This week, the privilege and responsibility of serving as an attorney-advocate humbled me several times. I was in court or otherwise out of the office on location helping an elderly man and trying to protect two children from the bad decisions of the adults in their lives, collecting past-due support for others. Humbled, because each case I handle affects the lives of my clients in important ways, and I am in a position to make a unique difference in their lives.
First up, another motion for a new trial from an opposing attorney whose client owes more than a million dollars in support arrears. The apparent catalyst for the motion is that changes to Homeland Security procedures mean that one cannot leave the country without a passport. Prior to last year, one could travel to Mexico, Canada, and many countries in the Carribean without having to show a passport.
Now that the rules have changed, the support obligor seems desperate to overturn the child support orders that so that a pssport can be obtained without having to make good on the support obligation. Could it be that the obligor has, perhaps, hidden some money in an off-shore account? If so, what a delicious irony that the obligor first hides all the money money off-shore to avoid paying child support arrears, then is prevented unexpectedly from traveling to get the money because of the arrears - so long, that is, as my legal research and writing is sufficient to bring the relevant law and facts to the attention of a judicial officer in a persuasive manner.
The last motion was over 1,000 pages long. This one was a much more manageable 250 pages. Sadly, it appears that the other attorney alleged that fraud had taken place at the trial many years ago while attaching as exhibits documents which clearly show precisely the opposite. I seem to recall reading somewhere that if one commits perjury to falsely accuse someone of murder, the penalty should be the same as for attempted murder. Wonder what, if anything, the penalty will be for knowingly and falsely making an allegation of dishonesty.
Fortunately, the judicial officer to whom the case has been assigned appears to be extremely sharp and well-versed in law and motion, including evidentiary issues.
Next, I was forced to make an emergency motion to the court so that one of my clients who had retired last year would finally be able to receive payouts from the pensions partially earned during the marriage. Seems the opposing party was dragging feet signing off on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the pension plans were refusing to pay anything out until an order was made. The retirement plans provide that if my client died before the QDRO was entered, the -ex would receive the entire payout. Amazingly, the other party refused to sign the order or or make any objection to it for six months, even though this kept the -ex from receiving any of the funds either.
Once I got to court, at first the judge was reluctant to issue an order without a full-blown hearing - which would have further delayed the pension payout. This reluctance apparently flowed from the fact that the opposing attorney had not answered the phone when I left word of the emergency hearing, and had not contacted me via e-mail, fax, or telephone to take a position - essentially voting "present" or, perhaps, "not present." The court naturally would prefer not to make orders that affect the finances of both parties without hearing from both sides. Fortunately, the clerk of the court offered me her copy of the Family Code, and I was able to locate and make available to the judge the Family Code section that provides that the pension plan had a 30-day waiting period before making any payments, so that the pension or either party could object. This meant that the -ex would receive a copy of the order and still have plenty of time to object if the order was inaccurate. Talk about pressure. If the motion had failed, there was a good chance that my client would go belly-up financially, not to mention the added stress might be detrimental to his health.
Had the clerk not been able to see behind the paperwork to the very real issue of whether this retired man was going to survive financially, and out of sympathy offered to allow me to research some additional law to respond to the court's initial objection to the request, my client would have suffered. Instead, the court was able to obtain additional information permitting it to make the right call. Earlier in my career, I might have accepted the initial rejection without protest or further pleading (literally). Knowing where to look in the Family Code for the relevant section, knowing that in some circumstances a "no" isn't final, and knowing the hardship that a rejection would create for my client, all made a difference, and so I felt that I had made a difference.
Then an early-morning meeting with the principal of an elementary school to discuss a very sensitive matter - a teacher having an affair with the married parent of a child at the school, very openly and publicly. Surprise, surprise - the child felt awkward around the teacher, particularly since as things stand at the moment the child will be in that teacher's classroom next year. Clearly at least one parent is at fault, as is the teacher. Of course the child has done nothing wrong. Who should have to move, teacher or student?
Because my client's English is not ideal, the client is rather shy, and the child has no other advocate, it was essential that I be present to explain my client's position. Didn't hurt that I am a former teacher, so I have a bit better idea how schools really operate. I could see through the initial bureaucratic response and point out to the principal that there were some things that could be done to protect the child, even if it was uncomfortable to impose consequences on the adults who created the situation. Naturally, though, the principal promised to think about things, speak with various people, and get back to me. Nevertheless, the groundwork has been laid to take further action, if necessary.
Finally another emergency hearing the same day - this one to appoint an expert to evaluate the ramifications of a preschooler stating that one of the parents had been touching the child inappropriately. Lots of emotions, with my client repeatedly asking for an investigation to determine the ramifications, and the other party previously stonewalling. Minor's counsel had at first objected to further investigation, but new evidence surfaced that appeared to tip the scales in favor of having a trained professional evaluate the situation. High emotions on all sides, a fair amount of miscommunication and ambiguity about the underlying facts, and some somewhat unusual conflicts between what potential witnesses told me they heard and saw and what minor's counsel reported the potential witnesses had told minor's counsel. Finally, everyone seems to agree that an investigation is warranted to figure out what the child is saying, what the witnesses heard and saw, and what the heck it all means.
Both parties are under suspicion - one for possible inappropriate conduct and/or supervision and the other for possible false allegations. In my role as advocate for one of the parties, I was required to speak up and challenge the methodology and accuracy of minor's counsel, who appears to be a dedicated and caring attorney.
So, today, I am thankful that I am in this position where I can make a difference in people's lives. In none of these situations could my clients have accomplished the results alone, each was relying on me to protect their interests. Very humbling position to be in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment