Why would you write that? Your message was already way too long even before including that gratuitous lie.I assume you to be a very busy man so I will keep this brief.
I thought it was funny.crystal said:Why would you write that? Your message was already way too long even before including that gratuitous lie.I assume you to be a very busy man so I will keep this brief.
Don't waste your time.Em, they likely won't respond and will just kick you out when you don't sign the contract. Just sign it so they can't do it. Sometimes you have to take your lumps that aren't justified. Its life.
Though you shouldnt be cursing at school admin no matter the case. They aren't a friggin 7/11. An online 2yr school cares 0 about brand loyalty.
It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual adviceI think this is a question for Zow.without running a conflict check.
I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
MC Gas Money said:Its a good idea but I think ill just ignore it. The kid isnt mine so its none of my business.Thorn said:It's from some department or person. Google them and figure it out.MC Gas Money said:No number providedThorn said:um, call the person that wrote the letter?
Though I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.
Sounds like they may want that someone to be you. And you would like them to not find that you're responsible financially if you refuse custody.I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
Same thing as with the first child. They are trying to find someone to take custody
As I indicated above, I cannot give you specific advice without knowing for sure that doing so doesn't disadvantage a current or past client. In your case, while I do not recognize the bare facts of your case and I believe I recall you indicating that your ex lives in an area outside my general jurisdiction and highly doubt I have a conflict, I can't give you direct advice on your case other than to strongly advise you to talk to your assigned attorney.Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.
3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.
4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.
To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).
1. Conflict is not to be taken literally. Whenever there are multiple parties involved in a civil or criminal case/lawsuit, legal "conflicts" arise. For example, in your case it is very likely that the interests of you, your ex, the baby, the state, and any potential fathers do not match up. Accordingly, each needs his own representation. It would be a "conflict" for your ex's lawyer to then give you advice because doing so may disadvantage her position. In this case, since I have current and past clients who are mothers in this very type of action, while incredibly unlikely, it is possible I represent her. Therefore, I cannot give you specific advice on what to do here EXCEPT TO TELL YOU TO TALK TO THE LAWYER YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO.I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.Conflict check?It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.I think this is a question for Zow.
Same thing as with the first child. They are trying to find someone to take custody
Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.
3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.
4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.
To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).
I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow
:bigredx: x1000From the original thread:
MC Gas Money said:Its a good idea but I think ill just ignore it. The kid isnt mine so its none of my business.Thorn said:It's from some department or person. Google them and figure it out.MC Gas Money said:No number providedThorn said:um, call the person that wrote the letter?
Though I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrowHere are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.
3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.
4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.
To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).
Makes me so angryPro bono clinic I run for low income persons. A local community center runs the program and is supposed to screen the clients for me.
Client: I need (X) do you do that?
Me: Sure I'd be happy to help
Client: Great, what do you need from me to get started?
Me: document 1,2,3,4,5
Client: What if I don't have that?
Me: Then I can't help, but these are fairly straightforward things. Are you sure you don't have them?
Client: Not on me no. But they are probably in my house.
Me: Ok, where do you live. If it's close I have other appointments. You can get it and come back.
Client: Well, I am staying at my house in [richest part of the area by far - talking Bill Gates level rich for the area] but my personal documents are in my house in Oregon. I only come here once or twice a month to relax and enjoy the boat or plane we have stored here.
WTF?!
Gotta love rich people that lie to a community center to get free legal advice when they can pay for it without even feeling the fee. GRRRRRRRR.
And doing a splendid job of it.Really trying to get this thread back on track here people.
Pathetic and laughable. Also tiresome. Son, I would not hire you to pick up my dog's ####. Hell, I wouldn't even allow you to do it for free.
