The citizens of Harris County and the Harris County family law community lost a great leader this past week with the passing away of a true gentleman the Honorable Brent Burg. Judge Burg has been an Associate Judge in the 312th District Court of Harris County for the past 12 years and had been a District Court Judge earlier in his career as well.
In addition to being extremely intelligent and hard working, Judge Burg always had an open door and a calm helpful demeanor. A true gentleman and great guy in a profession filled with stressed out ego-maniacs. As a young solo, there were many up and downs and not too many places to go for safe advice. Judge Burg always had his door open and time for a quick word even when he was extremely busy. He always treated everyone equally and had friends of all different ages, sexes and races.
I will miss you Judge Burg. I know that the children, parents, and family lawyers of this community will terribly miss you.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Busting Domicile Restrictions with Electronic Visitation
A domicile restriction is a clause in a divorce decree which orders that the children (and thus the parent(s) with custody) must live within a defined geographical area. The purpose of the clause is to keep the children and both parents living in the same geographical area, which in turn fulfills Texas Family Code Section 153.001 the Public Policy provision which states: " The Public Policy of this State is to: 1. assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents whom have shown the ability to act in the best interests of the child;"
In the Harris County Courts, if a parent requests a domicile restriction, it is almost a given that it will be granted by the court. The courts will often restrict the children to Harris County or to Harris and contiguous counties. The clause will also normally include language that if one parent moves from the restricted area, the other parent is then free to move with the children.
Family Law attorneys will often get retained on cases to modify a divorce decree to remove, terminate or bust a domicile restriction. A parent for one reason or another will want to move with the children and many of them frequently feel as though they are being held hostage in a place where they do not want to be. These cases are obviously very difficult from both sides. A party wanting to move with the children has to demonstrate that it would be in the best interests of the children for them to move. This can be demonstrated or refuted with extremely thoughtful and careful planning and preparation.
A New York Judge in a recent case ruled that an unemployed Mother living on Long Island would be able to move with her two children to Florida to live with her parents. The ruling was conditioned upon the Mother making the children available on SKYPE to talk to their father. This case really sets an unbelievable precedent. Please see the ABA Journal article on the case below:
In the Harris County Courts, if a parent requests a domicile restriction, it is almost a given that it will be granted by the court. The courts will often restrict the children to Harris County or to Harris and contiguous counties. The clause will also normally include language that if one parent moves from the restricted area, the other parent is then free to move with the children.
Family Law attorneys will often get retained on cases to modify a divorce decree to remove, terminate or bust a domicile restriction. A parent for one reason or another will want to move with the children and many of them frequently feel as though they are being held hostage in a place where they do not want to be. These cases are obviously very difficult from both sides. A party wanting to move with the children has to demonstrate that it would be in the best interests of the children for them to move. This can be demonstrated or refuted with extremely thoughtful and careful planning and preparation.
A New York Judge in a recent case ruled that an unemployed Mother living on Long Island would be able to move with her two children to Florida to live with her parents. The ruling was conditioned upon the Mother making the children available on SKYPE to talk to their father. This case really sets an unbelievable precedent. Please see the ABA Journal article on the case below:
Family Law
Judge Orders Skype Visits as Condition of Mom’s Move
Posted Aug 12, 2010 12:03 PM CDT
By Molly McDonough
A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.
This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, the New York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for "virtual visitation," giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.
In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, in Baker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, "will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children."
The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.
In granting the mother's request over the father's objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.
Hat tip: Legal Blog Watch.
Also see:
ABA Journal (2005): "Live-Action Interaction: Virtual Visitation Diminishes Distances Between Divorced Parents and Their Kids "
Journal of Law and Family Studies (PDF): "Virtual Parents: How Virtual Visitation Legislation Is Shaping the Future of Custody Law"
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Behind on Child Support? Don't drop the Soap
I had a case in the 245th District Court of Harris County earlier this week and had an opportunity to watch Judge Kuntz handle her Contempt docket. I watched two cases and the result in each case was incarceration of the Defendant for failing to pay child support.
