Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads


Recommended Posts

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?

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an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact).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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.

How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't know if there's a real pinnacle to this profession. Some times it really seems like there isn't one. But I do now know that when you're standing there waiting and hoping for two words instead

Made partner today. 

Big news for The_Son - just found out he got the Rubenstein Scholarship from Chicago! Full tuition + a $20,000 per year stipend. Last week he was fortunate enough to be offered a full-tuition scholars

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.

How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

:lmao: JFC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

Oh lol

You think its the same guy this time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

Oh lol

You think its the same guy this time?

If it's in the same jurisdiction/court usually the governmental actor doing the assigning will try to keep people with the same attorney on new cases. That said, Arizona has like a dozen different counties with somewhat different appointing schemes and unique budgetary concerns so what I just said is not always the case.

At the very least, calling your previous attorney will get you a lot farther than a message board because that attorney should at least be able to give you some quick advice on your letter.*

*Ideally he's a nice guy and you catch him at a time where he has a free moment and will talk to you. Technically though if he's previously withdrawn from your case he may not be obligated to do so though and may refuse to speak to you about a new case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.
Oh lol

You think its the same guy this time?

If it's in the same jurisdiction/court usually the governmental actor doing the assigning will try to keep people with the same attorney on new cases. That said, Arizona has like a dozen different counties with somewhat different appointing schemes and unique budgetary concerns so what I just said is not always the case.

At the very least, calling your previous attorney will get you a lot farther than a message board because that attorney should at least be able to give you some quick advice on your letter.*

*Ideally he's a nice guy and you catch him at a time where he has a free moment and will talk to you. Technically though if he's previously withdrawn from your case he may not be obligated to do so though and may refuse to speak to you about a new case.

why would he have been withdrawn?
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.
Oh lol

You think its the same guy this time?

If it's in the same jurisdiction/court usually the governmental actor doing the assigning will try to keep people with the same attorney on new cases. That said, Arizona has like a dozen different counties with somewhat different appointing schemes and unique budgetary concerns so what I just said is not always the case.

At the very least, calling your previous attorney will get you a lot farther than a message board because that attorney should at least be able to give you some quick advice on your letter.*

*Ideally he's a nice guy and you catch him at a time where he has a free moment and will talk to you. Technically though if he's previously withdrawn from your case he may not be obligated to do so though and may refuse to speak to you about a new case.

why would he have been withdrawn?

Because, based on the fact he was appointed on a case regarding a different child two years ago, odds are that case has reached at least some form of conclusion. And if the case reached its conclusion the scope of his appointment would be over. Indigent counsel doesn't mean free counsel for anything forever.

But again, CALL THE ATTORNEY WHO WAS APPOINTED TO YOU (AT LEAST AT SOME POINT) WHO KNOWS THE BACKGROUND OF YOU AND YOUR CASE AND CAN ETHICALLY PROVIDE YOU WITH SPECIFIC ADVICE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't one of you guys file an injunction for abuse of thread?

I'm probably a lot at fault here. I just can't help it though when I hear somebody take such dumb position on something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't one of you guys file an injunction for abuse of thread?

I'm probably a lot at fault here. I just can't help it though when I hear somebody take such dumb position on something.

WELCOME TO THE FFA!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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 tomorrow

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.
How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.
Oh lol

You think its the same guy this time?

If it's in the same jurisdiction/court usually the governmental actor doing the assigning will try to keep people with the same attorney on new cases. That said, Arizona has like a dozen different counties with somewhat different appointing schemes and unique budgetary concerns so what I just said is not always the case.

At the very least, calling your previous attorney will get you a lot farther than a message board because that attorney should at least be able to give you some quick advice on your letter.*

*Ideally he's a nice guy and you catch him at a time where he has a free moment and will talk to you. Technically though if he's previously withdrawn from your case he may not be obligated to do so though and may refuse to speak to you about a new case.

why would he have been withdrawn?

Because, based on the fact he was appointed on a case regarding a different child two years ago, odds are that case has reached at least some form of conclusion. And if the case reached its conclusion the scope of his appointment would be over. Indigent counsel doesn't mean free counsel for anything forever.

