I have become quite dexterous in this juggling act, thereby avoiding ethical dysfunction. At some point, without equivocation, professional ethics and the bounds of advocacy must give way to more important principles. One such principle that comes to mind is the moral commitment to serve the best interest of children. Therefore, I do not anticipate any real philosophical opposition to the proposition that legal tactics should give way to the welfare of kids. On this subject, both Hulk Hogan and Mr. Rogers are likely to agree.
Most people love their children and under normal conditions, tend to act in their best interest.
But under not so ideal conditions, parents tend to continue to love their children but not act in their best interest. Granted a recipe for disaster, but less disastrous if the parties' respective attorneys refuse to participate in or acquiesce to their unreasonable conduct. The parties should be reminded that when they were married, the majority of their time was spent arguing about which spouse would be stuck with the kids. Now that the parties are separated, they spend most of their time arguing about which shall have the most access to the kids. Unfortunately, this is not the case.