Padideh Jafari on Family and Divorce Law

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/25

Padideh Jafari, Esq. is a seasoned Family and Divorce Law Attorney with over 22 years of experience, serving as the Founder of Jafari Law & Mediation Office. Established in 2003, her firm specializes in family law, including divorce, mediation, child custody, and domestic violence cases. Renowned for her skillful litigation and mediation, Padideh has a deep understanding of complex divorces, particularly those affected by stark differences in values, such as political and religious beliefs. Known for her compassionate approach and unwavering advocacy, Padideh strives to support families, protect children’s well-being, and guide clients through challenging legal processes with integrity and expertise.

Jafari shares insights on high-conflict divorces, emphasizing the importance of compromise, communication, and trust in marriages. She highlights the “silver bullet” tactic, where false allegations are used in divorce cases, often impacting men. Mediation and collaborative law are recommended for amicable resolutions, especially when children are involved. Financial issues are noted as a major factor in divorces, with wealthier clients navigating the process more smoothly than those less affluent. Padideh maintains her sanity through hobbies, faith, and setting boundaries, advocating for clients while prioritizing healing and child-focused outcomes.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Padideh Jafari, and we’re going to be discussing divorce and the law—first question: a quick backdrop. How did you become interested in this topic? Divorce isn’t necessarily anyone’s first topic of choice.

Padideh Jafari: Yes, I wanted to be a lawyer ever since I was 5 years old. I went through the process of schooling, graduated, and, of all things, became a divorce attorney. I wanted to help people. In divorce cases, you can make an impact, especially when children and child custody issues are involved. Right now, I’m involved with various men’s groups and learning about tactics known as “silver bullet” strategies. No one sets out specifically to become a divorce attorney, but sometimes it falls into your lap. I have the right temperament for it, I suppose, and I’ve been doing this for 22 years now.

Jacobsen: What is the silver bullet strategy? I’ve never heard of it before.

Padideh: The silver bullet strategy is a tactic where a spouse, typically the wife, may use false allegations and restraining orders against the husband to have him removed from the home. In California, for instance, such an emergency restraining order can last up to three weeks. However, the duration varies in other states. Men then have to respond to these allegations and prove their innocence, which can be more challenging than in the criminal system, where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When a domestic violence allegation is filed, the accused is often treated as if they are guilty. Judges frequently grant emergency restraining orders that last for several weeks, as seen in California.

If children are involved, and the father has been removed from the home, he is unable to see his children. This starts a process where the mother may then file for divorce while the father deals with false allegations. This is a significant issue being discussed in men’s groups as they see it happening to friends, brothers, and coworkers. These groups are engaging in conversations about how to prevent such scenarios.

Jacobsen: How do you mediate disagreements that seem irreconcilable yet find, legally, areas for potential resolution?

Padideh: If one spouse is highly conflicted, reconciliation is difficult because it requires both parties to acknowledge their role in the breakdown of the marriage. Without that acknowledgment, even the best therapist cannot help. Our law firm specializes in handling high-conflict, narcissistic divorces, where reconciliation is often not possible.

If someone is a narcissist or has a mental disorder or other Cluster B personality disorder, there’s no bridging that gap. An apology isn’t going to be enough. It takes changed behaviour, and the spouse needs to see that changed behaviour over a long period. This is particularly true in the areas where we work, like Los Angeles County and Orange County.

I have a background in psychology, so these cases are very important to me. I represent the underdog, the innocent spouse, as I like to call them, and the victim of these types of selfish, abusive marriages.

Jacobsen: How do differences of opinion play into this? For example, when one spouse is Muslim, and the other is Hindu, or one is Republican, and the other Democrat, or one is more traditionalist and the other more egalitarian—how do these differences play out when real-life issues arise?

Padideh: That’s a good question. I want to note that sometimes when people get married young, in their early twenties, they may have certain political views. I don’t know about you, but when I was in college at Loyola Marymount University, politics wasn’t something I was thinking about. As I grew older, my political views became more defined, and I became more vocal about them.

We often see that people who marry in their early or even mid-twenties experience changes in their political beliefs over time. If you’re in a marriage where your spouse’s political views do not evolve, or if they are not respectful of your political views, it comes down to respect. The main thing is that it’s not just about their overall political stance but also about specific political issues.

For example, suppose one spouse supports reproductive rights, and the other is anti-abortion. In that case, it’s going to be difficult to bridge that gap. Or, if one spouse is strongly supportive of LGBTQ+ rights and the other is not, disagreements can arise that are hard to reconcile. Immigration is another big topic, especially in California, where discussions are frequent. When one spouse supports immigration and the other opposes it, there’s going to be friction.