But again, CALL THE ATTORNEY WHO WAS APPOINTED TO YOU (AT LEAST AT SOME POINT) WHO KNOWS THE BACKGROUND OF YOU AND YOUR CASE AND CAN ETHICALLY PROVIDE YOU WITH SPECIFIC ADVICE.

That case was settled a year ago. This is another child. My ex just keeps pumping them out.

Anyway im going to just call the court tomorrow at the designated time.

Thank you zow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krista. ... Google scholar is your friend. Especially if there are research things you don't need ll the time.

Even if it is something you need a lot. I start on scholar before going to Westlaw these days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krista. ... Google scholar is your friend. Especially if there are research things you don't need ll the time.

Even if it is something you need a lot. I start on scholar before going to Westlaw these days.

Same here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Whatever happens I just hope they use my DNA sample from last year and drop me from the case so I can get on with my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Any chance our buddy gets sent to jail?

For a paternity test?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Whatever happens I just hope they use my DNA sample from last year and drop me from the case so I can get on with my life.

That was for a different child. The legal presumption would likely still apply to a new child (although DCS would still likely know to try and find a bio dad).

The good news is that you're divorced (I think - if not ####### do that immediately) so it shouldn't come up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Any chance our buddy gets sent to jail?

No

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Whatever happens I just hope they use my DNA sample from last year and drop me from the case so I can get on with my life.

That was for a different child. The legal presumption would likely still apply to a new child (although DCS would still likely know to try and find a bio dad).

The good news is that you're divorced (I think - if not ####### do that immediately) so it shouldn't come up again.

They cant use the DNA profile already on file?

We are divorced but the child was born right before it ended. It took almost 3 years because she keeps having children with random men

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zow

Im dumb because I dont know anything about the legal system?

Ive never had to deal with it til I married that mess

I'm referring to the "nuisance" and "not my problem" comments which indicated you may just let this go and ignore it. Such a sentiment is incredibly dumb.

I'm glad to hear you are calling tomorrow as a precaution. That is very not dumb. Hopefully the court tells you the matter has been taken off the calendar.

Any chance our buddy gets sent to jail?

No

:kicksrock:

You dislike me enough that you want me incarcerated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krista. ... Google scholar is your friend. Especially if there are research things you don't need ll the time.

Even if it is something you need a lot. I start on scholar before going to Westlaw these days.

Thanks, guys. Never heard of it but will check it out in seven years when I need to look something up again. ;) I haven't used Westlaw or Lexis since law school. One of the benefits of M&A is that there is rarely any actual law involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC, people, can't you just ignore?

I did a long time ago. Tried to get us back on track.

Oh yes, I forgot to thank you for that. It was a valiant effort, and the courtroom story was well told. :thumbup:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Client is being sued by former tenant. Tenant claims that landlord illegally withheld the security deposit when they left the house. The facts though are these - prior to tenant moving in, landlord and tenant walked through the house and marked - and both ended up signing - a list of everything that was scratched, dirty, broken, maybe not working, etc. From that list, landlord had tenant sign an additional agreement to basically credit them the first two months rent so that the tenant could do the repairs - it helped them both out. Everything is good.

5 months into lease - so they only had to make 3 rent payments - they tell landlord they are moving out. Give really no reason. And don't pay that 5th month so they only paid 2 months rent out of pocket. They leave and turn the key over. Landlord goes in and the place is destroyed. Easily 5 grand in damages. Landlord is just tired of them, only bills them for the new rugs and not all the other work and returns 60% of the deposit. Tenant sues for the remainder claiming it was illegaly held and the damages to the property were there when they moved in.

Go to court. Every case gets sent to mediation. My mediator is a volunteer, not an attorney. Plaintiff's go first. They have a list of everything they did to the place to make it nice and the landlord is scum to keep any part of their money. My turn - we have a signed writing from the tenant as to what the damage was when they moved in, and agreement signed by them that they were going to fix it and now pictures of the damage when they left. They are new damages that exceed the money kept. We aren't giving them anything. Mediator kicks me out to let the plaintiff talk to him by himself.

