

As to what Alfie knows re the custody battle, burning his hand, his drug addiction, I doubt his grandparents told him about that; if he still has some complications due to his drug addiction then, yes they would have told him since it still affects him otherwise no, I don't think they would tell him. Telling Alfie about the custody battle and his burnt hand would paint Ellie in a bad light so I don't think they told him. When Alfie talks about his mum, there's adoration in his tone and he always mentions happy things; he reminds me of someone who talks about their favourite actor or singer and has an idealised image of them. From that I conclude that Matty and Edwin have told him all the good and have glossed over the bad, only telling him what he needs to know - Ellie died from a drug overdose.

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

 

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

 

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

 

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

 

On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

blockquote widget

Edited March 2 by christie

[Bastet]

13 hours ago, christie said:

As to what Alfie knows re the custody battle, burning his hand, his drug addiction, I doubt his grandparents told him about that; if he still has some complications due to his drug addiction then, yes they would have told him since it still affects him otherwise no, I don't think they would tell him. Telling Alfie about the custody battle and his burnt hand would paint Ellie in a bad light so I don't think they told him. When Alfie talks about his mum, there's adoration in his tone and he always mentions happy things; he reminds me of someone who talks about their favourite actor or singer and has an idealised image of them. From that I conclude that Matty and Edwin have told him all the good and have glossed over the bad, only telling him what he needs to know - Ellie died from a drug overdose.

Yeah, I think what we saw in "Claws" is probably what has been Matty and Edwin's MO in addressing this with Alfie all along:  Ellie was an addict.  She fought, which means she quit multiple times, but addiction means you can get it right 99 times, but when you slip the 100th, you have to start the fight all over, so she continued to struggle after he came along, even though she loved him more than anything.  If he knows they took custody right before Ellie died, rather than thinking they got it because she died, I don't know; I suspect not.  If they've told him the timing, though, I imagine they've skipped details, just saying she was going through another rough patch and it was better he be with them at the time, and then unfortunately she overdosed before she could get herself in a place to regain custody.

[mythoughtis]

On 2/21/2025 at 11:10 AM, AnimeMania said:

I don't see why you wouldn't want to allow daily supervised visitation rights, I would think you would want to see the addicted person who is trying to "kick the habit" every day, just to make sure that they are doing well, have everything the need, and are staying clean, just as much as the child you are trying to protect.

I have watched a lot of Intervention episodes. Many of them about addicted with children that are being raised by the addicted person’s parents.  Addicts that are allowed visits with those children… and they show up at the house high.    It’s very unsettling and sad.  

Edited Tuesday at 05:11 AM by mythoughtis

[Johannah]

Haven't watched this episode yet, but from reading/skimming through these posts, it seems like there was no case this episode, just backstory.

I'll delete and see if next ep has a case.

[andromeda331]

If this was a better show I would think the confusion about the scene between Ellie and Matty was on purpose. That they both took what each other said the wrong way. But given how confusing the Ellie drug story with the different years ten and fourteen, Alfie somehow very positive about a mother he never knew, and why Matty and Edwin are blaming the drug company if Ellie that bad of drug addict that she was always lying about it, her kid was born addicted, and they searched for her in drug dens. 

[peachmangosteen]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

... why Matty and Edwin are blaming the drug company if Ellie that bad of drug addict that she was always lying about it, her kid was born addicted, and they searched for her in drug dens. 

Because those drug companies knew exactly how addictive that stuff was and they still peddled it while lying about it.

Edited Tuesday at 02:23 PM by peachmangosteen

[Yeah No]

I just caught up with this episode and haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, but I just wanted to say that whether or not Ellie's overdose was a reaction to losing custody of Alfie, I'm sure that given the circumstances and timing surrounding it Matty still felt to blame for it and hence Ellie's death. And that's why she was so eager to launch a crusade against the drug company and the law firm for potentially hiding evidence - because it would help her feel less guilty if she could find evidence to show that both of them were ultimately responsible for her daughter's death. If ultimate responsibility can be pinned on them it would make her feel less to blame for what happened.

Edited Tuesday at 03:32 PM by Yeah No

[eel2178]

19 hours ago, Johannah said:

Haven't watched this episode yet, but from reading/skimming through these posts, it seems like there was no case this episode, just backstory.

It did have a case about a sorority party gone awry.

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 3/3/2025 at 8:45 PM, Johannah said:

Haven't watched this episode yet, but from reading/skimming through these posts, it seems like there was no case this episode, just backstory.

I'll delete and see if next ep has a case.

There was a COTW. It was just even more preposterous and forgettable than the typical week, and the backstory with Ellie was particularly interesting so that's probably why most of the comments have been on that rather than the COTW.

