Q: How does a judge know if crossmotions i was “served in hand” in court by opposing counsel, match the filings w/clerk?

A: The biggest mistake a litigant can make in a modern court of law is to fail to retain an attorney for her case. If not for the filings and trial, the pro se litigant requires an education in the folkways and mores of the modern American court.

This question highlights the naivety of the pro se litigant: the court is the broker in honesty, and the opponent's attorney may be pulling a fast one with a motion. Then, the asker moves onto how the motion was not served personally as a summons, and whether the copy handed over in court matched the copy in the court file.

We do not know how to answer this question because we do not know how diligent the judge is in checking copies of motions. Ordinarily, no judge ever checks the copies of motions (called "conforming" the copies). That is the job of the attorneys to go to the record room, and compare.

As for the asker's opinion of the legal system she is being exposed to, there is also very little to say. Feminist legislation that assumed all men to be inherently violent (the reference to IDV), inherently non supportive, inherently sexual depraved cut the man down while the child was very young. Nassau County gave this asker her child. However, in our system of family justice, what goes around comes around. The woman is placed in jeopardy once the child is older.

The asker does not tell us exactly what it is the father is doing to her. He may have triggered CPS intervention, or may have set up a drug sting. There may have been a boyfriend sent in to cause damage in the asker's household. Typically, a modern family court will respond aggressively to allegations of a mother's drug use, psychological infermities, molestation and "abuse" of children, and neglect. The response will be a flip of custody, and men have realized this trick and are using it effectively. Laws cut both ways in modern America.

The asker misinterprets the opponent's use of legislation. That man's attorney is not slanderously lying, but rather repeating provisions in statutes aimed at women, and is gaining traction in court as the judge is compelled to enforce the statute. This is the woke mindset: that the accusations against an under-performing parent must be true, and the judge must cure the problem up front. The key is not to surrender to the slander, but rather eventually disprove it. This takes stamina and copious amounts of a lawyer's assistance.

It appears this asker has been spared very serious ramifications as the family code in Pennsylvania is radically different than the one in New York. Pennsylvania treats its parents like cattle being led to slaughter. In Pennsylvania, judges have the support of the superior court (the first level appellate court) to deal aggressively with parents, for example, who do not follow custody orders. Those parents will see the insides of local jails. New York will find other ways to coerce parents, perhaps by prohibiting contact with a child therefore also traumatizing the child. The end always justifies the means.

As for this asker's question, it is not the business of the judge to compare copies of filings, and there is no requirement in any state that motions be served personally in-hand.