ILLINOIS SHARED PARENTING BILL IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CALL THEM TO MOVE FORWARD HB 5425
March 14, 2014 § Leave a comment
ILLINOIS SHARED PARENTING BILL STUCK IN COMMITTEE
March 10, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Among a large and growing number of states, Illinois has a bill before its legislature that would amend current child custody laws to encourage post-divorce parenting time of not less than 35% for each parent. Here’s an important article on the bill.
And here’s the bill itself, i.e. the underlined portions amending existing law.
The bill would add to the purposes to be achieved by divorce that it is presumptively in the best interests of children that each parent have at least 35% parenting time post-divorce.
Beyond that, it would require parents to file a parenting plan with the family court within 90 days of the divorce filing. If the parents don’t do so, the judge would be required to issue a parenting order. That order would require equal parenting time unless the judge finds the parents aren’t fit or that it would otherwise be in the child’s best interests for less time to be allocated to one parent. In that event a minimum of 35% must be ordered to each parent. Either parent may waive his/her right to that 35% minimum. The parents are entitled to agree to any parenting time they wish.
One obvious strength of Illinois HB 5425 is that it closely conforms to the social science on family arrangements post-divorce and their impact on child well-being. As Professor Richard Warshak and 110 of his eminent colleagues worldwide have recently reported in a comprehensive review of the social science literature, when parenting time drops below that 35% threshold, the benefits to children of shared parenting start to diminish.
Another strength of the bill is that it presumes parents to be fit. Of course the presumption is rebuttable, but the fact is that most parents are entirely capable of continuing in their children’s lives following divorce or separation. As we’ve seen from the recent survey of almost 400 child custody cases in Nebraska, the issue of fitness wasn’t even mentioned about 95% of the time. And it’s likely that in at least some of those in which it was made an issue, unfitness wasn’t proven. In short, according to the parents themselves – parents who were otherwise none too happy with each other – there was no problem with parental fitness in almost every case.
So it seems a presumption of fitness is appropriate.
And of course the usual factors can be used to rebut the presumptions of HB 5425. So issues like child abuse, domestic violence and the like can always be raised to prevent parents who are clearly not beneficial to their children from having equal, or almost equal, custody.
As we’ve come to expect, any improvement in children’s rights to maintain healthy, loving relationships with their fathers will get considerable opposition, and the same is true in Illinois. HB 5425 is stuck in the Rules Committee and has until March 28 to be voted out. Failure to do so will mean the death of shared parenting legislation in Illinois for this legislative session.
The linked-to article urges people to contact the bill’s sponsors and ask them to have HB 5425 released from the committee. So do I. Here’s a list of their names and contact information.
Please call HB 5425 sponsors John Cabello 217-782-0455, Monique Davis, 217-782-0010, JoAnn D. Osmond, 217-782-8151, William Davis, 217-782-8197. Let these representatives know that you support shared parenting and HB 5425. Specifically ask that the representative make a special request that HB 5425 be released out of Rules Committee. Be friendly but firm in your support of HB 5425 because your fair share of democracy is on the line.
Please call House Speaker Michael Madigan at 217-782-5350 or secretary “April” at 773-581-8000 and simply say “Children need BOTH parents now more than ever — Please support HB 5425.” Specifically ask that the representative make a special request that HB 5425 be released out of Rules Committee.
NATIONAL PARENTS ORGANIZATION IS A SHARED PARENTING ORGANIZATION
National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved? Here’s how:
- Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
- Join our Facebook Page.
Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.
Divorce CORP :The appearance Jacklyn Birnbaum talked to Judge, and might have explained to the judge that “this is the capitalism”!!!
January 31, 2014 § Leave a comment
The thought it referanced Jacklyn Birnbaum she is one of the main players that makes over the appearance of 1mil or better for this cottage industry .
Oh, gee, this Judge seems to be upset that the filmmakers did not end up blaming the disgruntled litigants for the protracted litigation!!!
Then, she sort of suggests if you don’t agree, expect to be devoured. That’s what I read between the lines. She does not even ask herself as to why the general public believes that the systems is corrupt. Could it be because it is true??? It appears that Jacklyn Birnbaum talked to her, and might have explained to the judge that “this is the capitalism”!!!
Like they say you spot it you got it . The appearance that well not all of them are gods isn’t true some are just dam greedy and bat shit crazy.
ILLINOIS Citizen
Quotes:
“Interestingly, the film is silent on what, if
any, responsibility should be attributed to
the parties in divorce proceedings. Instead of
the parties, it is the lawyers and judges that
are blamed for the delay in resolution of cases
and increased expenses as a result of the
parties failing to agree on issues”.
“It does not have to take years to finalize
a divorce proceeding if the parties can
responsibly agree to resolve it. Katie Holmes
and Tom Cruise were divorced in 11 days. Our
system is not perfect and can always be improved.
What most depressed me about this movie
is the realization that the general public
believes that the family law system is broken
and that the failure to fix this system is the
result of corrupt, sleazy, greedy attorneys,
judges, and expert evaluators.”