Amid tension between Julian and Olympia about their divorce, Olympia taunts Julian about how to win the stupid partner race that neither of them should want (because if they both are partners it means more money for the family and a more secure future for their kids) he's going to have to step into the ring and prove that he's a better lawyer than her.

Um, no, what will win one of them the partnership race is money (with maybe a slight sprinkling of nepotism and schmoozing). Who brought in the most of it from the firm. Last I checked, which was a while back, Olympia has brought in like $50 million in verdicts just since Matty's been around. Don't know what Julian has been doing but I'm guessing it's not as well. So the main thing he has going for him is that he has the same last name as Senior. Which I think we learn for the first time in this episode is Markston.

Anyway, Olympia's client is a woman in post-divorce proceedings against a moneybags ex, largely about custody of their son. Olympia has found out that the ex had hidden some of his assets so they are reopening child support.

Lo and behold, Julian decides to step into the very custody battle that Olympia is fighting. Somehow Olympia's client signs a conflict-of-interest waiver that she's willing to let Julian represent her super-rich and powerful soon-to-be ex. This is such a blatant conflict it's almost legal malpractice for them to even suggest signing such a waiver. Which client is the firm going to favor? The down-on-her-luck mom or the wealthy powerbroker? Surely, they will treat them both equally. /s. Also, individual divorce cases are probably not big moneymakers. They should be trying to make it rain.

Anyway, despite that Moneybags has hidden money, somehow the judge doesn't seem to care too much about that sketchiness.

There's a subplot where Team Olympia wants to use the fact that Moneybags blew up at one of Kid's coaches to better Client's position in the post-divorce settlement. Julian counters by having Moneybags sue the coach for defamation which gets the coach to be like, "I'm not talking to you, Olympia, because you're from the same firm that's suing me!" I shouldn't need to point out that filing a frivolous lawsuit is not exactly partner-level lawyering. 

Olympia's client is basically a major dumbass. First she thinks she can take the son to Mexico without telling the ex or the Court. (Her dad is dying or something, which is a good reason of course, but I don't see how it anybody could think that they could do so on the sly). Then when it comes out that she's done this, she freaks out that this might result in either Moneybags getting custody or social workers taking Kid away or something. So she barricades herself in one of the offices at the firm. Matty talks her down, in part inspired by her memories over the custody battle that she and Edwin won over their daughter that they won just before she ODed.

Olympia and Julian trade barbs blah blah blah cakes. They do this in front of a judge, who has enough of their BS and throws them into jail for contempt. They come to their senses and decide not to go for each other's throats as much. They resolve the case by reaching a compromise that works for both of them.

Oh, it turns out that Moneybags has enlisted Client's next door neighbor to spy on Client, including with a surveillance camera. Sarah (who previously insulted the neighbor by saying neighborhood watches are both racist and useless) figures it out and flips Neighbor into giving a confession that Moneybags was surveilling. So Sarah feels better about herself since she has finally managed to contribute something to winning a case.

[andromeda331]

17 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

There was a COTW. It was just even more preposterous and forgettable than the typical week, and the backstory with Ellie was particularly interesting so that's probably why most of the comments have been on that rather than the COTW.

Amid tension between Julian and Olympia about their divorce, Olympia taunts Julian about how to win the stupid partner race that neither of them should want (because if they both are partners it means more money for the family and a more secure future for their kids) he's going to have to step into the ring and prove that he's a better lawyer than her.

Um, no, what will win one of them the partnership race is money (with maybe a slight sprinkling of nepotism and schmoozing). Who brought in the most of it from the firm. Last I checked, which was a while back, Olympia has brought in like $50 million in verdicts just since Matty's been around. Don't know what Julian has been doing but I'm guessing it's not as well. So the main thing he has going for him is that he has the same last name as Senior. Which I think we learn for the first time in this episode is Markston.

Anyway, Olympia's client is a woman in post-divorce proceedings against a moneybags ex, largely about custody of their son. Olympia has found out that the ex had hidden some of his assets so they are reopening child support.

Lo and behold, Julian decides to step into the very custody battle that Olympia is fighting. Somehow Olympia's client signs a conflict-of-interest waiver that she's willing to let Julian represent her super-rich and powerful soon-to-be ex. This is such a blatant conflict it's almost legal malpractice for them to even suggest signing such a waiver. Which client is the firm going to favor? The down-on-her-luck mom or the wealthy powerbroker? Surely, they will treat them both equally. /s. Also, individual divorce cases are probably not big moneymakers. They should be trying to make it rain.

Anyway, despite that Moneybags has hidden money, somehow the judge doesn't seem to care too much about that sketchiness.

There's a subplot where Team Olympia wants to use the fact that Moneybags blew up at one of Kid's coaches to better Client's position in the post-divorce settlement. Julian counters by having Moneybags sue the coach for defamation which gets the coach to be like, "I'm not talking to you, Olympia, because you're from the same firm that's suing me!" I shouldn't need to point out that filing a frivolous lawsuit is not exactly partner-level lawyering. 