The key is respect, communication, and understanding that neither spouse should try to change the other. If both partners are respectful and willing to listen to each other’s views, they can stay together and grow as a couple. It’s when one or both dig their heels in the sand and refuse to budge that problems arise.

This is the only way. If someone says, “I’m for immigration” or “I’m against immigration,” and insists that their spouse must agree or else—that kind of request does not work in a marriage. Marriage is about, as I always say, compromise, communication, and trust. If any of these three are lacking, the marriage will not be on stable ground and is likely to fall apart.

One other point I wanted to mention is that sometimes a spouse may disagree with their partner but choose not to be vocal about it. That is even worse because it leads to resentment building over time. Resentment in a marriage will, without fail, lead to divorce 10 out of 10 times.

It’s better if spouses are opposites on an issue or political candidate but can talk and communicate about it. That’s healthier than silently thinking, Oh my gosh, I’m afraid I have to disagree with my spouse, but I’m not going to voice it because they’ll get upset.

Jacobsen: How does illness play into this as well? Something that may not be changeable in any immediate sense—how does that affect the long term, as part of life, as people age?

Padideh: People often forget their marriage vows, especially the part that says, in sickness and in health. We see an increase in what’s known as gray divorce, where individuals over the age of 50 are divorcing, and these cases often coincide with health issues coming to the forefront.

We hear things like, “I don’t want to stay with you; you have cancer; you’re going through chemo or other severe health problems.” Why does this happen? It ties back to the resentment I mentioned earlier. In healthy marriages, this type of abandonment doesn’t occur.

A great example is Pierce Brosnan and his wife. She had throat cancer, gained weight, and went through the entire treatment process. He didn’t care—he stayed by her side. People commented, saying, “This is Pierce Brosnan, Mr. 007, who could be with many women,” but he chose to stand by his wife. That’s a testament to honouring the vows “in sickness and in health.”

As a divorce attorney, I see that many people forget those vows. For some, marriage is a contract, while for others, it’s a religious covenant between them and God, making them more hesitant to leave their spouse. For those who view it as a contract, they think, “Well, I can just get divorced; the grass is greener on the other side.”

With the influence of social media, people are constantly seeing what they believe is greener grass. They have instant access through Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and dating apps, which reinforces the idea that they could find someone new. Whether they’d truly be happier with someone else is another question. Still, the perception that other options exist is always there.

Jacobsen: One of the things that frequently comes up in surveys as, if not the number one, then almost number one reason for divorce is finance. It’s a major factor in every marriage. There is evidence that people on the wealthier end in the United States might emphasize things like love and meaning. Meanwhile, those who are poorer tend to have a more realistic perspective rooted in evidence, which is finances, as it’s a much more immediate concern for them. So, when finance comes up as the top reason or close to it in surveys, it seems that poorer people are more realistic because financial stress is right in front of them.

How does finance play into divorce, and how does it impact divorce concerning different socioeconomic demographics in terms of stress levels?

Padideh: You’re right. Finances play a huge role in both marriage and divorce. If you and your spouse cannot be on the same page about finances, the marriage is not going to last.

Think about it. Suppose one person is constantly spending due to a shopping addiction or gambling, and the other spouse is careful with their money, saving and being thrifty. In that case, that conflict will eventually lead to divorce. I’ve seen this happen many times over my 22 years of practice. So, yes, less affluent people are more aware of financial stress. But here’s another thing to consider:

When people who have money or wealth get a divorce, the process is generally easier for them. They can afford separate attorneys, forensic accountants, therapists for themselves and their children, and even minors’ counsel to represent their children. The process can be smoother for those with financial resources. However, if you don’t have money, you may have to rely on self-help legal services or find a pro bono attorney.

So, finances not only affect the marriage itself but also play a significant role in the divorce process. It’s a two-pronged challenge: dealing with a financially irresponsible spouse or choosing to get divorced and face being a single-income household. We see many mothers going through this dilemma, feeling as though they are already single parents handling everything for their children. They must then consider if they can handle a divorce, knowing they might not receive substantial alimony or child support, especially if their husband is middle or lower income.

Financial issues manifest throughout the entire divorce process—before filing, during the marriage, after filing, and even post-separation. Single mothers, in particular, often struggle to make ends meet. They may need to turn to church pantries and other resources because they cannot make it alone.

So yes, finance is a significant issue and factor in both marriages and divorces.

Jacobsen: How can people going through a divorce—whether it’s gender-specific or not—use strategies to make things more amicable if that’s the ultimate goal? I know that a small percentage of people will use the divorce process as a form of punishment. In regular circumstances involving a high-stress event or process, how can things be made more amicable, healthier, and lead to at least a reasonably equitable resolution?

