Oh FFS. What a shit episode. Nuff has been said about the arguments of the lawyers but what really pisses me off is the way they portray judges in these scenes. This one was openly hostile to Helen and sympathetic to Rob, and the sarcasm towards Anna (who was, admittedly, being a bit flaky, was utterly OTT and unrealistic, particularly in a family court scenario.).
I am also annoyed about the words the SWs put into Helen's mouth, right down to her not being able to answer a question like "Did you hear everything?" Using the correct words. Yes she is traumatised, yes she would have been nervous but I simply do not accept it was in character for her not to have been able to follow a vaguely coherent line of argument.
And once again, Pat and Tony are not the types to shout out in Court- they have the brains to know this will not endear them to the judge.
I was also annoyed at this reference to Helen's "erratic upbringing"- wtf? Barristers can't just throw in statements like that without presenting evidence; are we supposed to believe that some sort of evidence for this was presented in the bits we didn't hear? If so the at the very least the other side of the story would have to have been heard and clearly the proposition is nonsense- having a sibling death does not mean H was erratically raised. It's just shoddy scriptwriting.
As to Anna's cryptic cliffhanger I imagined some sort of health issue (related to the purse forgetfulness) but suppose that would not tie in with Anna thinking she could stop it this time. Who knows, but it is an unnecessary distraction.
Rob's response about looking after a newborn "I have been fulfilling several roles for a long time now" was beyond laughable- why was it not challenged?
God I am annoyed!