In the first case, a Defendant had already been held in contempt and committed to jail, but his original sentence had been probated which in effect gave him another chance to pay his child support and remain free. This is a common scenario in all family courts to give the Defendant a second chance. The only terms of the probation in this type of case is that the Defendant will pay his current child and medical support as due and pay back any child support arrearages on an exact schedule. If the Defendant doesn't adhere to the terms of the probation in these cases, the lawyer for the party owed the support simply files a Motion to Revoke the Suspension of Commitment. The only issue at that point is whether or not the terms of the probation have been met. In the case that I was watching the Defendant was current on child support at the time of the hearing although he had fallen behind the first month after he had gone on probation. He did not have a lawyer for the Motion to Revoke hearing and seemed fairly confident that he could convince the Judge that he shouldn't be incarcerated. It took about ten minutes for Judge Kuntz to take over the questioning from the Petitioner's lawyer. Under questioning from the Judge (strange but a common occurrence in this particular court) the Defendant admitted that he had been late on the initial payments due to the wage withholding order not yet being in effect. He demonstrated that he had subsequently caught up the payments. The Judge after hearing the admission of the lateness immediately committed the Defendant to Jail.
In the second case a pro se Defendant whom had already been incarcerated for approximately five months, had filed a motion from jail requesting early relief. He had a six month sentence and wanted to get out a month early in order to get back to work and try to put his life back together. His x-wife to whom he owed the back support did not appear for the hearing although her lawyer did appear. The Defendant stumbled through his Motion awkwardly like most people representing themselves. The judge took about ten minutes to deny his motion and have the bailiff take him back to jail.
I have handled both sides of child support enforcement cases for twenty years. There was a time when most of the Harris County Courts would not put in jail a child support obligor whom had a job and was trying to make payments. The Judges always felt that something is better than nothing and if we put the obligor in jail, he will lose his job and the obligee will get nothing for a long period of time. Similarly it is really unprecedented for a party to no show to a hearing yet still win the hearing. Normally the failure of a client to show up for a hearing is a slam dunk victory for the other side. The common denominator in both of these situations is the failure to pay child support. The Harris County Judges are showing no leniency in these cases at the current point in time.
In the first case, a Defendant had already been held in contempt and committed to jail, but his original sentence had been probated which in effect gave him another chance to pay his child support and remain free. This is a common scenario in all family courts to give the Defendant a second chance. The only terms of the probation in this type of case is that the Defendant will pay his current child and medical support as due and pay back any child support arrearages on an exact schedule. If the Defendant doesn't adhere to the terms of the probation in these cases, the lawyer for the party owed the support simply files a Motion to Revoke the Suspension of Commitment. The only issue at that point is whether or not the terms of the probation have been met. In the case that I was watching the Defendant was current on child support at the time of the hearing although he had fallen behind the first month after he had gone on probation. He did not have a lawyer for the Motion to Revoke hearing and seemed fairly confident that he could convince the Judge that he shouldn't be incarcerated. It took about ten minutes for Judge Kuntz to take over the questioning from the Petitioner's lawyer. Under questioning from the Judge (strange but a common occurrence in this particular court) the Defendant admitted that he had been late on the initial payments due to the wage withholding order not yet being in effect. He demonstrated that he had subsequently caught up the payments. The Judge after hearing the admission of the lateness immediately committed the Defendant to Jail.
In the second case a pro se Defendant whom had already been incarcerated for approximately five months, had filed a motion from jail requesting early relief. He had a six month sentence and wanted to get out a month early in order to get back to work and try to put his life back together. His x-wife to whom he owed the back support did not appear for the hearing although her lawyer did appear. The Defendant stumbled through his Motion awkwardly like most people representing themselves. The judge took about ten minutes to deny his motion and have the bailiff take him back to jail.