No Third Coast Candidates will Help Emanuel Coast To Victory what good reporting
January 11, 2014 § Leave a comment
|
No Third Coast Candidates will Help Emanuel Coast To Victory Posted: 10 Jan 2014 05:41 AM PST Some years ago, I remember meeting a Chicago-based writer who was pondering an aldermanic bid in the northwest side 41st Ward. “You can describe me as a mid-coastal author,” she chirped. Say what? “Oh,” she responded. There are East Coast “people of creativity,” mainly from New York City, Boston and Washington, D.C., and there are West (or Left) Coasters from Hollywood, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, she explained, but “those of us in Chicago are mid-coastal.” Welcome to the new reality — as defined by the Manhattan intelligentsia and the Hollywood glitterati. Those who are truly “progressive” and enlightened live on the coasts, while we in backwoods Chicago are no longer the “City of Big Shoulders,” but rather some politically and culturally insignificant hamlet rating cursory recognition and exhibiting minimal creativity. After all, none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, born and raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, jilted her home state in 2000 to seek a U.S. Senate seat from New York, where she and Bill had a Westchester County mansion, rather than return to Illinois and wait to run for senator in 2004. An East Coast base trumps a mid-coast base. In retrospect, had she done so, Barack Obama would not have been elected senator in 2004, and would not be president. But the point is that media, financial, political, literary, entertainment and advertising power emanates from the coasts – Hollywood, Broadway, Wall Street, Madison Avenue, Times Square, Greenwich Village, Haight Asbury, Nob Hill. The U.S. senators from New York and California can raise $20 million per election cycle The November election of Democrat Bill deBlasio has spawned a plethora of media outbursts about the laggardness of Chicago, the so-called “Second City.” In actuality, Chicago is now the “Third City,” with its 2010 population of 2,695,598 putting it behind New York City’s 8,175,133 and Los Angeles’s 3,792,621. Why, the media bleats, if New York can elect a socialistic, tax-the-rich-more, redistribute-the-wealth, handcuff-the-police mayor, what’s wrong with Chicago? Or, more specifically, what’s wrong with Mayor Rahm Emanuel? Wasn’t he a firebrand liberal while in Congress? Is Chicago languishing in the mid-coastal Dark Ages? And the answer is: Absolutely. Chicago will never be a clone of the Big Apple. Here’s why; First, in Chicago, social issues are irrelevant. For Chicago voters, regardless of race, low taxes, low crime and city services are paramount. Chicago’s mayor must be fiscally conservative, rein in spending, not raise taxes, and use the police force to fight crime. Not in New York, where political-correctness is obligatory. DeBlasio’s two main issues were to bar police from stop-and-frisk tactics, and to sock the “wealthy” to pay more taxes to fund “universal early childhood education.” DeBlasio won with 73.3 percent. Unlike Chicago, which last elected a Republican mayor in 1927, New York elected a Republican mayor in 1965 (John Lindsay), 1993, 1997 (Rudy Giuliani), 2001, 2005 (Michael Bloomberg); an independent in 2009 (Bloomberg), and a “fusion” – meaning Republican and Liberal – mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, in 1937, 1941 and 1945. New York’s Democratic mayors have been intermittent; Chicago’s have been permanent New York has a three-term limit; Chicago has none. Under the regimes of Giuliani and Bloomberg, fiscal responsibility and tough-on-crime stances were the norm. Giuliani, a former U.S. Attorney, subscribed to the “broken window” theory: If crime spikes in a certain area, flood it with police. That’s exactly the philosophy of Emanuel and Chicago police chief Gerry McCarthy. If murder is up (as it has been), redeploy all available manpower to the troubled area. It works. Bloomberg continued Giuliani’s anti-crime policy, and focused on providing services. After easy wins in 2001 and 2005, he barely beat a black Democrat in 2009, winning by just 532,726-486,721 (51 percent). Unlike Chicago, which since 1997 has had a non-partisan mayoral scheme, with a primary and runoff, and always had non-partisan aldermanic elections, New York is still partisan. There is a profusion of political parties: Liberal, Conservative, Reform, Independence, in addition to Democratic and Republican. Candidates can run on one of more lines, and when Democrats nominate somebody too liberal, or a minority, voters have alternatives. Unlike Chicago, with a population which is 32/33/27 percent white/black/Hispanic, New York is 44/26/29. Second: In New York, political correctness has resurfaced with a vengeance, and run amok. It used to be that the hallmark of a “sensitive” liberal was to let his wife keep her maiden name, as has Emanuel. Now, superficiality has risen to an art form. In New York, the path to Gracie Mansion entails winning a Democratic mayoral primary with at least 40 percent; if not, winning a runoff; and then beating a Republican and a bunch of other party nominees. Giuliani won as Republican-Conservative; Lindsay as Republican-Liberal and then (in 1969) as Liberal; Bloomberg as Independent-Republican. In the 2013 Democratic primary, each candidate tried to position as the most politically-correct, pro-diversity, wealth-redistributor. They all agreed: No more of those oppressive Republican mayors. It’s time for a real liberal. Therefore, the race was all about perceptions. New York’s elected city council president, Christine Quinn of Manhattan, an open lesbian, was an early favorite to be the city’s first female mayor. But de Blasio, the city’s Public Advocate, which is a job in which he can meddle in every city bureaucracy and generate endless headlines, checkmated her; he was from Queens, married an avowed black lesbian, fathered two mixed-race children (whom he featured on his TV ads), and campaigned on the premise that the rich need to pay more taxes in order to subsidize the poor. Guilt prevailed, and he won the primary with 40.3 percent, and beat a Republican 77-23 percent. Will that scenario ever play out in Chicago? Never. Another distinction: In 2013, just 24 percent of New York’s 4.3 million registered voters turned out; in 2011, 42.2 percent of Chicago’s 1.4 million voters turned out. In New York, a very small minority of the population, not more than 15 percent, can dictate the mayoral winner; in Chicago, it’s close to 30 percent. Third, economics matter. The urban tax base is shrinking. In New York, the 2007-2008 bank meltdowns cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. Chicago’s fiscal 2014 budget is $7.8 billion; New York’s is $70 billion – or eleven times greater.. New York’s population is 3.2 times Chicago’s, which means the per capita tax burden on every New Yorker is $8,500, compared to $3,000 per Chicagoan. New York contains 301 square miles, and Chicago 228. The cost to government of servicing, policing and maintaining that real estate is $23 million per square mile; in Chicago, it’s $3.4 million. Fourth, Chicago’s political infrastructure is far less robust than New York’s, which has five borough governments – Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island – in addition to a citywide government, including an elected mayor, city council president, controller and public advocate; each borough has a president, district attorney and sheriff. Also, there are 51 council members, elected from districts. That’s a huge reservoir – like about 68 ambitious politicians – all of whom are lusting to be mayor. Unlike Chicago, New York has three Republican aldermen; Chicago has none. Unlike Chicago, New York last elected a Tammany Hall (meaning Democratic machine) mayor in 1973, but each borough has a Democratic chairman, who run Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. Staten Island remains Republican. Since each borough has a district attorney, there’s intense prosecutorial competition to put errant politicians, Mafioso, financiers and drug lords in the slammer. Nobody doubts that Emanuel and predecessor Rich Daley were part of the fading Chicago machine. In Cook County, there’s only one state’s attorney, and in Chicago, the clerk and treasurer are inconsequential. As such, other than the county sheriff and board president, there’s no credible bench of mayoral wannabes. Fifth, the New York media has piranha mentality, ever eager to expose malfeasance and stupidity. Every politician is in a fishbowl, as Anthony Weiner can attest. The conservative New York Post’s sensationalism tempers the liberal New York Times’ haughtiness. Chicago’s media is bland by comparison. Sixth, New York’s unions – sanitation, transit, teachers – make Chicago’s look like Girl Scouts. They shut down the city whenever they please, until they get what they want. At least Chicago mayors have some backbone. Seventh, smut, porn, and nudity on stage, TV and in bars is the Big Apple norm. Secularism reigns. In Chicago, the Catholic Church keeps the city culturally conservative. So what does this portend for 2015, when Emanuel’s term ends? The mayor has enraged the police, teachers’, and public sector unions. He’s reduced the city deficit by half. Though sometimes erratic, he’s generally competent. And, most importantly, there’s no Bill deBlasio around to beat him. ** Russ Stewart is a political analyst for the Chicago Daily Observer |
easy way to get paid lets see how many do the wrong thing and attach their brothers and sisters in the bar?