He comes back to me about 20 minutes later. They have a list of damages, they are sympathetic you should offer them something. $750 should be fair. My client loses it. I tell her to let me talk. I tell the mediator, I understand they have a list. It's inadmissible for what they want to use it for. I actually have proof that will win the case for my clients. But because I know I should offer something in mediation my clients will offer 100 dollars and they have 10 minutes to accept it. The mediator got uppity with me! You know I want to talk to your clients without you because I don't think that they understand. Whoa there buddy. Let's be clear. If someone talks to them I am in the room. You can stop even thinking that now.

Then the mediator goes off on my clients - you know it must be nice to be rich and not have to worry about attorney fees but you should settle your case blah blah blah. My client told him to go eff himself and I had to apologize for that. And told him again, nicely. The offer is 100. It will not move. They have 9 minutes.

He kicks me out. Brings the plaintiffs in. I hear them crying loudly. 2 minutes later he calls us all back in. Sits us all down - he wants us to talk to each other and hear each others postitions so that we can come to an agreement because trying a case is difficult and no one in the room (he included me) knows the rules of court (I can recite the entire section I need for this trial you putz) and settling your case is always better. Plaintiff goes first. Starts talking to my client about how we are wrong and we should do the right thing. I let them talk for a minute and just stopped it. I asked the mediator, do we have a deal on $100? The Plaintiff husband lays into me - you know, you are really insulting. We are owed almost $1000 from your client, we worked on their house, they said they were nice people and now they want to screw me and my family out of all our money? No, we will take $750 and not a penny less.

This is when I go all A-Team style attorney. I can hear the theme song in the back of my head. I go back and forth mentally about whether or not I am Face or Hannibal. It can go either way. My statement and the following conversation :

Me: Sir, with all due respect, you have no case. Your list is inadmissable. The mediator lied to you. I do know the rules in that courtroom and you are't going to be able to say or do half the stuff you have said here. Meanwhile I have proof you are full of it. The only reason my client offered $100 is because I haven't had coffee yet and I want to get to the Dunkin Donuts across the street and have a cup before I have to actually start working hard today. So you can accept $100 or you can try your case. You will lose, and after I win this trial I am going to have my clients authorize me to sue you in the next courtroom across the hall for malicious prosecution and given the facts I will win that too, and you will have to pay my attorney fees for that fight. Which works for me because I'm going to Disney in November and could use some spending cash.

Plaintiff: You are an arrogant f-u-*-* you know that.

Me: I know. I usually am when I am 100% right and someone is trying to screw one of my clients.

Plaintiff: Well if you really think you are going to win then let's try the case. I've already talked to friends that have been here and they tell me (insert some stupid 5 minute tirade that non-lawyers say when they think they know the law because they watch Law and Order and their cousin got out of a speeding ticket once.) So let's go.

Me: You know, I want to apologize to you. If I knew you were coming to this court armed with the knowledge of lawyers on TV and your cousin I would have taken you more seriously. The offer will be increased to $101 and you have 30 seconds to say yes or its off the table.

And with that I told the mediator that we were leaving and going to report that we are ready for trial and pull my clients out of the room. Mediator hated me by now. He comes and gets me 5 minutes later. You win counsel, they agree to $101.00. (No **** Sherlock).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Client is being sued by former tenant. Tenant claims that landlord illegally withheld the security deposit when they left the house. The facts though are these - prior to tenant moving in, landlord and tenant walked through the house and marked - and both ended up signing - a list of everything that was scratched, dirty, broken, maybe not working, etc. From that list, landlord had tenant sign an additional agreement to basically credit them the first two months rent so that the tenant could do the repairs - it helped them both out. Everything is good.

5 months into lease - so they only had to make 3 rent payments - they tell landlord they are moving out. Give really no reason. And don't pay that 5th month so they only paid 2 months rent out of pocket. They leave and turn the key over. Landlord goes in and the place is destroyed. Easily 5 grand in damages. Landlord is just tired of them, only bills them for the new rugs and not all the other work and returns 60% of the deposit. Tenant sues for the remainder claiming it was illegaly held and the damages to the property were there when they moved in.

