I will be posting thoughts on famous legal issues here. Please subscribe!
HOW TO GET DIVORCED WITHOUT GOING BROKE!
It seems everyone has a friend with a horror story about their divorce, or you may have one yourself. Divorce can be synonymous with debt, anger, tragedy… and sometimes relief.
In law, there is a term called “mitigating damages.” In medical terms, it’s triage. You assess the damage, and see what you can do to stop the immediate harm. Let’s say you’re a landlord and your tenant breaks the lease and moves out in the middle of the night. To mitigate your damages, you may want to find someone to move in right away instead of letting your bank account go to zero while the place sits empty and you try to sue the former tenant. In a medical example, let’s say you get a serious injury to your leg. You may want to wash it out, apply pressure, dress the wound- all things to stop the blood from coming out and the injury becoming worse or infected.
In a divorce, one of the best ways to not lose your shirt is to mitigate your damages. This is probably hard to picture so allow me to help. If your spouse has already moved out, you probably wanted to smash some things, burn some other things, throw out some other things. Do not do that. Destruction of property makes it worse. Leaving everything in tact helps mitigate your damages. (After the final decree of divorce, bonfire away)
Another way to keep your finances in check is to simply check your finances. If you weren’t sure of where your money was going before, you need to become the best accountant with the firmest grip on every penny. Know your income, and know what your spouse makes. Know your debts. Know which debts are joint (both names are on the account) and which are individual (only for you, or only for your spouse). Know your assets. Do you have a 401(k) or a 403(b)? What kind of retirement account does your spouse have, if they have one? What about investments with brokerage firms or stock holdings? Who owns a car and who is still paying on one? Whose name is on the title? What about the marital residence- do you owe on the mortgage? How much? Whose name is on the title? Are you leasing, renting, or owning? Have you refinanced the mortgage? Have either of you ever filed bankruptcy? Having all this information at your fingertips can save a lot of time, stress, and money going forward.
If you have children, this is where most people begin seeing their money slip away in a divorce, but there are ways you can keep from going broke even in a divorce with children. In the State of Georgia, child support is not optional, it is mandatory. Child support is a right held by the child and cannot be waived by a parent. That said, there is an online calculator (spreadsheet) that will allow you to fill in your income, as well as your spouses. There are pages to allow for deductions such as if one of you pays for healthcare for the children, or if one of you pays for childcare for the children. If you are discouraged by attempting to fill out this form, please reach out to an attorney. There are definitive rules about child support, one of which being you cannot reopen a child support case just because. There has to be the equivalent of a life-altering event (another child, a significant raise, a loss of job) or you have to wait 2 years. So make sure your numbers are accurate! If you want, I am happy to review your child support worksheet without charging you a ton of money for this one service.
You and your spouse will most likely have to complete a parenting seminar of some kind and provide the certificate of completion to the court. Again, find a class that’s within your budget- but still acceptable to the court.
Find a checklist. Many jurisdictions in Georgia have websites devoted entirely to family law, also known as domestic cases. Fulton County’s Family Law Court has long been recognized as one of the top in the country. Gwinnett County also has forms and a checklist to help with your divorce. This helps you from spending money on unnecessary filings or printing out paperwork that isn’t relevant to your divorce. This helps keeps time, effort, and supplies (ink/toner, paper, etc.) to a minimum. I will also have a checklist on my website.
The biggest thing you can do to save money is to talk to your soon to be former spouse. I cannot stress this enough. Money is thrown at huge fights, so if you can work it out amongst yourself, thousands of dollars can be saved. I realize sometimes this is extremely difficult, and sometimes even impossible (I had a divorce where the husband lived in an honest to God hut in Africa)! Sometimes you will attempt to reach out and receive no response, and sometimes it hurts too much just to try to reach out. However, if you can work out things like who will keep the home and who will move out, who gets what car, and especially visitation with the children- it saves thousands in court battles.
If you are already broke, there are forms where you can waive the filing fees. In legal terms its “in Forma Pauperis.” You are basically swearing before the court that you cannot afford filing fees because you are already at or below poverty level. Usually some proof of your financial situation is required, like proof of Food Stamps or other government assistance.
