I thought this was going somewhere else and that I would turn out that the mother had the kids living in squalor and was trying to present the situation differently to her friends. It didn't make sense to me that they wouldn't look into the mother's background or even entertain the thought that the father was a more suitable parent.
shareI know what you mean.
Joaquin's character (the Prof) came to that conclusion by eaves-dropping on a conversation (behind him in a Diner), and that short conversation must have lasted only about 3-4 minutes! And he only heard her side of the story, and her friends.
So maybe, the mother was indeed an unfit mother, and maybe that's why the father of the kids got the main custody.
(???)
~~
~~~~
I think it's one of the strengths of the movie that we don't know. Abe's premise is flawed, he just can't see it because he's thinking selfishly, trying to existentially ask, "What is the meaning of life for me?" I think it's great that there's limited perspective.
I would, however, have liked to know what happened to the case. Mostly because it would have been marvelous to see how Abe and Jill would have used that knowledge (if she got custody, Abe is (more) justified, if she lost the case anyway, Jill could throw it in his face) in their arguments.
There was mention of Abe researching the judge and finding the judge had been censored but was backed up by powerful friends. The judge also had that suspect who the cops were looking into. So there were no hints of the mother's possible unfitness but definite info regarding the judge's unfitness to sit and give fair decisions.
What if the kids the custody battle was over were in fact their pet/s (dogs or cats et. al.)
share