Go to court. Every case gets sent to mediation. My mediator is a volunteer, not an attorney. Plaintiff's go first. They have a list of everything they did to the place to make it nice and the landlord is scum to keep any part of their money. My turn - we have a signed writing from the tenant as to what the damage was when they moved in, and agreement signed by them that they were going to fix it and now pictures of the damage when they left. They are new damages that exceed the money kept. We aren't giving them anything. Mediator kicks me out to let the plaintiff talk to him by himself.

He comes back to me about 20 minutes later. They have a list of damages, they are sympathetic you should offer them something. $750 should be fair. My client loses it. I tell her to let me talk. I tell the mediator, I understand they have a list. It's inadmissible for what they want to use it for. I actually have proof that will win the case for my clients. But because I know I should offer something in mediation my clients will offer 100 dollars and they have 10 minutes to accept it. The mediator got uppity with me! You know I want to talk to your clients without you because I don't think that they understand. Whoa there buddy. Let's be clear. If someone talks to them I am in the room. You can stop even thinking that now.

Then the mediator goes off on my clients - you know it must be nice to be rich and not have to worry about attorney fees but you should settle your case blah blah blah. My client told him to go eff himself and I had to apologize for that. And told him again, nicely. The offer is 100. It will not move. They have 9 minutes.

He kicks me out. Brings the plaintiffs in. I hear them crying loudly. 2 minutes later he calls us all back in. Sits us all down - he wants us to talk to each other and hear each others postitions so that we can come to an agreement because trying a case is difficult and no one in the room (he included me) knows the rules of court (I can recite the entire section I need for this trial you putz) and settling your case is always better. Plaintiff goes first. Starts talking to my client about how we are wrong and we should do the right thing. I let them talk for a minute and just stopped it. I asked the mediator, do we have a deal on $100? The Plaintiff husband lays into me - you know, you are really insulting. We are owed almost $1000 from your client, we worked on their house, they said they were nice people and now they want to screw me and my family out of all our money? No, we will take $750 and not a penny less.

This is when I go all A-Team style attorney. I can hear the theme song in the back of my head. I go back and forth mentally about whether or not I am Face or Hannibal. It can go either way. My statement and the following conversation :

Me: Sir, with all due respect, you have no case. Your list is inadmissable. The mediator lied to you. I do know the rules in that courtroom and you are't going to be able to say or do half the stuff you have said here. Meanwhile I have proof you are full of it. The only reason my client offered $100 is because I haven't had coffee yet and I want to get to the Dunkin Donuts across the street and have a cup before I have to actually start working hard today. So you can accept $100 or you can try your case. You will lose, and after I win this trial I am going to have my clients authorize me to sue you in the next courtroom across the hall for malicious prosecution and given the facts I will win that too, and you will have to pay my attorney fees for that fight. Which works for me because I'm going to Disney in November and could use some spending cash.

Plaintiff: You are an arrogant f-u-*-* you know that.

Me: I know. I usually am when I am 100% right and someone is trying to screw one of my clients.

Plaintiff: Well if you really think you are going to win then let's try the case. I've already talked to friends that have been here and they tell me (insert some stupid 5 minute tirade that non-lawyers say when they think they know the law because they watch Law and Order and their cousin got out of a speeding ticket once.) So let's go.

Me: You know, I want to apologize to you. If I knew you were coming to this court armed with the knowledge of lawyers on TV and your cousin I would have taken you more seriously. The offer will be increased to $101 and you have 30 seconds to say yes or its off the table.

And with that I told the mediator that we were leaving and going to report that we are ready for trial and pull my clients out of the room. Mediator hated me by now. He comes and gets me 5 minutes later. You win counsel, they agree to $101.00. (No **** Sherlock).

What a softie. Should have told them it's now $100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

:lol:

I have more. Henry Ford needs to get on the wagon here and help me out with fun lawyer stories.

I can't remember if I told the one about my maritime client during mediation.

This is a while ago. Long enough that the prescriptive period (statute of limitations for you common law folks) on emotional distress damages caused by a client has long since run. It's also long enough ago that I don't remember the actual dollar amounts, so I'm making those up to the best of my ability so that it reads well.

I had a client with a back injury of the thoracic spine cause by him falling out of a bunk bed when the ship jolted in the middle of the night and his bunk, which wasn't attached to the wall, fell down and deposited him onto a minifridge with some force. It was a pretty solid Jones Act case.

