There is a tactic in family law litigation that I jokingly call the "Spaghetti strategy." This consists of a party coming up with every possible allegation they can against the other party, and putting every single one into a pleading, regardless of its relevance or significance in relation to the issues being litigated. The term comes from the idea that you might throw a whole plate of spaghetti against the wall in the hopes that some of it "sticks."
This tactic is very common in family law. Parties, simmering with years of resentment, want to throw up every possible wrong and transgression (real or not) in the hopes the Court will somehow become the moral arbiter of the case, deciding "good guys and bad guys" and making decisions accordingly.
This strategy is not very effective.
Washington is a "no fault" divorce state, meaning that a party's infidelity, poor character, and the like typically have absolutely no evidentiary value. Property disputes will not be decided based on the moral worth of any party. There will not be an determination of good guys and bad guys. There will be a very narrow division of property based on specific legal principles. The bad conduct of another party is only relevant if it has a detrimental impact on a child at issue in the case, or if it poses a threat the other party's safety or property.
Regardless of this, pro se litigants (people without lawyers) and, unfortunately, some people with lawyers, still use this strategy.
There is a very natural desire to "fight with fire," and respond in great detail to every piece of spaghetti that hit the wall, regardless of its potential to stick. This is totally understandable; you have been very publicly attacked about personal issues in a very public forum. You want to fight back, just as you might in any other setting.
The problem is that Court is not just any other setting.
The Judges and Commissioners who hear cases know the law quite well. They are typically very capable at separating legally relevant information from irrelevant information. They are also very experienced at parsing out these "spaghetti declarations." Most of those ad hominem attacks are read with rolled eyes and ignored unless they have legal relevance of some kind. In Snohomish County, any given Commissioner might have to decide as many as sixteen cases in a single morning. Parsing through these oceans of irrelevant information is deeply frustrating, because it draws valuable time and focus from other cases with more pressing needs.
Including such information, especially when you have the assistance of an attorney who should know better, is likely to draw the ire of the Court and cost you and your attorney valuable credibility. Your transmission of irrelevant data will be seen as a barrier to solving the problem. If you make an ocean of factual assertions without proof, it also limits the persuasiveness of the actual relevant claims you make.
When working with clients on responding to these types of declarations (in Washington, we typically use written declarations in lieu of live testimony at hearings for most issues out side of trial), I often help clients separate the wheat from chaff like this:
Is this relevant to property division, safety, or custody?
If the answer is "no," it probably needs to go because it is diverting the Court's attention and distracting from the task at hand.
At most, the typical correct response to spaghetti is "this allegation is untrue and not relevant to our motions for A, B, and C." Full stop.
There are, of course, a few exceptions to this general rule. The most common exception to this rule is instances where a party has said something demonstrably untrue. I might allow enough space in my client's response to debunk it, not for relevance, but to demonstrate the other party's lack of candor to the Court. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people with fairly reasonable motions get utterly hamstrung in court because they have gotten caught in making untrue irrelevant statements. They would have had a far better outcome if they had stuck to relevant information.
The other exception would be instances where there is an assertion that is not legally relevant, but might be relevant in a person's life outside court. For example, if an opposing party falsely accuses a client of domestic violence but does not seek any relief associated with that claim, the assertion is irrelevant but still may merit a response since this is a public record and those assertions might create problems for people in their professional life. I may need to make a clear record so that if the issue ever arises, my client can show it was vigorously defended.
(I should note, however, that many people who read these declarations outside of the legal process see them exactly for what they are - two angry people making allegations in a messy divorce. I suspect many of my clients fear that uninvolved parties will give these statements a lot more weight than they truly carry.)
Knowing when to deviate from the "property, safety, custody" rule takes some skill and experience, and your lawyer should be able to assist you with it.
Where I want to finish, however, is with encouragement. It is exquisitely painful to have someone go to court and attempt to drag your name through the mud. Even knowing that this is an ineffective tactic, it still hurts and it is still upsetting. It makes the process more adversarial and difficult. In these instances, you have to lean hard on your friends and family for emotional support, and keep the end goals firmly in mind.
You have to have faith that you are playing the long game, and in family law litigation, that is the only game that counts.