I have handled both sides of child support enforcement cases for twenty years. There was a time when most of the Harris County Courts would not put in jail a child support obligor whom had a job and was trying to make payments. The Judges always felt that something is better than nothing and if we put the obligor in jail, he will lose his job and the obligee will get nothing for a long period of time. Similarly it is really unprecedented for a party to no show to a hearing yet still win the hearing. Normally the failure of a client to show up for a hearing is a slam dunk victory for the other side. The common denominator in both of these situations is the failure to pay child support. The Harris County Judges are showing no leniency in these cases at the current point in time.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Child Support Collection or Abuse of Legal System?
I just read a very interesting Associated Press article by Linda Deutsch involving a current trial with adult children suing their biological father for child support. The father happens to be billionaire Donald Bren a/k/a #16 on the Forbes 400 of the richest men in the world. Bren, 78, a real estate mogul, apparently had two kids in his late fifties with a Ms. Jennifer Gold. The children have brought a lawsuit against their father in a Los Angeles county court for child support. They are requesting $400,000.00 per month retroactively to their respective births for a total of $100 million dollars. Bren's lawyer produced 4 contracts signed by Gold both before and after both pregnancies in which Bren obligated himself to pay child support starting at $3,500.00 per month at the beginning and ended up paying $18,000.00 per month for several years prior to the children being emancipated. Apparently this was not enough.
I see several issues here that jump out at me, sadly enough none of which involve the billionaire paying his children more money. The issues that jump out at me are as follows:
1. Child Support is capped in many states well below the figures already paid by Bren. In Texas he would have been on the hook for a maximum of $1,875.00 per month.
2. The children's mother already agreed to the child support figures by contract while the children were minors. Child support is due to the Mother not to the children. Apparently Bren fulfilled this contract. How could a court even consider going back 18-22 years and re-establishing a new child support amount to be paid to the children. It seems outlandish to me that it would even make it to trial. It must have something to do with California law.
3. Where is the pride of the children? How do you convince yourself that you are entitled to this money? Why are you not earning your own money?
4. Is the lawyer for the children, Hillel Chodos being paid on an hourly fee or is he being paid on a contingent fee? My guess is that the lawyer is being paid on a contingent fee. I cannot imagine that these children would be funding this litigation against Bren. I have to think that this is a publicity stunt by the lawyer. He probably hoped that the 78 year old well known for his privacy would have settled out of court which would have given the lawyer a great pay day. Obviously Bren did not want to settle and the lawyer is left with his bills being paid by free publicity.
Please enjoy the Deutsch article below:
I see several issues here that jump out at me, sadly enough none of which involve the billionaire paying his children more money. The issues that jump out at me are as follows:
1. Child Support is capped in many states well below the figures already paid by Bren. In Texas he would have been on the hook for a maximum of $1,875.00 per month.
2. The children's mother already agreed to the child support figures by contract while the children were minors. Child support is due to the Mother not to the children. Apparently Bren fulfilled this contract. How could a court even consider going back 18-22 years and re-establishing a new child support amount to be paid to the children. It seems outlandish to me that it would even make it to trial. It must have something to do with California law.
3. Where is the pride of the children? How do you convince yourself that you are entitled to this money? Why are you not earning your own money?
4. Is the lawyer for the children, Hillel Chodos being paid on an hourly fee or is he being paid on a contingent fee? My guess is that the lawyer is being paid on a contingent fee. I cannot imagine that these children would be funding this litigation against Bren. I have to think that this is a publicity stunt by the lawyer. He probably hoped that the 78 year old well known for his privacy would have settled out of court which would have given the lawyer a great pay day. Obviously Bren did not want to settle and the lawyer is left with his bills being paid by free publicity.
Please enjoy the Deutsch article below:
Billionaire Eases Grip on Privacy During Lawsuit
Updated: 2 days 5 hours ago
AP
LOS ANGELES (Aug. 19) - Billionaire Donald Bren, who has spent a lifetime protecting his privacy, is breaking the pattern by showing up in a Los Angeles courtroom to air details of his private life in a legal battle with his two grown children from a long-ago love affair, who are seeking millions.