Lastly, I would like you to factor in the financial potential of hiring an attorney. I know, your first thought was “I can’t afford an attorney! That’s why I’m reading this!” But this may be one of those occasions where you need to ask if you can afford NOT to hire an attorney. Allow me to explain.
Divorce is permanent. Every single piece of paper signed off on by you and your spouse is legally binding so you have to be more than 100% certain those documents reflect exactly what you want them to say. Remember how you can’t reopen a child support action for 2 years? What if you file the wrong worksheet and you over pay child support for those 2 years? Then you definitely won’t have any money leftover to hire an attorney to fix it. You probably aren’t thinking years ahead of time in the same manner attorneys do. For example, I have done settlement agreements where a “Sweet 16” in Disney World is incorporated. I have done settlement agreements about who pays for college, and one about who pays for a child’s wedding. You’re probably thinking about the immediate need to be rid of your spouse, because that’s the emotional toll your current situation is handing you. Attorneys come from a non-emotional, non-emergency place to help you make level-headed decisions that you can live with for the rest of your life. Can you truly afford for a comma to be in the wrong spot and make you pay alimony for the rest of your life? Can you afford to risk your visitation with your children by leaving it in your spouse’s hands? What if you don’t file all the necessary paperwork and you’re actually NOT divorced? Bigamy (being married to more than one person) is a crime and if you are not certain you filed your divorce properly, your next marriage could result in charges. No one wants that.
Maybe you can’t afford to hire my mentor, who charges $700 an hour, but I bet the peace of mind you can get from hiring me would be worth the $250 an hour I charge. In order to keep a lawyer’s fees down, always write down your questions before you call. A lot of my clients will reach out to me just to let me know their Ex is a {fill in the blank with your choice of nasty word}! I’m sorry to hear that but that’s not a legal question that I can answer; however, it is time I have to bill you for. So please know what your questions are before you reach out, otherwise you will find yourself rambling about your life story at a steep price and end up with no legal advice.
Do lawyers always know best?
I am here to tell you no, we do not. I am sure I have just given some of my colleagues an aneurysm. There are a few local attorneys who feel they know what is best for their clients, even if the client does not want what their attorney says. I know one attorney that blew up negotiations, even though everyone at the table seemed to be in agreement. The attorney decided the client did not know what was in her own best interest and called everything off. The client went from perfectly satisfied with the deal in front of her to openly weeping and wondering what on Earth just happened?!?! I have a colleague who wanted to put someone in jail for failure to pay child support. The client did not, knowing that jail does not allow for an income to be made. The person in question ended up in jail anyway. Another colleague will just absolutely file everything and anything regardless of what his client asks for or wants.
I do not operate that way. I am glad to say I know some judges do not, either. We – the legal system- don’t know the intimate details of your day-to-day life. We couldn’t possibly because we’re not you. We don’t pay your bills, make your financial decisions, your medical decisions, your parenting decisions, and we don’t know all the factors that go in to making those decisions. Simply put: you know you better than anyone else. You know what you want and need from a divorce or custody dispute. Furthermore, filing everything costs you money. A LOT of money. There are hourly rates and filing fees associated with those actions.
I am certain there are some people that operate just fine under the assumption that the attorney knows best, and just throws money at them to make their spouse/child’s parent “go away.”
I don’t work that way. I often tell clients I am just their legal guide. You tell me where you want to go, and I will show you the path to make that happen. Clients often ask for my advice, and I am more than happy to give it, but it is YOUR case. Don’t get me wrong, I will tell you if I feel you are making a huge mistake and even explain why I feel that way, but its your case.
Always remember: ITS YOUR CASE.
A win is a win? Or is it?
I don’t normally blog about my cases and there are a lot of good reasons why. First, of course, attorney-client confidentiality. Second, my clients may not want to be in a blog and I respect that. I’m choosing to blog about this particular case’s win because it wasn’t a clear victory, so to speak. It’s not like we got everything we wanted and the case is closed. In fact, technically speaking we got nothing (right now) and the case is very much ongoing- but that’s exactly why I want to explain it in this blog post. Winning isn’t always that clear cut and more often than not, in family law, it’s a marathon not a sprint. It takes a long time, with a slow pace, consistently moving forward to eventually reach the goal line fully exhausted (and in all likelihood no one is completely thrilled). So allow me to expand upon my probably vague point.
