The goal of family courts is to render court orders (or approve parties' stipulations) that address a child's best interests (regarding custody and parenting time) or a fair and equitable settlement (regarding property and finances). In the process of a family law dispute, one would like to think that both sides have a solid basis for their arguments, and that if the dispute persists through the court process, that it is the result of good faith and meritorious claims. Or, if the dispute does not persist through a contested court process, that it has to do with one party having a clearly stronger claim as to the child's best interests, or what is fair and equitable in the circumstances.
Unfortunately, in some instances, the outcome of the dispute is based on something that is not connected to a child's best interests or what is fair and equitable. Instead it is based on financial attrition. That is, on one party having the financial means to pursue the dispute, regardless of the merits of that party's position, while the other party lacks the means to advance their argument. If one party has the funds to hire an attorney to proceed in the dispute (with or without a solid basis on the merits) and the other party does not, the result will not necessarily be proper justice.
As an example, if a parenting neutral recommends a certainly custody arrangement or parenting plan, and one of the parties is aggrieved by that recommendation, that party may hire a custody expert to contest the neutral recommendations. Usually, a party cannot do that without substantial financial investment. Oftentimes, when someone challenges neutral recommendations, while they may have the financial means to hire the expert, the facts and circumstances do not warrant overturning the neutral recommendations. Yet, the party favored by the recommendations may lack the financial means to defend against the challenge of the aggrieved party. The outcome of the dispute may be different from what is truly in the child's best interests, simply because one party had funds to fight, and other party did not.
There is an "up" side to financial attrition, as well. Someone who lacks a good-faith argument for their position, but also lacks the means to advance the argument, is foreclosed from manipulating the court process to gain unfair advantage.
What makes the issue of financial attrition even more complex is this: sometimes an argument clearly has good faith, or clearly LACKS good faith, but other times, it is not so clear. And someone may think their opponent is acting in bad faith, but the family court judge sees it differently. Also, oftentimes, it is clear that one party has substantially greater means than the other; but not always. (Someone with multimillionaire parents theoretically has the means to invest substantial sums in a family court dispute, but not if the parents are unwilling to contribute to the effort.) Even less clear is whether the party with greater means has a misguided agenda (as opposed to an argument based upon genuine good faith).
In the end, financial attrition may be in the eye of the beholder. Whether real or perceived, it is an unwelcome factor in the family court process.
To quote Supertramp: you are bloody well right. I have some posts on the periphery of what you write on here but you nail the whole issue of financial ability on the head. Very good job.