The issue is money and alleged broken promises.
Bren's lawyer, John Quinn, said Wednesday in opening statements to the jury that the 78-year-old real estate mogul didn't make or break any promises regarding the children. He just had no relationship with them.
"This is not a case about whether Mr. Bren was a good father, a bad father or an indifferent father," said Quinn. "He wasn't around, so he wasn't a father for most of the time. ... He's never going to be to those children father of the year."
On one side of the courtroom sat Bren, a patrician-looking gray-haired man who is one of the nation's wealthiest people. On the other side sat Christie Bren, 22, and David Bren, 18. They are suing their father for $400,000 a month in child support retroactive to the time they were born. That comes to about $100 million.
Attorney Hillel Chodos, representing the children, painted their father as a high-living executive who has two California homes, a New York apartment, a Sun Valley ranch, two yachts and five private jets.
"Donald Bren is able to live and does live like a maharajah," said Chodos.
Donald Bren, chairman of the Irvine Co., has an estimated net worth of $12 billion and is 16th in Forbes' magazine's ranking of the 400 richest Americans. He once told the children's mother, Jennifer McKay Gold, whom he never married, that he spent $3 million to $5 million a month on personal expenses, Chodos said.
Quinn said that the figure was probably closer to $125,000 and that the planes were part of a private jet-leasing company Bren owns.
Chodos said the children's mother will testify that Bren promised to always claim the children as his and to retain a parental relationship with them.
Quinn denied that and painted a very different portrait of his client: a self-made real estate magnate who is obsessed with privacy and works seven days a week, barely taking time off for vacations.
"He doesn't have a chauffeur. He has only one car. He's a man who shines his own shoes, pumps his own gas," said Quinn.
"We don't apologize for it -- he is a very wealthy man," said Quinn, who acknowledged that Bren "lives a comfortable lifestyle."
The billionaire's attitude toward the children was always clear to their mother, Quinn said.
"Those promises were never made. There's not a scrap of paper. There are no witnesses. She never told anyone about these promises," Quinn said.
Quinn showed jurors a series of four legal agreements involving child support entered into by Gold each time she became pregnant and after the children were born. The contracts, beginning in 1988, rose from $3,500 a month to $18,000 a month between 1992 and 2002.
"These children never wanted for anything," he said.
Chodos said that was not the issue. "They lived a nice life," he conceded. "But this is about what they were entitled to."
The issue is money and alleged broken promises.
Bren's lawyer, John Quinn, said Wednesday in opening statements to the jury that the 78-year-old real estate mogul didn't make or break any promises regarding the children. He just had no relationship with them.
Reed Saxon, AP
Billionaire developer Donald Bren is being sued for child support by his two grown children from a long-ago affair, David and Christie.
"This is not a case about whether Mr. Bren was a good father, a bad father or an indifferent father," said Quinn. "He wasn't around, so he wasn't a father for most of the time. ... He's never going to be to those children father of the year."
On one side of the courtroom sat Bren, a patrician-looking gray-haired man who is one of the nation's wealthiest people. On the other side sat Christie Bren, 22, and David Bren, 18. They are suing their father for $400,000 a month in child support retroactive to the time they were born. That comes to about $100 million.
Reed Saxon, AP
Jennifer McKay Gold and her son David Leroy Bren, whose father is Donald Bren, leave court on Wednesday. Gold is Donald Bren's former girlfriend.
"Donald Bren is able to live and does live like a maharajah," said Chodos.
Donald Bren, chairman of the Irvine Co., has an estimated net worth of $12 billion and is 16th in Forbes' magazine's ranking of the 400 richest Americans. He once told the children's mother, Jennifer McKay Gold, whom he never married, that he spent $3 million to $5 million a month on personal expenses, Chodos said.
Quinn said that the figure was probably closer to $125,000 and that the planes were part of a private jet-leasing company Bren owns.
Chodos said the children's mother will testify that Bren promised to always claim the children as his and to retain a parental relationship with them.
