Melissa Isaak’s “Anatomy of a Custody Case” Part 4: Oh, I’ve Got Receipts!

During her workshop, Isaak spoke with a mix of courtroom savvy and frustration at a system she called biased. Her session, witnessed firsthand by yours truly, complemented the broader critiques at the convention, like Stephen Baskerville’s scathing takedown of family court as a state-driven assault on parental rights. While Baskerville framed the system as a constitutional betrayal, Isaak offered fathers a tactical playbook. In this fourth part of our series, we unpack her deep dive into discovery: how bank statements, phone records, interrogatories, and requests for admission can dismantle false allegations and build a winning case.

Isaak introduced discovery as a game-changer. “Discovery is extremely broad,” she said. “The rules are written where it’s very liberal, but it’s discoverable as long as it reasonably is calculated to lead to relevant information.” She explained its power: “Discovery is a legal process by which you can obtain information that’s otherwise personal and protected.” For example, “You can’t just walk into a bank and say, ‘Hey, I want a copy of Melissa Isaak’s bank statements.’ But if I send a discovery request to my spouse and say, ‘I want a copy of your bank records,’ they’re reasonably accessible to him.”

Bank Statements: A Treasure Trove

Bank statements, Isaak argued, are a goldmine for exposing lies. “Bank statements are wonderful,” she said, especially in child support or alimony cases. She shared a case where a mother claimed poverty: “A mom might say, ‘Well, you know, I don’t make but thirteen hundred dollars a month.’ Then you get their bank statements, they’re like, ‘Well, wait a minute, there’s thirteen hundred dollars deposited every two weeks.’” The discrepancy was stark: “There’s a big difference between thirteen hundred dollars a month and twenty-six hundred dollars a month.”

In another case, Isaak used bank statements to shred a mother’s credibility. “I had an alimony case, it’s a military case,” she recounted. “Woman testifies they didn’t have any money, they had no food, she was a GS employee, she had a federal job. She said, ‘We were starving, I was going from house to house begging for food.’” Isaak dug into the records: “Let’s look at your bank statements, let’s just look at the three months while he was in Korea. How much money did you spend eating at restaurants? ‘I don’t know, every once in a while we would go out.’ I look at it here, let’s look just a month of January, does 1,463, does that sound right? No.” She went line by line: “Charlie’s, Applebee’s, every day. Doesn’t look like somebody’s starving to me.”

The mother’s spending didn’t stop there. “Let’s jump to the tattoos,” Isaak continued. “How much did you put on tattoos? ‘Well, my brother died.’ Okay, let’s go back to the tattoos, you spent 850 on tattoos. ‘Yes, it was mental health, it was therapy.’” Isaak’s point was blunt: “You’re starving to death, you testified, but you still spent 850 on tattoos?” She also flagged Amazon and iTunes purchases, showing how bank statements reveal spending habits that contradict sob stories. “You can take these bank statements and just tear them apart,” she said. “If I’m a judge and the judge hears, ‘Gosh, this woman, she’s crying, she must be upset, she’s starving to death,’ I’ll be like, ‘This woman’s not truthful.’”

Isaak urged fathers to keep their own records clean. “Keep your receipts,” she said, especially for child-related expenses. “Judge, he never buys anything for this baby, nothing. Keep your receipts, here’s a receipt from Walmart, he’s buying diapers, wipes, baby clothes, baby food.” She added a practical tip: “Keep your Jack Daniel’s purchase off of the same receipt as your diaper purchase. It’s not against the law to drink, you’re the age of 21, buy beer and drink it, I don’t care. Just don’t break the law. But you’re in family court, if she says he’s an alcoholic and you submit a receipt with diapers, wipes, and Jack Daniels, keep your purchases separate.”

Phone and Other Records

Phone records, Isaak said, are another powerful tool. “Phone records are great,” she noted, especially for suspected affairs. “If you think that your spouse might be having an affair, odds are there’s 30 phone calls in five days and text messages at 11, 12 o’clock at night to the same number.” These records can reveal patterns: “Looks like you got out of my bed to text with Steve 35 times between 11 and 11:35. ‘We were talking about work.’ Okay, judges aren’t naive.” While cell providers like Verizon only keep text message content for 6-15 days, Isaak warned, “If you ask them for copies of their text messages and they delete them after you’ve asked for it, well, that’s against the law.”

For unmarried fathers, discovery unlocks access to critical records. “You can’t get your child’s medical records, you can’t get their school records,” Isaak said. “You can get those things in discovery.” She cited a case involving prescription abuse: “Had a mom who was, ‘I have ADHD,’ lost a ton of weight, had an affair. We got the prescription records, ‘Gosh, how many doctors are giving you Adderall? You have doctor shopping.’” Judges, she noted, “hate prescription pill abuse, doctor shopping.” School records can also expose issues like poor attendance or tardiness, which fathers might not otherwise know.

Interrogatories and Requests for Admission

Isaak highlighted interrogatories, written questions opponents must answer under oath, as a way to pin down their claims. “What are all of your criticisms of dad as a father?” she suggested asking. “You can ask, ‘What exhibits do you intend to admit? Who are your witnesses going to be?’” Other questions dig deeper: “Who have you had around my child? Does this person have a history of domestic violence? What’s your criminal history?” These answers, notarized and sworn, are binding. “If she comes back and says, ‘He’s an amazing dad,’ then you get to court, she gets up on the stand and says, ‘He’s a horrible individual, he’s abusive,’ you say, ‘Well, wait a minute, ma’am, do you recall signing this document on March 1st?’” Isaak said. The contradiction can sink her credibility.

Requests for admission, Isaak explained, force opponents to admit or deny specific claims. “Admit or deny your child is a good father. Admit or deny you abuse prescription drugs. Admit or deny you have drank alcohol to the point of intoxication around your children,” she listed. In many states, failing to respond within a timeframe means the court deems them admitted. “If you have a case where you can prove that behavior, go ahead and put it down a request for admission, make them admit it or deny it,” she said. “If they deny it, you can prove it’s a lie. If they admit it, that’s horrible for their case.” This tactic, she added, boosts settlement odds: “The odds of your case settling if you can prove some of this stuff before you get in the courtroom go up.”

Discovery as a Weapon

Isaak’s discovery strategies echoed Baskerville’s convention warnings about family courts weaponizing vague standards to strip parents of rights. While Baskerville called for systemic reform, Isaak showed fathers how to fight within the system, using discovery to expose lies and protect their case. “You have to defend yourself in there,” she said, emphasizing preparation. Her advice was about turning the court’s own tools (i.e. bank statements, phone records, sworn answers) into a shield against false allegations.

In the next part, we’ll cover Isaak’s guidance on pleadings, jurisdiction, and avoiding common pitfalls, plus her critique of the “best interest standard” and push for parallel parenting in high-conflict cases.

-David B
Fathers Anonymous