Your job sounds so exciting.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
http://www.foxrothschild.com/uploadedfiles/practiceareas/securitiesfinancialinstitution/survey_nationalSurveyRestrictiveCovenants.pdfDoes anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
Being a lawyer seems like a lot of fun.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
Lesion beyond moiety, my friend. Lesion beyond moiety.Being a lawyer seems like a lot of fun.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
Yeah, it's hard to find the information relating to the acquisition context. I found that in employment >two years is presumed in FL to be unreasonable, but that doesn't help me. I just can't figure out where this seven-year thing came from. I think it's an urban legend within the company, and people just keep repeating it to each other but no one knows the source.Crap - you said non hiring. I don't think that fits then. Oh well.
I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
The second link I gave you has information based on the purchase of a business - that would be what you are looking for, no?Yeah, it's hard to find the information relating to the acquisition context. I found that in employment >two years is presumed in FL to be unreasonable, but that doesn't help me. I just can't figure out where this seven-year thing came from. I think it's an urban legend within the company, and people just keep repeating it to each other but no one knows the source.Crap - you said non hiring. I don't think that fits then. Oh well.
Given that I never, ever do legal research, I wouldn't even know where to start outside of googling.
Oh well, it's a blue pencil state so I'll go with ten.
You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
That's it! Thanks! Sorry, didn't click your links after you had said they weren't applicable.Here:
Generally, covenants not-to-compete that are made in connection with the sale of a business follow the same provisions and guidelines as covenants not-to-compete in the employer/employee context. FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Such covenants made on or after July 1, 1996, are presumed reasonable if they are three years or less in duration and presumed unreasonable if they are more than seven years in duration. Id. at § 542.335(1)(d)(3). Nevertheless, covenants not-to-compete must not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business conveyed. Id. at § 542.335(1)©.
I might have engaged in a bit of hyperbole initially. I need to find out something like this perhaps once every 5-7 years, so really I haven't given a #### about that book until I just remembered it. But you are right--thank you for finding this.You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
I might have found it by pasting "50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context" into google and clicking the first link.That's it! Thanks! Sorry, didn't click your links after you had said they weren't applicable.Here:
Generally, covenants not-to-compete that are made in connection with the sale of a business follow the same provisions and guidelines as covenants not-to-compete in the employer/employee context. FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Such covenants made on or after July 1, 1996, are presumed reasonable if they are three years or less in duration and presumed unreasonable if they are more than seven years in duration. Id. at § 542.335(1)(d)(3). Nevertheless, covenants not-to-compete must not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business conveyed. Id. at § 542.335(1)©.
I might have engaged in a bit of hyperbole initially. I need to find out something like this perhaps once every 5-7 years, so really I haven't given a #### about that book until I just remembered it. But you are right--thank you for finding this.You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.I think the book you want is this.Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.
Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.
I've been in this position a few times as court appointed indigent counsel* and, ethically, it's tough. Big split amongst the indigent defense bar on how to weigh one's duty of confidentiality to the client versus duty of candor to the tribunal. I've always taken the position that the Court has made the determination and I don't know with 100 percent certainty that my client lied about his income or that the court didn't find him indigent anyway, so I keep my mouth shut despite the Armani suit and roll of 100s in my client's pocket.Pro bono clinic I run for low income persons. A local community center runs the program and is supposed to screen the clients for me.
Client: I need (X) do you do that?
Me: Sure I'd be happy to help
Client: Great, what do you need from me to get started?
Me: document 1,2,3,4,5
Client: What if I don't have that?
Me: Then I can't help, but these are fairly straightforward things. Are you sure you don't have them?
Client: Not on me no. But they are probably in my house.
Me: Ok, where do you live. If it's close I have other appointments. You can get it and come back.
Client: Well, I am staying at my house in [richest part of the area by far - talking Bill Gates level rich for the area] but my personal documents are in my house in Oregon. I only come here once or twice a month to relax and enjoy the boat or plane we have stored here.
WTF?!
Gotta love rich people that lie to a community center to get free legal advice when they can pay for it without even feeling the fee. GRRRRRRRR.
Bolded in your initial post above.How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrowHere are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.
3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.
4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.
To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).
JFCBolded in your initial post above.How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrowHere are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.
Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....
Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.
Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.
Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?
2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.
3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.
4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.
To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).