Good strategies depend on clear, realistic objectives and the ability to act consistently in a way that furthers them over the long term. All cases have some strategic considerations in common and those are almost certainly at play here - managing costs, weighing risks and downsides, and positioning with the judge. But in abusive relationships, a factor that often doesn't get considered is the desire for conflict as its own objective. Abused spouses may be accustomed to appeasing or placating the abusive spouse and these habits can carry over into litigation as well, which may not serve them as well as a more ruthless strategy. In this particular case, Ioan's initial decision to pursue collaborative divorce was a strategic mistake - an opponent who thrives on conflict does not have conflict resolution as a goal and there are enormous sunk costs involved in failing to recognize this early on. Alice's litigation strategy is marked by the lack of an apparent long-term strategy that serves the interests she purports to have of obtaining full custody and a comfortable financial settlement. Her objective of publicizing the divorce has backfired and she isn't going to be able to relitigate the finding that she abused Ioan and Bianca, so in many ways it appears that Alice is acting impulsively and her lawyer is doing damage control. In closing, I share how I would advise both Ioan and Alice based on what's publicly known about the case. 00:00 Intro 01:05 Abusers often have the conflict as the objective, not the outcome 02:49 Why the objective of a collaborative divorce here was not realistic and had significant downsides 07:03 The collaborative process isn't cut out to address the parental alienation 09:55 Alice's decisionmaking is remarkable for the lack of long-term perspective - examples 13:17 While Alice may want to relitigate the finding that she abused Ioan and Bianca, she won't be able to 14:42 Alice's lawyer is doing damage control 16:29 My advice to Ioan 19:22 My advice to Alice 21:06 This is probably all I'll have to say about the case until there's some new development Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDzWkuYcjw Part Two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Fa2_jmnMQ Part Three: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPgGhmKoB4 Part Four: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kD0bJHVb4 Part Five: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2AfJL3PbA