October 5, 2013 § Leave a comment
Please forward to the GAL in question that most recent opinion (Earlywine) regarding the retainers and leveling the playing field statute. The way I understand it, the GAL need not even go to bankruptcy court. He or she just need to go back to mom’s and dad’s attorney and DISGORGE THEM!
If the leveling the playing field statute applies for the interim fees, then it should also apply to the final fees, or it would render the statute meaningless as our Supreme Court would reason.
Once the GALs and the child reps start going after the moneys mom’s and dad’s attorneys had already earned and spent, we would see that the attorneys will settle faster not to get caught in the cottage ind. of the family law gals or child rep. that destroy the families monies for the children not to have a lot of support their children in the future?
So, please make sure that all GALs and CHILD REPS know about the newest law.
ISBA BS AGAIN THE APPEARANCE IS NOT ENOUGH MONIES FOR THEM TO STEAL THEN
September 18, 2013 § Leave a comment
Chair’s column
By Pamela J. Kuzniar
Part of a Section Council’s work includes re- view of state legislation important to the profession and the public. The Legisla- tive Affairs Department sends proposed bills to the appropriate ISBA section or committee for recommendations to the Legislative Commit- tee. The Family Law Section Council analyzed the complete review and overhaul of both the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (“IMDMA”) [HB 1452] and the Parentage Act (“PA”) [HB 6192] as proposed by the Illinois Family Law Study Committee. After review, our section council’s collective position was that we did not approve HB 1452 as written. Thereafter, each of our subcommittees reviewed specific
Unbundling family law
By Lisa M. Nyuli
With all the talk about limited scope rep- resentation, I recently took on a case, or should I say, a PORTION of a case, to try to help a client.
Why would I do such a thing? First, the client had no money. Second, the client really did have a fairly succinct need and issue. Third, as I talked to her, I found myself giving her the outline of what she needed to do, saw the panic on her face, and thought, “Hey, why don’t I just help her with this one task?”.
The Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 1.2(c) provide: “A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives in- formed consent.”
Limited scope representation, or “unbun- dling” has been around for years, and continues
sections of proposed HB 1452. We provided Jim Covington, the Director of the ISBA Legislative Affairs Department, with the subcommittee’s comments and analysis. Jim requested “volun- teers” assist him in his next steps. Assuming Jim wanted competent individuals capable of pithy articulate legal analysis and sage drafting, as chair I appointed Rory Weiler of St. Charles, Wil- liam Scott Jr. of Lisle and Morris Lane Harvey of Mt. Vernon to work with Jim at his direction as needed.
Please be aware that the bills will most likely move during the fall veto session. Now would
Continued on page 3
to be all the rage. As Helen Gunnarsson observed in the October, 2010, Illinois Bar Journal, the rea- sons that this type of representation is such a hot topic are, “First, courts are seeing more self-rep- resented litigants, requiring them to expend ad- ditional resources in assisting those individuals. Second, lawyers are seeing their business dimin- ish as fewer people are able to afford full repre- sentation. Third, legal services organizations are finding themselves overwhelmed by demand while, at the same time, their funding is being cut. Finally, many consumers of legal services are resorting to the Internet for legal education and advice, where they are finding information that may not be accurate and/or may not be suit- able for their needs. Without consulting a lawyer, those consumers may not be able to recognize
Continued on page 3
If you’re getting this newsletter by postal mail and would prefer electronic delivery, just send an e-mail to ann Boucher at aboucher@isba.org
Family law | September 2013, Vol. 57, No. 2 Chair’s column
Continued from page 1
be the time to review the bills and form your own opinion. If you do have an opinion, the only place to voice it would be through your legislative representative.
In that light, I would like to personally comment on HB 1452. The proposed bill (un- der section 750 ILCS 5/601.2) defines stand- ing to provide that equitable parents may seek an “allocation of parenting time.” If you routinely practice family law, you are familiar with the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Wickham v. Byrne and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville. As you know, both cases hold that the right of a parent to make decisions concerning their children is a fundamental right. At this point as you read along you are probably thinking Kuzniar is going to state that the statute as written is not constitutional. Nope, not go- ing to say it, you are lawyers you decide. I will note that, although HB 1452 expands the definition of parent, and changes parenting allocation—HB 1452 did not modify the ex- isting child support section. I am not saying that they punted; rather the proponents left the redrafting of the child support section to the Child Support Advisory Committee. The proponents clearly missed an opportunity to draft the most kinder-centric statute in the nation. How you may ask? Think about it and live in my head for a moment. (It is a place I am most comfortable in and it is a great deal more fun than the real world.) And so begins your foray into my world. Consider the fol- lowing: If you increase the opportunity for third-parties to contest parents for custody and demand parenting time, why not give them the pleasure of paying support as well? If our guidelines remain in effect and HB 1452 is adopted as drafted then I envision a custody case where the child care providers, long-term-live-in-lovers, step-parents, live-in grandparents, and significant others all par- ticipate in contested litigation. (Note—We will need more counsel tables.) If guidelines are in place 20% of the net income of five parents will provide the child opportunities that were not affordable in the past. Perhaps the child could be cross covered on every- one’s insurance as well. So, if a condition to equitable parenting is equitable support, then maybe it will work itself out, as the only individuals who will participate in litigation
would be those who want to take care of the child including providing monetary support- whether or not they can afford it. You know kind of like a parent.
I would also like to give you a heads-up on two creative approaches to CLE that will be presented in October one on trial practice and in November on settlement.
