Q: Why am I paying ex girlfriend lawyer fees... I wasn't married to her. Feel I'm not responsible to pay for her choice.

A: It is not clear which state this question arises from, Florida or New York. Florida has two sanctions provisions that allow for counsel fees: as a need and as a sanction. If the basis is the custodial parent's need, then the court is bound to consider the non-custodial parent's ability to pay those fees. However, as a sanction, there is no need to review the non-custodial parent's ability to pay, and the court is free to apply counsel fees all its wants.

New York has virtually the same constructs as to counsel fees that Florida has. Child support violations in New York are perhaps more onerous. In New York, the custodial parent does not even need to actually hire a lawyer. She can move for counsel fees, and the statute compels the payment no matter what. However, if the matter is beyond the scope of child support, then the family court act places more restrictions on counsel fees awards.

By now, the cat is out of the bag that government has taken on the pallor of a feminist who goes bra-less. Men are the target for destruction. Once a woman enters a family court, every manner of feminist legislation takes over, and the man is stripped of his child, made to pay support amounts he cannot afford and runs the risk of jailing for non-payment of the debt. The wealth of the woman is largely irrelevant.

This feminist legislation is never based on any facts; they are all based on principles and philosophies (the "woke" mindset). An allegation is true on its face if the man is the respondent. Women get custody and the support money as the man rarely sees his child and cannot afford to live normally. There have been band-and fixes through the years that include 50/50 custody and other gimmicks that nonetheless squeeze money out of the man, and the idea is that the man must be put down in every respect, and the law always favors the woman.

However, in this cockamamie, woke arena, men never get custody but women always lose it. Single parenting in the U.S. carries enormous dangers, and there are CPS agents lurking around every corner. One small mistake, and the mother loses the kid. CPS finds the father, and then dad gets custody and child support. What goes around, comes around.

It is shocking that today's judiciary takes blind stabs at applying all this law as dictated by the legislatures. Judicial integrity is also at risk just as the man is at risk. Everyone in charge loses in this scheme to magnify the lower rungs of society as if our inherent paternalism forces women to those lower rungs. Our judiciary depends on showings of integrity to remain in place as the third branch, and up-front solutions absent the facts crushes judicial integrity.

As for the asker's question, this batty system of justice can be easily overcome by the persistent appearance in court under numerous petitions. The loudest squeak gets the oil but the asker must be prepared to roll with the punches as getting and keeping one's child is as difficult as winning the Powerball. Government runs that enterprise as well.

Retaining the most expensive attorney is a whopping mistake as only moneyed people can afford them. Spending big makes the rich woman feel good. Money buys justice. However, there are huge numbers of private lawyers who will work for fixed/capped fees who will remain on the case so as to make a difference. The key factor is the client's dedication to the cause, and any cracks in that attorney-client relationship the judiciary and the adversary will exploit.