This case we will call the Smith case because there’s a million Smiths in any given state at any given time. The Smith case was going to be an uphill battle from the moment I got involved. I can’t and won’t go into details but I knew from the time Mrs. Smith hired me the deck was fully and completely stacked against her, but those who know me know I do not shy away from anything let alone a challenge. In reality, I didn’t think the deck needed to be so lopsided, but I came into the game late and my team was behind so I had my work cut out for me.
The first time we went to court, I got her a very clear and decisive victory. She went from having nothing to having a lot. That was a WIN with a capital W. She and I were both really thrilled with the outcome of that court case. I mean, if I could have put that case on a resume I would have. She went from 0 to 100 in one court hearing. Definite jewel in my crown.
Mrs. Smith has a hard life. She works two jobs. She takes various classes. She exhausts herself with staying sober. She pays child support. She pays for a lot of things. She has no car. Yep, 2 jobs, bills, and no car. Life’s constant curveballs were really throwing her off balance. I kept reminding her to keep her eyes on the prize, and all this is temporary. The bottom line is that she was paying all the bills instead of getting behind. She was maintaining sobriety and not falling off the wagon. She was holding down two jobs, not struggling to juggle two jobs. She couldn’t see her achievements, only what she didn’t have. I don’t blame her, we all do that.
Today I reminded her that she and I have a 100% success rate in court so far and I don’t plan to lose that track record. She was really worried about a lot of things, and rightfully so to a certain extent. She went from a stay at home to having the tough life she is having now. And life’s not fair. Ever. So yeah, being concerned about this hearing isn’t wrong in any sense of the word.
That said, the judge called this hearing. Not me, not opposing counsel, not the guardian ad litem. THE JUDGE. That made her nervous as well, and again, rightfully so. In the end, we get a small victory starting next week but in these kinds of cases, small victories mean the world. But that’s not why I am actually blogging this victory. The reason I am blogging is because of all the victories that were seen, but not said, or not said directly. Don’t misunderstand, Mrs. Smith is ecstatic about our victory but I want others to know that the shades of gray can be where the true victories are had.
First, I had her realize that while it did appear on its face that everyone – the guardian ad litem, opposing counsel, the judge- did seem somewhat biased against her, what happened today was huge. There was a turning of the tide to our side. Not one person doubted what I said about her. Not one person questioned what I said about her. Not one person had anything bad to say against her. The guardian admitted how great things were going from her perspective, although she had originally had some concerns. The judge agreed with my perspective and while he didn’t give me explicitly what I asked for (let’s pretend I asked that she have food delivered to the kids at school every day) he didn’t actually say what I wanted was a bad idea. Instead, he kept being glad she was in a position to request that, and instead of saying flat out no, he said, “let me see some more compliance.” Why is that a big deal? Because what he’s really saying is, “Let me see if you can continue to follow my directions. If you can continue to do what I ask in the manner I ask, then I know I can trust you to do what I put in any order going forward.” That means she’s going to get more going forward if she continues on the correct path a while longer. If she can prove to the court she can follow his direction, he’s more likely to trust her and give her more responsibility. Further, the judge repeated over and over and over how proud of her he really is. Not that she hasn’t proven herself worthy or has shown little or no progress- just pride.
Here’s another unsaid victory. I have not yet provided discovery to opposing counsel. I’m still within my 30 day time frame and I have every intention of providing it. Discovery to you non-lawyers is basically how we gather evidence. I ask for stuff, Mr. Smith’s attorney provides it. Mr. Smith’s attorney asks for stuff, I provide it. So what attorney would ask for a FINAL ORDER without any evidence? One who realizes they are about to lose. Instead of getting the farm, they’re going to have to SHARE. They’re going to have to COMPROMISE. They don’t get it all flat out and make her go away. She’s making a COMEBACK and they heard it in that courtroom and didn’t like the sound of it. In fact, Mr. Smith turned a lovely shade of bright red and jumped out of his seat when he saw the walls start to crumble around him. He spoke to the judge without the advice of counsel. What kind of client does that? One who realizes he’s about to lose. He is not getting his way.