On October 10th and 11th we will pres- ent a Child Custody Trial, in Galena, Illinois. William Scott and Kelli Gordon will represent the father. Morris Lane Harvey and Rory Wei- ler will represent the mother. No one knows how the case will turn out, not even me. The trial judge will be the Hon. Arnold Blackman. This may be a CLE but the participants are taking it seriously and truly want to win. Al- though we all know that no one really wins in a custody case, in this case we do know the real winners will be the attendees. The Guardian Ad Litem and 604(b) have each tendered their reports, and based upon the reports it will be an uphill battle for one par- ent. The cast includes attorneys, and mental health professionals playing clients and ex- perts. Mother’s counsel has filed a motion in limine to bar the Guardian Ad Litem. During the CLE we will discuss the testimony after each witness, and judges from different counties will comment on the Court’s rul- ing and the handling of the witness. More importantly, the Court will rule immediately after the close of proofs. There will be no de- lay and nothing will be taken under advise- ment.
On November 14, 2013 we will present “Settle-It.” Although the majority of cases settle, too many settle on the eve of trial that could have settled long before. Perhaps an impediment to settlement is the inability of counsel to value the case. This CLE will be taught by valuation experts, attorneys, an arbitration panel and judicial panel. Using valuation reports as a fact pattern the pan- elists will analyze settlement opportunities regarding asset division and maintenance when’ the major asset is a business (includ- ing a small corporation, real estate devel- opment company, law practice, medical practice and dental practice) and when the major asset is executive compensation and benefits. ■
Family Law
Published at least four times per year.
Annual subscription rate for ISBA members: $25.
To subscribe, visit http://www.isba.org or call 217-525-1760
office
Illinois Bar Center
424 S. Second Street Springfield, IL 62701
Phones: 217-525-1760 OR 800-252-8908 http://www.isba.org
co-editors
Matthew A. Kirsh Robin R. Miller Rory T. Weiler
Managing editor/Production
Katie Underwood kunderwood@isba.org
Family law section council
Pamela J. Kuzniar, Chair Kelli E. Gordon, Vice Chair Matthew A. Kirsh, Secretary William J. Scott, Ex-Officio
Margaret A. Bennett Jacalyn Birnbaum Hon. Arnold F. Blockman Chris W. Bohlen Dion U. Davi
Hon. Grace G. Dickler Cecilia H. Griffin Morris L. Harvey David H. Hopkins Heather M. Hurst Michele M. Jochner Sally K. Kolb David H. Levy Rebecca M. Leynaud Marilyn F. Longwell Hon. Mark J. Lopez Hon. Pamela E. Loza
Laura L. Malinowski Anne M. Martinkus Hon. Timothy J. McJoynt Hon. Brian R. McKillip Sharon R. Mulyk Treva H. O’Neill Angela E. Peters Arlette G. Porter Julia A. Pucci
Jon J. Racklin
Hon. Jeanne M. Reynolds Curtis B. Ross Jennifer A. Shaw Letitia Spunar-Sheats Tamika R. Walker Richard A. Wilson Richard W. Zuckerman
Mary M. Grant, Staff Liaison
Hon. Celia G. Gamrath, Co-Board-Liaison Lisa M. Nyuli, Co-Board Liaison
Paul A. Osborn, CLE Committee Liaison Pamela J. Kuzniar, CLE Coordinator
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers’ personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Associa- tion or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorse- ment of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.
Articles are prepared as an educational service to members of ISBA. They should not be relied upon as a substitute for individual legal research.
The articles in this newsletter are not intended to be used and may not be relied on for penalty avoidance.
Postmaster: Please send address changes to the Il- linois State Bar Association, 424 S. 2nd St., Springfield, IL 62701-1779.
2
September 2013, Vol. 57, No. 2 | Family Law
Unbundling family law
Continued from page 1
the unsuitability of the information they ob- tain and may not realize what alternatives exist for their unique matters.” (Ill.Bar. Journal, Vol. 98, No.10, P.512 (Oct., 2010)).
The most visible example of unbundling in the family law arena is collaborative law, which is when a lawyer agrees to provide all the necessary legal services incident to the goal of settlement, but excludes services for contested litigation. Other examples are ghostwriting; drafting pleadings, briefs, dec- larations or orders; reviewing documents; doing legal research; advising on court pro- cedures; organizing discovery materials and preparing exhibits; and drafting contracts and agreements. Limited scope representa- tion of debtors has been a staple in bank- ruptcy proceedings for years.
Unbundling services in a transactional setting seems easy and even logical, but in a litigation setting, may not be as easy to implement. In 2010, the ISBA, along with the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois Judges Association, formed a joint task force which issued a Final Report with Findings, on May 19, 2011, addressing its findings and rec- ommendations regarding limited scope rep- resentation. The entire report may be viewed on the ISBA Web site at <http://www.isba. org/sites/default/files/committees/limited- scopelegalrepresentation/limitedscopeleg- alrepfinalreport.pdf>.
As a result of these recommendations, on July 1, 2013, Supreme Court Rules 11 and 13 were amended to set out the requirements for unbundled representation.
(6) Limited Scope Appearance. An attorney may make a limited scope appearance on behalf of a party in a civil proceeding pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c) when the attorney has entered into a written agreement with that party to provide limited scope rep- resentation. The attorney shall file a Notice of Limited Scope Appear- ance in the form attached to this rule, identifying each aspect of the proceeding to which the limited scope appearance pertains.
An attorney may file a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance more than once in a case. An attorney must file a new Notice of Limited Scope Appearance before any ad- ditional aspect of the proceeding in which the attorney intends to ap- pear. A party shall not be required to pay more than one appearance fee in a case.
(7) Withdrawal Following Comple- tion of Limited Scope Represen- tation . Upon completing the rep- resentation specified in the Notice of Limited Scope Appearance filed pursuant to paragraph (6), the at- torney shall withdraw by oral mo- tion or written notice as provided in parts (i)–(ii) of this paragraph. A withdrawal for any reason other than completion of the representa- tion shall be requested by motion under paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3).
(i) If the attorney completes the representation at or before a court hearing attended by the party the attorney represents, the attorney may make an oral motion for withdrawal without prior notice to the party the at- torney represents or to other parties. The court must grant the motion unless the party objects on the ground that the attorney has not completed the representation. The order grant- ing the withdrawal may require the attorney to give written no-
tice of the order to parties who were neither present nor rep- resented at the hearing. If the party objects that the attorney has not completed the repre- sentation, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the objection, either immediately or on a specified later date. After hearing the evidence, the court must grant the motion to with- draw unless the court expressly finds that the attorney has not completed the representation specified in the Notice of Lim- ited Scope Appearance.