However, he had zero limitations following his treatment. I don't mean he was mostly okay, I mean it's the single best treatment result I've ever seen in litigation. It was a dream result. Which is fantastic for him, not so great for the value of his case. Client claims he won't settle for less than a quarter million dollars in damages. Keep in mind this is a Jones Act case - he's already had maintenance and cure, which means the surgery and all associated medical care and about $30 a day in expenses until he reached maximum medical improvement is already paid for. His economic damages are essentially nothing, maybe $10,000.00 in back pay because he was making $10,000.00 a year in maintenance instead of $18-20,000.00 a year as a deckhand and the whole process (arguably, if I stretch the time period) took a year. So we're talking about damages for having to deal with back issues and aggressive treatment for a year.

As an example of how good his result was, I sent him for an FCE with my guy. I mean, the guy I go to when it's time to find a limitation on a plaintiff. My guy offered to return my retainer because he couldn't ethically even say the guy might end up with a limitation in the next five years. So really, if we hit a grand slam this case is worth $75,000.00. A serious grand slam. They should build me a statue if I can get a judge or jury to give a 30-year-old black man who works as a deckhand for $20,000.00 a year when he's working overtime and has zero long-term ramifications from the thing $75,000.00 on top of having his treatment paid for and getting $10,000.00 in maintenance benefits for the year he was laid up.

So I bring the client in before a mediation and tell him that we should make a high offer, but realistically if they offer $75,000 we should go to the house. He says he won't take less than a quarter million dollars. I tell him he should find another lawyer. He says, well, we will see what happens at mediation and then he'll decide if he needs a new lawyer.

I'm obviously concerned headed into mediation.

We go to mediation, and both sides are beating the hell out of each other all day. I make every argument I can think of, including that they intentionally put him on that top bunk and jostled the vessel because he was the new guy and they were hazing him. Which is... probably not the case. Other side's lawyers are not generally maritime guys, and they're scared to death of an unseaworthiness case. This is literally the only thing I have going for me.

Client has gently been coaxed down from a quarter million to $150,000 and is now screaming at the top of his lungs that he won't take one penny less, other side is still at $65,000.00 when the mediator comes to us and says he wants us all in a room together. At that time, mediator (white), opposing counsel (white), I (white), my client (black) and the adjuster for the insurance company (white) are in a room together and the mediator says this is it - he wants everyone to hear the same thing from him. He tells opposing counsel we will not be going below $150,000.00. Period. He tells us that the adjuster will not pay more than $85,000.00. That the offer isn't on the table, but that the adjuster has authorized him to tell us that he has that authority "if he thinks he can make this go away for that." That otherwise this is going to trial.

I ask for a minute with my client. He says no way, he won't take less than $150,000. And he tells me he wants to say something to the group that he thinks will help.

Everyone in the same room, my client stands up and says "you bunch of mother####### white boys think you can come in hear and throw pennies at the n#####. That's all you're doing. Throwing pennies at a n#####. And you (he points at me) think I'm gonna dance for those pennies like you own me, you racist ####. Well #### you. #### all of you. I ain't your house n#####. I'm gonna find me another lawyer, and see what a jury says about that." And then he leaves.

We are all agape. Literally mouths open staring at each other. I tell them that it's obvious that my client will not be taking $85,000.00, and that I look forward to seeing them all soon when we have to respond to disciplinary counsel because of the obvious insane bar complaint we're going to get. I pack up. While I'm packing up, the adjuster makes a phone call and says "I told them I'm offering all $85,000.00. I'm offering it. Officially." And that's it.

I go downstairs and my client is in the lobby. He says "How high did they go?" I ask him what the hell he's talking about. He explains that he was using this as a negotiation tactic. He offers to buy me a drink. I tell him they made the offer $85,000.00 firm, but didn't go any higher. He says "####, you better buy me a drink, then. Call 'em tomorrow and take it." I ask him why he would do that to me, and explain that I'm close to having a heart attack.

He says "####, I had to make it look real. I couldn't tell you what I was doing."