Padideh: What you mentioned is known as legal abuse. As high-conflict divorce attorneys in Los Angeles and Orange County, we see legal abuse frequently. It’s sometimes called financial abuse as well. To minimize this, I refer to it as the push and pull—where the spouses are pushing and pulling, with each wanting to win. Their egos are heavily involved because they’re now in the divorce process. The best approach is mediation.

Mediation can be done through a private mediator, where the couple works with one lawyer acting as the mediator. The mediator drafts all necessary documents and facilitates discussions, often via Zoom these days, to reach a resolution that benefits both parties. In California, if the couple opts for mediation, they may never have to step foot inside a courthouse. Unfortunately, mediation isn’t effective in cases involving high conflict or when one spouse is narcissistic, and the other is not.

A narcissistic spouse tends to use power, control, legal abuse, and financial abuse to punish the other spouse, particularly if they feel abandoned. In a selfish divorce, the narcissist always sees themselves as the victim, regardless of any wrongdoing on their part, such as infidelity.

That said, there are strategies for those who want to proceed amicably. Mediation and private mediation are options. Another option is collaborative law, which has become popular. When I started my practice 22 years ago, collaborative law was gaining attention, and I was part of that movement. In collaborative law, each spouse has their attorney, and professionals such as forensic accountants can be brought into meetings as needed. The two spouses and their attorneys sign an agreement not to go to court. If the process fails and the couple decides it’s not working, they have to find new attorneys.

In this scenario, signing that document increases the stakes, encouraging a win-win resolution for everyone involved. I always tell my clients that if they prioritize their child and are genuinely child-focused—not just claiming to be—they are more likely to choose mediation or collaborative law. This approach reflects a desire not to fight with the spouse, who is the mother or father of their child, in court. It creates a situation where the mediator helps frame the issues and asks, “How can both of you walk away with what you want?” Even if compromises are made, there is still peace of mind.

Parents need to remember that they will see each other again. I tell my clients that after leaving mediation or court, especially if it’s a litigated case, they will continue to interact. If they share a child, that other parent will be at every soccer match, gymnastics event, or swim competition and will be involved when the child needs a car, graduates, or has children of their own. You might think you’re divorcing them, but they remain part of your life.

So, I always tell my clients to keep their child’s best interest in mind. Children want peace. With my background in psychology, I can say confidently that children crave a peaceful environment.

Children do not want their parents badmouthing each other or fighting. Mediation and collaborative law can achieve that goal and provide a stable environment for the child.

Jacobsen: What about you? For those who are doing this work, how do they keep their sanity?

Padideh: I get asked that a lot, even by clients sometimes. As a divorce attorney, you’re either compassionate and empathetic, understanding the issues quickly—often after the first, second, or third meeting—or you are not. I tell my clients to keep their child first. Divorce is essentially the financial breakdown of a marriage, as it is a contract by nature.

Yes, emotions are involved, and I advise my clients to go to therapy. Some attorneys might say therapy is unnecessary, but I believe in healing and recovery. The statistic is that 86% of people who have been married and divorced get married again within five years. If they are going to remarry, it’s important they heal and recover from their previous marriage and divorce, gaining the ability to self-reflect, which is what a good therapist facilitates. A good therapist does not focus on the other spouse; they help the individual understand their part in the breakdown of the marriage.

In divorce law, especially in Los Angeles and Orange County, you find two types of attorneys: those who care and those who don’t. The ones who don’t care will file anything their client requests, may be sloppy, lack compassion, and might even exhibit narcissistic tendencies. They aim to win at all costs. If you ever see a divorce attorney advertise themselves as “shark” or a “bulldog,” steer clear. Winning at all costs is not the goal, and a good divorce attorney will tell you that nobody wins in a divorce. Every person involved—spouses and children—loses something.

Think about it. Everyone sacrifices something and ends up with a different lifestyle than they anticipated at the start of their marriage. To keep my sanity, I approach cases from a psychological perspective and choose my clients carefully. I always advocate for the innocent spouse or the one who has been victimized, championing the underdog. My faith helps me stay grounded, and I maintain perspective.

I also have hobbies, like horseback riding and hiking with friends, to break up the routine. Since COVID-19, working remotely has become common, but I make a point of shutting down all technology by seven or 7:30 in the evening, and I don’t work on weekends unless there is an emergency.

I tell my clients to keep things in perspective. If they are fighting over something they want so badly, I remind them it’s not worth it. They are paying me, and their spouse is paying their lawyer; they could buy the item new instead. It’s time to let go and move forward. Bringing anything with sentimental value from a toxic marriage into a new home is often better left behind.

I am rare in this space, as I said. There are my type of attorneys, and then there are the others. When we come together on a case, it’s like a battle because we handle divorce cases in the legal system in completely different ways.

Jacobsen: Padideh, thank you so much for your time today.

Padideh: I appreciate it. That’s fine. Thank you so much.

Jacobsen: You’re welcome.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.