Defaulted child support paying father was accused of gambling over a million dollars at a casino: He was pretty much asked to do dress rehearsal for jail time; but a good exchange with a FOC referee later, and the client was spared from booking: he walked out of court via the same door he walked in...   

Emergency action filed to implement a protective protocol that spared a young child from being exposed to those who threatened to harm him was granted, despite decades of experienced attorneys and even the court's  own clerk suggesting that "it wouldn't happen." It did.   

Client's businesses were spared from division when a well thought out negotiating offer was accepted by adverse party's counsel.  The client's hard work was protected from the usually unchallenged distribution practices (i.e., the rebuttable presumption that equitable distribution must be "equal") when important information surfaced about my client being coerced.

Cutting close to what the parties actually wanted (maneuvering more than the general approach) allowed the parties to negotiate an outcome that didn't require either party to concede what they were materially invested in.  Client kept 100% of the  equity in the marital home as a result. 

After an eventful exchange with a prosecutor who threatened legal action for talking to "his [Title 4] client" (he referred to a child support petitioner --that ironically couldn't be within the statutory meaning of people who are NOT considered direct clients of a prosecutor more if it tried- as "his client").  The effect of this was that it put up a temporary fence around the petitioner (with evidence, which could have easily prompted a separate investigation) rendering her inaccessible. Notwithstanding that distraction, we proceeded to successfully change legal and physical custody while turning my client into the child support recipient in that same jurisdiction. The APA's office in another county was also involved in helpfully pulling up a statute that literally disclaimed APA's direct client relationships with child support petitioners (2 for 1: the client prevailed and hopefully this clarification will help spare other lawyers from similar distractions).

Hired the night before a custody evidentiary hearing, and despite having several scheduling conflicts, I flew in the FOC's door during a hearing and offered a resolution that was sustained within seconds of arriving (the referee supported the balance of unresolved issues in my client's favor), and we signed a stipulation to that effect. 

In an an attempt to rationalize his aggression, a step parent tried to reconstruct threats to harm a child as deserved or justified... He seemed "in control" until it was exposed: Narratives didn't carry any weight: Physical custody of that child was changed that day. 

After threatening to beat his wife's teenage child with a hammer ("step dad" channeled his insecurity over his wife having a child 

with someone else into aggression against the child and his dad...), emergency actions initially, and work leading up to evidentiary hearings eventually, Faithfully helped expose (via inferences) the 'concealed' threats against the child (and their lesser known effects) resulting in a change of custody.