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

We've all done mediations knowing that we aren't going to change our position. I've had to go in knowing the parties are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars apart. I've never had to do something like that. I state my client's position, listen to their position, and if we have nothing further to discuss I thank everyone for their time and leave. I just don't see any reason for monologues about coffee or whatever other silliness. If $100 is his offer, fine. Just say that. "This is my offer, and I don't think we have anything else to talk about."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair market value to have a misdemeanor with a small fine paid upon conviction expunged from 2001?

It is in central NJ if that matters.

TIA

The last expungment I did was for a friend of my former boss and I think we charged a discounted rate of $750 flat I think? I would probably say then you are looking at $1,500 so long as there are no objections from the prosecutor or police department. Expungments are a tad bit of work though so you need to make sure that it is actually something that can get expunged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

We've all done mediations knowing that we aren't going to change our position. I've had to go in knowing the parties are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars apart. I've never had to do something like that. I state my client's position, listen to their position, and if we have nothing further to discuss I thank everyone for their time and leave. I just don't see any reason for monologues about coffee or whatever other silliness. If $100 is his offer, fine. Just say that. "This is my offer, and I don't think we have anything else to talk about."

No I admit I was a #####. I don't need to be defended. The mediator set me off and it went from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

We've all done mediations knowing that we aren't going to change our position. I've had to go in knowing the parties are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars apart. I've never had to do something like that. I state my client's position, listen to their position, and if we have nothing further to discuss I thank everyone for their time and leave. I just don't see any reason for monologues about coffee or whatever other silliness. If $100 is his offer, fine. Just say that. "This is my offer, and I don't think we have anything else to talk about."

No I admit I was a #####. I don't need to be defended. The mediator set me off and it went from there.

If a mediator put me on the spot like that I'd burn the building down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

We've all done mediations knowing that we aren't going to change our position. I've had to go in knowing the parties are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars apart. I've never had to do something like that. I state my client's position, listen to their position, and if we have nothing further to discuss I thank everyone for their time and leave. I just don't see any reason for monologues about coffee or whatever other silliness. If $100 is his offer, fine. Just say that. "This is my offer, and I don't think we have anything else to talk about."

I am a smart ### by nature and I would have high fived him on our way out of the room. I want to win. If we can be polite and win, fine. If we need to go off and be impolite to win, fine. And really those folks sound like they deserved a little impoliteness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair market value to have a misdemeanor with a small fine paid upon conviction expunged from 2001?

It is in central NJ if that matters.

TIA

The last expungment I did was for a friend of my former boss and I think we charged a discounted rate of $750 flat I think? I would probably say then you are looking at $1,500 so long as there are no objections from the prosecutor or police department. Expungments are a tad bit of work though so you need to make sure that it is actually something that can get expunged.

I've emailed 3 different NJ lawyers. Heard back from one. He said it shouldn't be an issue. Quoted $900.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair market value to have a misdemeanor with a small fine paid upon conviction expunged from 2001?

It is in central NJ if that matters.

TIA

The last expungment I did was for a friend of my former boss and I think we charged a discounted rate of $750 flat I think? I would probably say then you are looking at $1,500 so long as there are no objections from the prosecutor or police department. Expungments are a tad bit of work though so you need to make sure that it is actually something that can get expunged.

I've emailed 3 different NJ lawyers. Heard back from one. He said it shouldn't be an issue. Quoted $900.

That seems fair without knowing any of the specifics. You obviously want to find someone who practices in the area you are filing the motion. That cuts down on your cost most of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, and we wonder why people hate lawyers.

I find the people who hate lawyers, for the most part, have never needed one. I only dislike incompetent lawyers. Thankfully I have never hired a bad one. And I am paying them to be a pit bull when necessary. So I say don't hate, hire a better lawyer instead.

We've all done mediations knowing that we aren't going to change our position. I've had to go in knowing the parties are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars apart. I've never had to do something like that. I state my client's position, listen to their position, and if we have nothing further to discuss I thank everyone for their time and leave. I just don't see any reason for monologues about coffee or whatever other silliness. If $100 is his offer, fine. Just say that. "This is my offer, and I don't think we have anything else to talk about."

No I admit I was a #####. I don't need to be defended. The mediator set me off and it went from there.

That mediator was ####### clueless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...