Olympia's client is basically a major dumbass. First she thinks she can take the son to Mexico without telling the ex or the Court. (Her dad is dying or something, which is a good reason of course, but I don't see how it anybody could think that they could do so on the sly). Then when it comes out that she's done this, she freaks out that this might result in either Moneybags getting custody or social workers taking Kid away or something. So she barricades herself in one of the offices at the firm. Matty talks her down, in part inspired by her memories over the custody battle that she and Edwin won over their daughter that they won just before she ODed.

Olympia and Julian trade barbs blah blah blah cakes. They do this in front of a judge, who has enough of their BS and throws them into jail for contempt. They come to their senses and decide not to go for each other's throats as much. They resolve the case by reaching a compromise that works for both of them.

Oh, it turns out that Moneybags has enlisted Client's next door neighbor to spy on Client, including with a surveillance camera. Sarah (who previously insulted the neighbor by saying neighborhood watches are both racist and useless) figures it out and flips Neighbor into giving a confession that Moneybags was surveilling. So Sarah feels better about herself since she has finally managed to contribute something to winning a case.

Olympia's client tried to flee with her son again at the law firm but was stopped. Then she went into the office and barricaded herself. Idiot tried twice to flee with her son.

Edited Wednesday at 04:56 AM by andromeda331

[Bastet]

21 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Which I think we learn for the first time in this episode is Markston.

No, he said it in the flashback of the baby formula case episode (introducing himself and Olympia to the factory workers).  I don't know if that was the first time.

23 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

First she thinks she can take the son to Mexico without telling the ex or the Court. (Her dad is dying or something, which is a good reason of course, but I don't see how it anybody could think that they could do so on the sly).

The trip would have happened entirely during her time (she had primary custody, the dad visitation), and that's a scenario that has happened often in real life, especially with vague or non-existent reference in the custody agreement to such travel.

[Chicago Redshirt]

6 hours ago, Bastet said:

No, he said it in the flashback of the baby formula case episode (introducing himself and Olympia to the factory workers).  I don't know if that was the first time.

The trip would have happened entirely during her time (she had primary custody, the dad visitation), and that's a scenario that has happened often in real life, especially with vague or non-existent reference in the custody agreement to such travel.

Good catch on the last name.

I will, however, die on the hill that it is a dumbass move to take a child out of the country during the middle of a heated custody battle without prior notice to the other parent or the court. I find it difficult to believe Moneybags' prior lawyer and Olympia (who we know to be a good lawyer) did not put explicit language in about travel conditions, especially since Client had Mexican family she would have wanted to visit and Moneybags has money that would potentially make international travel a foreseeable issue.  Even assuming there was no technical need by the terms of the custody agreement, it is a weapon that could be used against you when you are dealing with someone who has chosen to be as petty as Moneybags. The fact that it happens in real life just means that there are real-life dumbasses as well. 

[Nashville]

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The fact that it happens in real life just means that there are real-life dumbasses as well. 

I’ve probably mentioned this on here before, but whatever: there’s a quote by George Carlin which has become one of my ruling guides to life the past 15-30 years. I used to find cause to reflect on it every couple of months or so, but these days it seems I’m considering it at least once a day - and like most of Carlin’s material it sounds like a joke, but isn’t:

Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of em' are stupider than that.

[possibilities]

I think they said it was specifically banned that the mother take the kid out of the country. I get that she wanted the kid to visit the dying relative, and asking the court for permission would take time. I was sympathetic to her, but she also annoyed me because I have a hard time being sympathetic to adults who have meltdowns. But that;s my issue, I guess, and not really a morally superior one. Stress breaks people.

Really, they should have written some better agreement, that allowed her to go in a family emergency. But I guess the father would not have agreed to that, because he was clearly an asshole. 

Mom was a mess, I think they were trying to show that people do stupid things when they panic. Dad was clearly an asshole who abused his power, but I guess they wanted both parties to come to a reasonable agreement, regardless of who was right or wrong. 

I suppose that hints at where the show in general is headed, but I have mixed feelings about it.

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I think they said it was specifically banned that the mother take the kid out of the country.

I don't remember that, just that he said he wasn't funding it.  I'll have to re-watch.

Her decision to take the kid with her per her dying father's request, since they'd be back before the ex's visitation time started, and her later panic that led to her shutting them in the conference room rather than leaving him with the social worker and going to the hearing given the power differential and her ex suddenly pushing for a custody he'd never wanted until now both rang very true to me.  Unwise, or even flat-out stupid, okay, but not at all uncommon under the respective emotional circumstances.  The characterization of the two parents was one of the most realistic they've shown in the cases thus far.