Quinn denied that and painted a very different portrait of his client: a self-made real estate magnate who is obsessed with privacy and works seven days a week, barely taking time off for vacations.
"He doesn't have a chauffeur. He has only one car. He's a man who shines his own shoes, pumps his own gas," said Quinn.
"We don't apologize for it -- he is a very wealthy man," said Quinn, who acknowledged that Bren "lives a comfortable lifestyle."
The billionaire's attitude toward the children was always clear to their mother, Quinn said.
"Those promises were never made. There's not a scrap of paper. There are no witnesses. She never told anyone about these promises," Quinn said.
Quinn showed jurors a series of four legal agreements involving child support entered into by Gold each time she became pregnant and after the children were born. The contracts, beginning in 1988, rose from $3,500 a month to $18,000 a month between 1992 and 2002.
"These children never wanted for anything," he said.
Chodos said that was not the issue. "They lived a nice life," he conceded. "But this is about what they were entitled to."
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Kids and Divorce
On the topic of Kids and Divorce there will never be enough new information or good advice. It is an overwhelming topic because of the negative long term ramifications when the separating and divorcing spouses fail to place the children at the forefront of all future decisions.
As divorce attorneys we see faulty decision making of single parents causing problems for the children all of the time. The innocent child or children whom were the only people not at fault in the failure of the marriage are left to truly suffer because of the selfishness, vengeance, or even sometimes sheer ignorance of the parents. How many times do I hear complaints that a parent will not let a child call the other parent during a period of possession or refuses to send the child's favorite clothes or toys t0 the home of the other parent on an exchange of possession. These are simply two examples of a multitude of ridiculous parental behavior. One or both of these examples happen time and time again in almost all of my high conflict cases. The child is the one having to move from home to home every few days, yet he/she cannot have her "favorite things" to soothe the transition.This would require nothing more than common human decency from a parent to their child. Instead we have parents treating their own children in a manner that they would not treat an acquaintance or even a stranger? It is also amazing that when you try and speak with the guilty party in these situations all they want to do is argue with you and tell you why they are justified. Why is it so hard for divorcing spouses to put the children at the forefront?
This post came about as a result of an an interesting article I read today by Jeanne Sager on AOL. It is entitled " How to talk to your Kids about Divorce." It has some interesting points for single parenting and for people in a Divorce and Custody situation. It also lists some books that are age appropriate for discussing divorce with children. I have included the text of the Jeanne Sager's article below.
Divorce is not an easy time for any family, but studies have shown the period leading up to the actual divorce can be one of the hardest for kids.
So, how have so many children emerged from divorced homes to become happy, healthy members of society? Their parents put in the time and effort to make it happen.
"The children need to know that they will always come first," advises Dr. Carole Lieberman, a California psychiatrist who's a member of the clinical faculty at UCLA. "Both parents -- and all their children -- need to be there when they break the news of divorce. And the most important messages to communicate are that it is not the child's fault and that the parents will still always love them."
Before, during and after the message is broken, parents need to be aware of what they're saying in front of the kids. A study completed at Cornell University in 2009, found kids in "high-conflict married households" fare no better than kids in single parent households. The researchers linked exposure to parental fighting to poor academic achievement, increased substance abuse and "early family formation and dissolution." If you can't get along in front of the kids, try e-mail.
When you're talking to the kids, Dr. John Mayer, a clinical psychologist from Chicago and author of "Family Fit: Find Your Balance," says to avoid saying the marriage's lack of success is "because of the kids or kid's problems." Instead, opt for phrasing such as "this will make us better parents, a better mom, a better dad. This is my promise to you children," Mayer says.
Your emotional state might be fragile, but so is a child's. A 2001 study from Ohio State University found kids were experiencing problems up to a year before the divorce was finalized. Marriage counseling is now a standard part of the divorce process in many states, but signing kids up for their own counseling sessions is also wise.
Check with your health insurance provider for covered therapy sources or contact the social worker at your child's school to set up an appointment. Divorce Care 4 Kids offers support groups for children going through a divorce across the U.S., and your child's school might suggest an alternate near you.