(ii) An attorney also may withdraw by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Limited Scope Appearance in the form attached to this rule. The attorney must serve the Notice on the party the attorney represents and must also serve it on other counsel of record and other parties not represented by counsel, unless the court by order excuses service on other counsel and other parties. The attorney must also serve the Notice on the judge then pre- siding over the case. The attor- ney must file proof of service in compliance with this paragraph. Within 21 days after the service of the Notice, the party may file an Objection to Withdrawal of Limited Scope Appearance in the form attached to this rule. The party must serve the Objec- tion on the attorney and must also serve it on other counsel of record and other parties not represented by counsel unless the court by order excuses ser- vice on other counsel and other parties. If no timely Objection is filed, the attorney’s limited scope appearance automati- cally terminates, without entry of a court order when the 21– day period expires. If a timely Objection is filed, however, the attorney must notice a hearing
Supreme Court Rule 11 was modified add the following language:
(e) Limited Scope Appearance . After an attorney files a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance in accordance with Rule 13(c)(6), service of all documents shall be made on both the attorney and the party repre- sented on a limited scope basis until: (1) the court enters an order allowing the attorney to withdraw under Rule 13(c) or (2) the attor- ney’s representation automatically terminates under Rule 13(c)(7)(ii). (Effective July 1, 2013)
Supreme Court Rule 13 was modified add the following language:
to
to
3
Family law | September 2013, Vol. 57, No. 2 on the Objection. If the ground
for the Objection is that the at- torney has not completed the representation specified in the Notice of Limited Scope Ap- pearance, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. After the requisite hearing, the court must enter an order allowing the attorney to withdraw unless the court expressly finds that the attorney has not completed the representation specified in the Notice of Limited Scope Ap- pearance. Effective July 1, 2013.
Supreme Court Rule 13 also provides a form Notice of Limited Scope Appearance and a form Limited Scope Appearance.
So back to my case. The client needed a motion to clarify a written decision by the court. There were three main “problems” with the written decision that I believed war- ranted another look by the Court. So, first the client and I agreed that my sole purpose would be to represent her to draft and argue this motion. We agreed on a price. She paid
the retainer, and I prepared the motion and filed my appearance. And then, all hell broke loose! (I do have to admit that I did not use the Forms referenced in Supreme Court Rule 13, as this was pre-enactment, and I didn’t anticipate what followed.)
Opposing counsel objected to my ap- pearance and filed a motion to strike both my appearance, and my pleadings. The judge wanted a written response from me as to the motion to strike. So on the first court date, the matter was continued. The client was in tears, and now I was already in for more work than I had bargained for. I prepared written responses, and was allowed to stay in the case. We then held a hearing on the motions. They were ruled on, which completed my task for the client. Subsequently, I did file my motion to withdraw, and opposing counsel objected to my withdrawal. Opposing coun- sel accused me of “pulling a fast one” on the court by getting in the case and then getting back out. My client was not objecting, having understood and agreed to the limited tasks. Finally, after a contested hearing, I was given leave to withdraw.
So, as of now, I’m not a fan of unbundling in a divorce case. I certainly lost money on the deal. Yet, I see more and more articles about the merits of unbundling.
Plus, with the enactment of the new Rule provisions, this really should be easier, and encouraged. The entire Fall, 2012, issue of the Family Advocate, published by the ABA Sec- tion of Family Law addresses unbundling of legal services in the family law context. (Fam. Law Advocate, Fall, 2012, Vol. 35, No. 2). This leads me to believe that maybe we just need to educate ourselves, our clients, and our courts on this concept. The Supreme Court Rule 13 Forms should be reviewed and used (that’s my lesson!). While I did have a written agreement with my client, perhaps a model agreement would also be helpful.
Limited scope representation is sure to be with us as the practice of law continues to change. Family law practitioners need to be proactive in defining what that means for us, and for our clients, so that we can provide high quality services to our clients, regard- less of the task. ■
Child support income withholding notices not just an afterthought
By Jennifer A. Shaw, Managing Partner, and Barry T. Underwood, Associate Attorney, The Shaw Law Group, P.C., Edwardsville, IL
For many practitioners, sending an In- come Withholding Notice/Order (IWO) after obtaining a child support order is nothing more than a perfunctory step in closing a file. Secretaries or legal assistants often prepare the documents from forms that have been in use for many years. Other times, lawyers rely upon the forms provided by their local clerks’ offices. Within the last eighteen months, significant changes have been made to both Federal and State laws governing IWOs. These changes require implementation of new procedures and the creation of new forms. Failure to recognize the latest protocols could result in com- plaints to the ARDC or charges of malprac- tice as the penalties attributable to employ- ers who fail to withhold are substantial.
42 USC §666(b)(6)(A)(ii) requires all IWOs to comport with the standard form as pre- scribed by the Secretary of the U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services. A new standard form became effective on May 31, 2012. The form, OMB 0970-0154, can be
downloaded at <www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/de- fault/files/ocse/omb_0970_0154.pdf>.
Pursuant to Federal Law, an IWO must be rejected and returned to the sender in the following instances:
1. The form is not standard on its face;
2. The IWO instructs the employer/with- holder to send payments to any entity other than a State Disbursement Unit, un-
less the notice was issued before 1994;
3. The form does not contain the necessary information for the employer to comply
with the withholding;
4. The form is altered or contains invalid in-
formation;
5. The amount to withhold is not a dollar
amount;
6. The sender has not used the OMB-ap-
proved form (referenced above);
7. A copy of the underlying support order is not included and the IWO is promulgated by someone other than a state or tribal
support agency or a court.
Illinois’ Income Withholding for Support Act, located at 750 ILCS 28/1 et seq., has also undergone significant changes over the past several years. Reviewing the statute as a whole is strongly recommended, particularly if you prosecute failure to withhold matters.
Although not a change in the law, savvy practitioners note that 750 ILCS 28/20 man- dates all child support orders entered after July 1, 1997 to:
1. Require an IWO to be prepared and served either by the obligee or public of- fice unless a written agreement is reached and signed by both parties. The agree- ment must provide for an alternative ar- rangement. Such an alternative arrange- ment must be approved by the Court and provide a means for serving an IWO if the obligor becomes delinquent in support.
2. Contain a dollar amount for current sup- port. If an arrearage has accrued, the pay- ments on the delinquency shall be paid at a rate no less than 20% of the current
4
support obligation. Percentage orders are
not enforceable through an IWO.
3. Include the obligor’s Social Security Num- ber. For a non-citizen, the order must in- clude the alien registration number, pass- port number and home country’s social
security or national health number.
750 ILCS 28/20 also enumerates the state requirements for an effective IWO. Under Il- linois Law an IWO shall:
- Be in the standard format prescribed by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services;
- State the date of entry of the order for support upon which the IWO is based;
- Direct the payor to withhold the dollar
amount for current support;
- Direct the payor to withhold the arrears
as delineated in the underlying support
order;
- Direct the payor, labor union or trade
union to enroll children in health insur- ance plans as provided in the underlying order;
- State the amount of the Payor Income Withholding Fee, if applicable;
- State that the amount withheld from the obligor cannot exceed the maximum amount permitted under the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act;
- In bold face type, the size of which equals the largest type on the notice, state the duties of the payor and the fines and pen- alties for failure to withhold and pay over income and for discharging, disciplining, refusing to hire, or otherwise penalizing the obligator because of the duty to with- hold and pay over income;
- State the rights, remedies and duties of the obligor;
10.Include the Social Security Number of the obligor;
11.Direct any payor to pay over any amounts withheld to the State Disbursement Unit.
The most substantial addition to Illinois’ IWO form requirements is enumerated in Section 8. All IWOs must clearly identify the duties, penalties and fines Illinois imposes on payors. The language regarding the typeface, font and size is new to Illinois and distinguishable from Federal requirements. Notably, the requirements for an Illinois IWO are mandatory and strict compliance with the terms is required in order for them to be enforceable. See Jennifer Schultz v. Perfor- mance Lighting, Inc., 2013 IL App (2d), 120405
(Ill. App., 2013) and In re Marriage of Chen, 820 N.E.2d 1136, 2-03-0824 (Ill, App., 1996).
An attorney’s failure to properly format and serve an IWO can result in significant implications. Deficiencies in an IWO compro- mise an obligee’s ability to successfully sue for damages stemming from an employer’s failure to properly withhold and/or pay child support. In The Marriage of Chen, the Court held that an obligee could not enforce the $100/day penalty for failure to withhold support when the IWO failed to specifically delineate those penalties within the four cor- ners of the document. In re Marriage of Chen, 820 N.E.2d 1136, 2-03-0824 (Ill, App., 1996). Moreover, in Schultz v. Performance Lighting, the obligee was estopped from enforcing the same penalty for failure to include the obligor’s Social Security Number on the IWO. Schultz v. Performance Lighting, 2013 IL App (2d), 120405 (Ill. App., 2013).
In order to ensure that your IWO complies with Federal and State Law, modify your form to comport with OMB 0970-0154 and always attach a copy of the underlying support or- der. Serve the IWO by certified mail and file a copy of the return receipt with the Clerk of the Court. Whenever possible, also serve an additional copy of the IWO by facsimile or e- mail.
Best practices dictate that a separate Uni- form Child Support Order be entered, par- ticularly when the underlying orders address issues other than support. Remember, your client’s custodial schedule can be sensitive information. Tread lightly upon the infor- mation you disclose about minor children’s
September 2013, Vol. 57, No. 2 | Family Law schedules and activities.
Changes to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 138 will soon prohibit the use of Social Secu- rity Numbers in pleadings and orders. Thus, in order to satisfy both Federal and State Law, a Notice of Confidential Information Within a Court Filing must be filed with the IWO. In addition, as the Illinois requirements for a proper IWO exceed those prescribed by Fed- eral Law, in order to satisfy both, attach an Illi- nois Supplement to the Federally mandated form. The supplement should include all the requirements delineated in 750 ILCS 28/20, in the appropriate type and size.
If an IWO is returned, contact the employ- er to determine the issues they have with the document. After making the changes, serve the new IWO by facsimile/email and by certi- fied mail. This will not only allow withholding to begin more quickly, but will preserve your client’s right to sue if the employer fails to properly withhold support.
Maintain the original return of service in your file. Do not destroy the withholding notice or the return of service until all arrear- ages have been paid and the children are no longer entitled to receive support.
Preparation and service of a proper IWO should never be an afterthought. Given the strict enforcement of Federal and State re- quirements, neither you nor your client can afford to be anything but precise. ■ __________
FamilyLawCourts.com
September 9, 2013 § Leave a comment
Family Court is the nation’s largest court. It’s the one court most used most often, media nearly wholly ignores. Occasionally, one breaks through. Such as Rupert Murdoch filing for divorce from his very supportive, wife Wendi. Who once protected Rupert from a pie attack.
September 1, 2013; Two basic tips for divorcing a crackhead. (Listen up Kloe Kardashian)
1. Ignore anything the individual says,
2. But pay very close attention to what the crackhead does.
We offer this as family court – long completely dysfunctional, has now turned for want of a better word, lunatic. How else could a child rapist Jamie Melendez,demand visitation rights?
The problem is partly, media.
September 1, 2013.
Reporters used to describe Familylawcourt litigants as “disgruntled.” No more. Judges accused of plotting to kill their ex-wives, help end that practice. Thanks Judge Christopher Dupuy! Now. if only officials would be as concerned with talk of killing his ex as they are with the eight counts of retaliation against attorneys representing ex, things would be better. (In fairness, it is Texas.)May 22: 2013 – DATELINE Update
May 20, 2013:
GO DAD! Producer Brian Grazer asks Court for less nanny, more Dad, afterstating nanny fed her racist views to kids, along with meals. Ex-wife Gigi has yet to respond.May – 2013: DATELINE
to air this feature the last week in May. (As with all things, schedule subject to change.)For the short version, click here.
But in a nutshell, Government has essentially abandoned women, who continue paying taxes for police services, the police refuse to provide. Non-profits are involved, but only in a self-serving kind of way.Moving along. The documentary “Don’t Divorce the Kids” doesn’t cover a key aspect to family court: That therapists or the threat of therapists is generally a game changer. See Katie Holmes divorce, or the brilliant report by the California appellate court opinion in Tharp vs. Tharp….which echoes what various litigants have been reporting for decades.
But wait there’s more!
