Hand’s down, this is the tactic I’ve seen work most effectively in delivering on goals desired as divorce outcomes.
At the same time, there’s an important reason why it is under-utilized and otherwise easily exposed by way of sloppy implementation. By definition, “goal setting” requires strategic thinking, prioritization, and discipline. All are rareties in the emotional milieu that instructs most divorce negotiations.
The “red herring” approach requires identification of an issue that the other side will plausibly see as important to you, is a higher priority for them, and which, at the same time, you are ready to wholely or almost wholely surrender. Added bonus if they see it as something with, by pouring on more resources, they can clean your clock.
Now, you must be pursue the red herring with absolute sincerity. In fact, it’s typically a good idea to maintain a facade of despair at the loss after they’ve prevailed.
This, at the expense (to them), ideally, of you taking the issue that is your real top priority — held off until brought in as a switch in gears, as late in divorce negotiations as possible. They’re caught unprepared, and potentially exhausted, and ideally high on their win in the face of your red herring issue.
The counter to this is both obvious and equally as difficult as the red herring itself to perfect.
You are best innoculated against incoming red herrings by knowing what you want, investing your time and energies accordingly, and remaining disciplined in that focus.
Period.