Finally, answer your child's questions.
"Don't urge your child to just 'get over it'," Lieberman says. "Do not expect the children to just accept this; be patient with all of their follow-up questions, crying and temper tantrums." Where possible, be as concrete as possible.
More resources
Reading a book can help quell fears and open the lines of communication between you and your child. Try a few of these:
Ages 4-8: "Dinosaurs Divorce: A Guide for Changing Families" by Marc Brown and Laurie Krasny Brown. A book that normalizes feelings for kids, this is an age-appropriate answer to many of their questions.
For ages 9-12: "Divorced but Still My Parents" by Shirley Thomas. Written by a psychologist, this brings the nebulous issues of divorce down to the very real and easy to understand emotions pre-teens are dealing with.
For ages 12 and up: "The Divorce Express" by Paula Danziger. A fictionalized account of a teen being shuffled back and forth between her divorced parents, this novel will speak to kids who don't want to be told how to feel by a workbook or counselor. Instead, they'll identify themselves in the main character, and hopefully open up doors of communication.
As divorce attorneys we see faulty decision making of single parents causing problems for the children all of the time. The innocent child or children whom were the only people not at fault in the failure of the marriage are left to truly suffer because of the selfishness, vengeance, or even sometimes sheer ignorance of the parents. How many times do I hear complaints that a parent will not let a child call the other parent during a period of possession or refuses to send the child's favorite clothes or toys t0 the home of the other parent on an exchange of possession. These are simply two examples of a multitude of ridiculous parental behavior. One or both of these examples happen time and time again in almost all of my high conflict cases. The child is the one having to move from home to home every few days, yet he/she cannot have her "favorite things" to soothe the transition.This would require nothing more than common human decency from a parent to their child. Instead we have parents treating their own children in a manner that they would not treat an acquaintance or even a stranger? It is also amazing that when you try and speak with the guilty party in these situations all they want to do is argue with you and tell you why they are justified. Why is it so hard for divorcing spouses to put the children at the forefront?
This post came about as a result of an an interesting article I read today by Jeanne Sager on AOL. It is entitled " How to talk to your Kids about Divorce." It has some interesting points for single parenting and for people in a Divorce and Custody situation. It also lists some books that are age appropriate for discussing divorce with children. I have included the text of the Jeanne Sager's article below.
How to Talk to Your Kids About Divorce
Categories: Divorce & Custody, Single Parenting
Let kids know you will always love them, despite the divorce. Credit: dno1967, Flickr
So, how have so many children emerged from divorced homes to become happy, healthy members of society? Their parents put in the time and effort to make it happen.
"The children need to know that they will always come first," advises Dr. Carole Lieberman, a California psychiatrist who's a member of the clinical faculty at UCLA. "Both parents -- and all their children -- need to be there when they break the news of divorce. And the most important messages to communicate are that it is not the child's fault and that the parents will still always love them."
Before, during and after the message is broken, parents need to be aware of what they're saying in front of the kids. A study completed at Cornell University in 2009, found kids in "high-conflict married households" fare no better than kids in single parent households. The researchers linked exposure to parental fighting to poor academic achievement, increased substance abuse and "early family formation and dissolution." If you can't get along in front of the kids, try e-mail.
When you're talking to the kids, Dr. John Mayer, a clinical psychologist from Chicago and author of "Family Fit: Find Your Balance," says to avoid saying the marriage's lack of success is "because of the kids or kid's problems." Instead, opt for phrasing such as "this will make us better parents, a better mom, a better dad. This is my promise to you children," Mayer says.
Your emotional state might be fragile, but so is a child's. A 2001 study from Ohio State University found kids were experiencing problems up to a year before the divorce was finalized. Marriage counseling is now a standard part of the divorce process in many states, but signing kids up for their own counseling sessions is also wise.
Check with your health insurance provider for covered therapy sources or contact the social worker at your child's school to set up an appointment. Divorce Care 4 Kids offers support groups for children going through a divorce across the U.S., and your child's school might suggest an alternate near you.