The con of “domestic violence.”
Familylawcourts.com exposes non-profits purporting to “address” Domestic violence, are in fact, secretly lobbying against the solution empowering women to save their own life. That is real-time GPS that would warn potential ahead of time, and in time to vacate an area. See two videos here.
The dirty secret of non-profits is this: crime pays. California’s largest non-profit, “The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence knows this. Which is why they threatened legislators they would pull their support of Kathy’s Law if Family Court was included in the law. See the Non-profit section for details. We encourage legislators to resist their grant requests, and others to resist their seemingly endless fundraisers and donation requests.
Also see the Predictive policing section.
The police are keen on predictive policing software as long as it is used for property. Lives? Not so much. But then, the police have their own issues with women. They don’t want to take reports involving Family assaults. See graph here. The upshot being women pay taxes for police services the police refuse to provide. This is not a secret to government officials. Which is why the killings continue.
But wait there’s more!
Breaking: Double murderer Jeremy Peoples wins custody of his two kids upon release from prison. Colorado Magistrate Magistrate Ruben Hernandez said the parental bond was “sacrosanct.” The kids aren’t interested, but no one is listening them them.
But wait there’s more!
Also, for the five people in America who didn’t know Fox’s Bill O’Reilly care nothing for family, please review the lengths O’Reilly went to alienate his kids from their mom, at the Parental Alienation section of this site.
Feb. 3, 2013: Indiana’s Stephen Perry asks black co-worker to find him a hit man so he doesn’t have to go through a divorce. Perry’s thinking was his black co-worker would know who would get the job done. “I just want this to be over and done with,” Perry said, according to a five-minute recording described in the affidavit. “So if she dies, I can drop the divorce lawsuit, she’s dead and I’m free.”
November 13, 2012: Generals David Petraeus and Allen Wood implicated in custody action of Jill Kelly’s sister.
Recent: November 2, 2012: In an age of “Super Lawyers” consider this Dallas and Plano group from Texas. It kinda makes one wonder about what exactly makes a group of seemingly sexist attorneys, “Super Lawyers.”
Mitt Romney involved in divorce action isn’t as surprising as people might think, given his position as church elder. As reported by TMZ, Mitt committed perjury in an earlier deposition in the very protracted, very messy divorce of Staples’ Tom Stemberg. Supposedly Mitt claimed Staples stock was overvalued.
San Ramon family law attorney Mary Nolan pleads “Not Guilty” to a variety of charges, although others have already plead guilty. Nolan practiced in a few areas of law, not just Family Law.
Problems with the police and the utter failure of the courts, including up to the 9th Circuit are demonstrated at the Bad Cop section, under “From bad to Incomprehensible.”
Seldom reported by media is the men who choose murder over divorce, because DAs seldom prosecute family crimes, until the after the fact, murder. Also problematic, the long history of abusive-to-criminal, police officers, and their failure to investigate family crimes. This is a top-down, problem.
As Family Court is typically devoid of media attention, Familylawcourts.com explains why the Family Court system isn’t broken, but one which morphed into an out-of-control, unregulated, litigation machine benefiting those employed in the divorce and custody industry. Family court litigants (and reporters) learn Family Court is no longer a forum to resolve issues, but a platform for continued litigation until the children age out. However as an income-producing fuel source, it can’t be beat
.Gov. Brown signs Kathy’s Law on September 24, 2012. But women are not safe in family court because the California “Partnership” to End Domestic Violence, lobbied hard against protecting women via GPS.
See video on the Restraining Orderpage to understand how real-time GPS works.
(We especially like the siren.)Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook reveal why, in addition to Facebook, ex’s should never fight by email.
Meanwhile, Montana Judge Richard Cebull demonstrates why, since misogyny is our national culture so many women wind up dead after simply trying to leave a relationship. He’s retiring and the 9th Circuit has shelved the investigation into Cebull’s conduct.
Meanwhile, lack of competent reporting remains significant in the nation’s largest, most used most often court.. And now this:
Call us flabbergasted: Kate Elizabeth Queram writing for the
Wisconsin Reporter, writes of a bill co-sponsored by Rich Zipperer, RD-Pewaukee, and supported by the Sheriff’s Association, which would allow criminals who repeatedly violate restraining orders toeventually be put on GPS. No explanation why these criminals are awarded so many freebies before the courts decide they should be held accountable.Unfortunately, media disinterest in the lack of police protection which both standard, remains world-wide.
Judges can end relationship murders, but they need encouragement. PleaseSign this encouragement.The materials on this site demonstrate the perfect failure of individuals, media, government, and non-profits claiming their goal is to end “domestic violence.” Meanwhile the murder rate continues to climb although the solution, GPS with Victim Notification is available.
Cost-effective while empowering victims to save their own lives, the lack of wide-spread use of GPS with Victim Notification instead demonstrates government’s lack of regard for individuals and the family.
However, one must always be hopeful the solution will be embraced soon so lives will not continue to be needlessly be lost.
Always keep your eye on the judge.
The Charlie Sheen – Brooke Mueller custody case provided an excellent demonstration of terrible coverage when it could have ramped up public awareness of the reality of Family Court. (Ex-parte restraining orders being a standard-issue strategic tactic.)
The early advantage to Brooke for using Charlie’s Porn Love Goddesses….and “violent love” to change the visitation time.
Counter went to Sheen for taking advantage of Mueller’s repeatedly choosing to use drugs, although as long as Brooke’s mother steps in, Brooke has (at least in her mind) no reason to stop. Unfortunately, competent reporting was not a result.
One concern was Judge Hank Goldberg never, on his own motion, called for supervised visitation of the children although clearly aware there is much drug abuse on both sides of the case.
As the Sheen-Mueller pattern seemed lost on Judge Goldberg our secondconcern was that Judge Goldberg put the children at risk by not appointing counsel for either child.
A third concern was Judge Goldberg did not order mental health evaluations for either party.
But our fourth and deepest concern was once Judge Goldberg suspected abuse, short-hand for criminal activity, he kicked media out of the court…anddidn’t refer the matter to the police or CPS.
Why did not one media outlet not report that?
This ongoing lack of action on the part of Judge Goldberg does not appear to be in the best interests of the children, which is supposed to be the standard Judge Goldberg bases all orders.
Greed
Didn’t work. Bernie Madeoff victim and real estate attorney Steven Simkinwanted a “Do Over” in his 2006 divorce settlement.
