A divorced woman whom I shall call Myra asked for a consultation with me because she wanted to figure out what went wrong in her divorce proceeding. She and her husband had acquired many valuable assets during their marriage including business interests and a fine art collection, and her share was worth millions of dollars. But she was not able to obtain her rightful share, she said.
Myra explained that her lawyers told her she would have to testify at a trial to prove her claims. When it came her turn to testify, it did not go well, she said. She explained that she had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and her symptoms got in the way during cross examination. She was too distracted to listen carefully to what the husband’s attorneys were.asking her. Her hesitation, stammering, lack of focus, and inability to give precise answers were all symptoms of ADHD.
In divorce proceedings, a party’s credibility is everything.The judge views a person’s demeanor on the witness stand for signs that the person is not telling the truth — to determine the witness’s credibility. The judge did not know Myra had ADHD. Her faltering responses must have made her look to the judge like she was being evasive and not telling the truth.
Myra’s own lawyers made it worse when they told her parents that Myra was a lousy witness. Of course their disparaging statement got back to her. Her lawyers were blaming her for her poor performance, as if it were under her control. Myra felt horribly humiliated and embarrassed. She ended up abruptly settling for less than what she would have been entitled to under the law.
I don’t know what was worse for Myra — her losing her rightful share of the marital assets or the intense humiliation she felt at court, which traumatized her. Myra felt such shame by how poorly she came across on the witness stand that she would not share the trial transcripts of her testimony with me to review. She did not want me to judge her by her inadequate responses. I felt so bad for her. If only she had come to me earlier. I could have helped her.
At our consultation, I informed Myra that she could have been helped under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I informed her that under the ADA she was entitled to special accommodations at court. She was entitled to have a disability advocate, such as myself, with her at court to act as a intermediary to help her with her communication difficulties. She would have been granted reasonable accommodations by the court. For example she would have been able to have the questions read to her slowly, or would have been allowed to write the questions down, to enable her to process the questions more easily in order to better understand what she was being asked. She would have been given breaks too when needed. As for the settlement agreement, she would have been allowed to see it in writing, as opposed to only being able to hear the terms set forth orally, as it was placed on the record. Even someone without ADHD cannot be expected to absorb all the legal provisions in a divorce settlement agreement when the terms are merely said out loud in court but not written down for review. Who could be expected to understand legal provisions that are not written down? With accommodations, she would have been afforded the ability to see the agreement in writing first, before agreeing to its terms.
Through my work as a lawyer, disability advocate, and educator I have seen the power of the ADA in action: to give people with disabilities the opportunity for equal access to justice. It’s a real game-changer for people with invisible disabilities. If Myra has to go back to court, she knows now how to protect herself through the ADA.