Finally, answer your child's questions.
"Don't urge your child to just 'get over it'," Lieberman says. "Do not expect the children to just accept this; be patient with all of their follow-up questions, crying and temper tantrums." Where possible, be as concrete as possible.
More resources
Reading a book can help quell fears and open the lines of communication between you and your child. Try a few of these:
Ages 4-8: "Dinosaurs Divorce: A Guide for Changing Families" by Marc Brown and Laurie Krasny Brown. A book that normalizes feelings for kids, this is an age-appropriate answer to many of their questions.
For ages 9-12: "Divorced but Still My Parents" by Shirley Thomas. Written by a psychologist, this brings the nebulous issues of divorce down to the very real and easy to understand emotions pre-teens are dealing with.
For ages 12 and up: "The Divorce Express" by Paula Danziger. A fictionalized account of a teen being shuffled back and forth between her divorced parents, this novel will speak to kids who don't want to be told how to feel by a workbook or counselor. Instead, they'll identify themselves in the main character, and hopefully open up doors of communication.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Advanced Family Law Seminar
Beginning this Sunday August 8, 2010 and continuing through Thursday of next week, the family law bar comprised of family law lawyers and judges throughout the state will converge on San Antonio to attend the Advanced Family Law continuing legal education seminar. In my opinion this seminar is an annual "must attend" as it is the most informative seminar in our chosen field. This seminar has been going on since I started practicing twenty years ago and has always been held in high esteem. Whereas most seminars last two days, this seminar lasts five days and seemingly touches on every areas of family law. The speakers are an unbelievable collection of family law talent. The resource materials provided to each participant are invaluable as I use them in preparation for almost every hearing that I attend.
If you are a non-lawyer looking to hire a family law lawyer next week in Houston, Dallas, Austin, or anywhere not San Antonio "buyer beware" as all of the real talent will be sharpening their skills at this seminar.
If you are a non-lawyer looking to hire a family law lawyer next week in Houston, Dallas, Austin, or anywhere not San Antonio "buyer beware" as all of the real talent will be sharpening their skills at this seminar.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
You Can Pay Now or You Can Pay Later
As the recession continues and seemingly worsens, people have to get more creative with their money saving decisions.There are obvious areas to save such as luxury items, entertainment, travel, and expensive clothing. Additionally statistics show that consumers are now even cutting expenses in the areas previously not affected such as non-emergency medicine and law. In medicine, people are putting off procedures, tests, m.r.i. scans and other electives which are not deemed to be an emergency. In the legal field citizens are cutting back by not hiring lawyers and instead representing themselves.
As a Harris County Texas Family Law Lawyers, I see it everyday. In all of the courts, people are more often representing themselves. It can happen from the outset of the case or it can happen after a lawyer has been hired to initiate the case. It is not just happening with the Attorney General dockets that are composed mostly of lower income but it is happening in all of the courts and in all types of cases. Every day I see numerous people representing themselves or at least making the attempt.
The end result of a client representing himself is almost never successful and it can be tragic. A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney which includes full knowledge of the laws and rules including deadlines, proper document submission, and penalties for mistakes in these areas. The penalties can be severe in family court where the court has the right to make decisions in regards to your children, your property, and your freedom . A pro se litigant will almost never win a case against a licensed attorney regardless of the intelligence of the person and regardless of the facts of the case. Knowledge of the rules and the procedures is too much of an advantage to the client of a licensed attorney for a pro se litigant to overcome.
A recent American Bar Journal article expounded on the issue of the pro se litigant.
Judges Say Litigants Are Increasingly Going Pro Se—at Their Own Peril
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_say_litigants_increasingly_going_pro_se--at_their_own_/68957/
Posted Jul 12, 2010 11:39 AM CDT
By Terry Carter
A survey of nearly 1,200 state trial judges around the country indicates that the weak economy has increased the number of litigants representing themselves in foreclosures, domestic relations, consumer issues and non-foreclosure housing matters; and the judges say litigants are doing a poor job as well as burdening courts already hurt by cutbacks.