Simkin and his wife of 33 years agreed to distribute their assets more or less equally; with Laura Blank taking hers in cash, and Simkin investing his with Madeoff. Guess who wants the do-over?
The Sub-title in this NY Times piece should have been, “It’s a win for attorneys either way.”
Simkin lost. There are no do-overs in a divorce.
Returning to the need for competent reporting, the question in need of an answer remains the same:
Never mind Kelsey Grammer’s custody ploy, keep your eyes on the activities of the judge.
Less known, is the courts routinely compel so-called Mental Health experts to weigh in – at significant cost. Or that ultimately, these so-called experts, control the case.
The attorneys are essentially out of it. (This information generally comes as news to the client.) In some family court they are identified as Custody Evaluatorsand should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes they’re just referred to as therapists. Although as these cases reveal, these so called “professionals” are seldom vetted.
Although we looked forward to Judge Goldberg applying the best interests of the children in his rulings, it never happened.
Currently, it appears Judge Goldberg gave in to the attorneys for both. Judge Goldberg at the very least, could have included Supervised visitation for both parents. Instead, the children remain, at risk.
We are mindful however, that Supervised Visitation is the very first step in the process of Courts facilitating parental alienation.
We are also mindful Supervised Visitation is also the process used to adjudicate family related crimes, in the form of dumbing down language.
(How else could kidnapping be described as “parental abduction?”)
Sadly, Judge Goldberg invoked no standard of behavior for either parent.
and without any media attention.
Also, and fyi…31 states don’t have lawsprohibiting rapists from asking for custody. As such women should be aware it’s a stacked deck. And then there’s government. From Law Enforcement, to the courts; and too cozy relationships with so-called special master “therapists” children simply aren’t safe.
California Family Code Section 7507, states:“The abuse of parental authority is the subject of judicial cognizance in a civil action brought by the child, or by the child’s relative within the third degree, or by the supervisors of the county where the child resides; and when the abuse is established, the child may be freed from the dominion of the parent, and the duty of support and education enforced.” This code is largely, useless; as the County, at least in San Diego, refuses to act. Please advise if County supervisors in your county are better.
NY: No media unless a judge like Judge Gerald Garson comes along. Match Judge Garson with the extremely unlikelyoccurrence of a DA’s office that actually listens, and pretty soon the judge and other court officials are arrested. The Judge for accepting bribes. (Note: Family Court judges not being different than other judges.)
However, for the most part, the non-criminal part, judges demonstrated a propensity to rubber stamping reports from unqualified “experts.”
Click here for a State Audit of Marin and Sacramento which revealed the courts continue to appoint unqualified (and in some cases, unlicensed) attorneys and therapists. Check out Seattle for how one “highly respected” therapist fought his way back in the system, to continue shredding lives with the help of State officials and various Psychology Boards.
Crooks are not just in family Court. Consider Federal Court. Richard John Schwalbe, a court Appointed consultant in Bankruptcy cases just pleaded guilty to embezzling 1.4 million from a tech firm. Schwalbe is on house arrest until sentencing with the home he shares withCheryl Clarke. Clarke works as a fundraiser for non-profits.
Separately, media labors under the false assumption because Family Court is a civil venue, family court judges aren’t ordering litigants to jail.
New York’s Saratoga County Family Court judge, Gilbert L. Abramson who was finally thrown off the bench himself, demonstrated that fallacy. Also see the Child Support section for the latest Supreme Court (June, 2011) ruling on unpaid child support and jail.
Separately, we remain hopeful Family Court judges will soon display the kind of integrity Criminal Court judges do when they order GPS with Victim Notification for victims of crimes. Currently Family Court judges do nothing to protect vitims of crimes ranging from assault, to attempted murder. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the police aren’t madated to to enforce Civilrestraining orders. Ergo, women need a level playing field.
(Also, seemingly only reporters are unaware criminal matters are heard in family court. Check the form forSupervised visitation.)
Practice Hint: Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department. Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest. The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.
2. That after filing for divorce – people often do not realize that unless they can come to some kind of basic agreement, they are inviting a judge to wholesale order services, for the purpose of micro-managing their lives and the lives of their children – including vacations, until the children reach the age of majorit. There is also the matter of couples setting each other up, with “Dirty DUIs.”
3. This is due to the failure of people to realize business of government is:business. As such, family court judges “outsource” much like sales reps; ordering a variety of “services” designed to interpret – instead of speaking to all involved, especially the children.
Who would prefer to be heard.
4. Lobbyists hired by the National Association of Marriage and Family Services, continue lobbying for more involvement in the divorce and custody industry. As such, Children remain the marketing cog which turns the litigation wheel that fuels the entire industry.
Changing this basic, outsourcing court dynamic, is in the best interests of the child. Once a judge has direct contact with children, the need for the variety of other services often falls away. This is why those in the divorce and custody industry hire lobbyists. Change does not bode well for their bottom line.
5. In the event of family crime, police officers will often encourage victims to “take it to family court and get a restraining order” instead of providing actual, police services.
6. And don’t take it personally. San Diego Director of Emergency Service,Dr. Bruce Hadley hired former deputy Jesse Thrush, a convicted felon, as an EMT. Thrush had been convicted of killing his girlfriend’s daughter, a toddler with Downs Syndrome. He applied for the job and was certified after his release from prison.
7. Sometimes things get really bizarre. Such was the case with Catherine Scott Gonzalez, whose two prior requests for a restraining were denied. Paul Gonzalez felt okay about beating Catherine to a pulp in the judge’s chambers.
No bailiff was present at the time. This case was out of Florida, and Scott-Gonzalez’s attorney restrained Paul Gonzalez, who was finally arrested after the bailiffs appeared. The reason for the beating was Gonzalez was unhappy about paying child support and visitation time.
But judges denying restraining orders is what’s getting women killed, although the solution, Victim Notification GPS would be easily implemented…if judges cared enough about safety.
Update: Citing fear of Paul Gonzalez violating any restraining order he might issue, Broward County Circuit JudgeGeoffrey D. Cohen, denied bail for Paul Gonzalez. Interestingly, neithter Catherine or Paul Gonzalez has any memory of his attack. Catherine Gonzalez because of her head injury. Paul Gonzalez, we do not know. Effects of the taser? On his attorney’s advice? Either way, Gonzalez wound up with 15 years.
Will County Pro-se 