Self-representation is resulting in worse outcomes for litigants, according to 62 percent of the judges. The greatest problem is failure to present necessary evidence, 94 percent of all respondents said.
That was followed by procedural errors, ineffective witness examination and failure to properly object to evidence. Seventy-eight percent of judges say the increase in self-representation is hurting the courts, especially by slowing down the docket.
Copyright 2010 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
It is really a catch-22 situation. People either do not have money to afford a lawyer or do not want to spend the little money that they have left on the lawyer. (In family law the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many of the divorces are caused in the first place by "money problems.") However if they enter into the litigation arena on their own and without a licensed experienced attorney by their side, they will often regret this decision for many years to come. They will inevitably have to come back into court, often a short time later, and in a worse position which is much more expensive to fix the second time around.
I often tell my clients you have to look at this expense as if you are buying a house or at least a car. If you have kids involved your court orders may be in effect for 10-15 years if not more. The court orders will directly affect your relationship with your children and your ability to protect and be involved with your children. You have to look at this financial decision as one that you can amortize over the years that your children are still at home. You cannot look at family law legal expenses as a short term decision. These are funds that if spent correctly on the right lawyer the first time around, will pay dividends back to you for years to come.
As a Harris County Texas Family Law Lawyers, I see it everyday. In all of the courts, people are more often representing themselves. It can happen from the outset of the case or it can happen after a lawyer has been hired to initiate the case. It is not just happening with the Attorney General dockets that are composed mostly of lower income but it is happening in all of the courts and in all types of cases. Every day I see numerous people representing themselves or at least making the attempt.
The end result of a client representing himself is almost never successful and it can be tragic. A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney which includes full knowledge of the laws and rules including deadlines, proper document submission, and penalties for mistakes in these areas. The penalties can be severe in family court where the court has the right to make decisions in regards to your children, your property, and your freedom . A pro se litigant will almost never win a case against a licensed attorney regardless of the intelligence of the person and regardless of the facts of the case. Knowledge of the rules and the procedures is too much of an advantage to the client of a licensed attorney for a pro se litigant to overcome.
A recent American Bar Journal article expounded on the issue of the pro se litigant.
Judges Say Litigants Are Increasingly Going Pro Se—at Their Own Peril
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_say_litigants_increasingly_going_pro_se--at_their_own_/68957/
Posted Jul 12, 2010 11:39 AM CDT
By Terry Carter
A survey of nearly 1,200 state trial judges around the country indicates that the weak economy has increased the number of litigants representing themselves in foreclosures, domestic relations, consumer issues and non-foreclosure housing matters; and the judges say litigants are doing a poor job as well as burdening courts already hurt by cutbacks.
Self-representation is resulting in worse outcomes for litigants, according to 62 percent of the judges. The greatest problem is failure to present necessary evidence, 94 percent of all respondents said.
That was followed by procedural errors, ineffective witness examination and failure to properly object to evidence. Seventy-eight percent of judges say the increase in self-representation is hurting the courts, especially by slowing down the docket.
Copyright 2010 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
It is really a catch-22 situation. People either do not have money to afford a lawyer or do not want to spend the little money that they have left on the lawyer. (In family law the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many of the divorces are caused in the first place by "money problems.") However if they enter into the litigation arena on their own and without a licensed experienced attorney by their side, they will often regret this decision for many years to come. They will inevitably have to come back into court, often a short time later, and in a worse position which is much more expensive to fix the second time around.
I often tell my clients you have to look at this expense as if you are buying a house or at least a car. If you have kids involved your court orders may be in effect for 10-15 years if not more. The court orders will directly affect your relationship with your children and your ability to protect and be involved with your children. You have to look at this financial decision as one that you can amortize over the years that your children are still at home. You cannot look at family law legal expenses as a short term decision. These are funds that if spent correctly on the right lawyer the first time around, will pay dividends back to you for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)