So we got our baby step W starting next week but what I really saw in the court room is that we are on the cusp of an amazing breakthrough and everyone in there saw it, too.
Trying (unsuccessfully) to Co-Parent?
THERE’S AN APP FOR THAT! No, really! In fact there are multitudes of apps for that. Just type in “coparent” in the search bar of your app store and you will see many apps pop up for your co-parenting pleasure. Ask your attorney if there is one they prefer (or prefer you not use), or check out each app’s features to see what fits your co-parenting needs best. You can enter doctor’s appointments, bills, sport schedules of the kids, etc. And you won’t have to speak to each other directly or even text each other.
GAMBLING
Just a quick PSA: Gambling is not illegal in all states, and not in every form. For example, Georgia allows for the lottery. It debated allowing for a horse or dog race track years ago and decided against it. Way back when, you could bet in an online forum like Draft Kings from Georgia. Some lawmakers found out and I think a cease and desist was issued from Georgia to the online gambling place. There were years that went by with no advertising from any online gambling places. I have seen a recent comeback in advertising for some of the sites, but not all. I am also not confident that the advertising means that Georgia has changed its mind on gambling. It may mean national advertising means national instead of state by state, or that its incredibly difficult to hunt down where exactly a gambler is placing their bets from. Or, maybe much like marijuana, there just isn’t the need for the huge crackdown for online gambling so they’re choosing to look the other way.
That said, I have multiple clients who are horrified that their spouse gambles. If your spouse has a gambling problem, please have them reach out to Gamblers Anonymous. http://www.GamblersAnonymous.com This is the same form of addiction as drug addicts or alcoholics and needs the same level of treatment, sometimes more if it is found to be a part of a psychiatric disorder that can cause compulsive behavior.
Compulsive gambling often leads to financial ruin and strains relationships, especially when you take into account that money is the number one stress factor in long term relationships. But make no mistake, an occasional weekend trip to Las Vegas once or twice a year is not destining you for compulsive gambling.
I often advocate for counseling before divorce and this is not an exception to that rule. Please find out if your spouse is in need of help before piling a divorce on to that mess. You can get divorced while still offering support and treatment for someone with an addiction, rather than drawing a line in the sand and hope the addict will recover on their own.
WTF is going on in SC?
A mother and son are slain on their estate, and 2 weeks later the father is killed as well. The Murdaughs.
On the night of June 7, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, and her son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, were shot to death
On the afternoon of September 4, Alex Murdaugh (father and husband to the above-referenced decedents) was shot in the head, 7 bullet casings found by his body. He had been changing a flat tire. The difference here being he is expected to live.
UPDATE: well if you haven’t heard, this case got right fat out of control! Allegedly Alex (the father/husband) hired a hitman he used to be drugs from to kill him. Alex was trying to see if he could get his other (surviving) son, Buster, inheritance from his life insurance policies – which he didn’t think would be possible if he committed suicide. (Side note: sometimes you can inherit from someone who kills themselves) The biggest theory about this whole thing involves Paul, the son who died. Evidently he (and several friends) were $h1t faced while he drove the boat. They ended up crashing and killing a young girl (19 year old Mallory Beach) riding in the boat. He pled not guilty and was awaiting trial when he was killed alongside his mother. The evidence tends to point to two shooters, and the family is adamant they had nothing to do with it and it could be “revenge” for the boating accident. It gets weirder!
Evidently there was a boy who died of a massive head wound 8 miles from the Murdaugh estate. At the time they said Stephen Smith was hit by a car and died as a result of his injuries. His mother never believed that. The police have now re-opened the case but they won’t say what has led them to do so, only that it’s new information. The Murdaugh’s are not implicated in any way in this matter, and their only tie is that a son (Buster) and Stephen Smith attended the same high school. But wait there’s more!
Evidently kingpin hot shot attorney Alex Murdaugh had been asked to resign from his law firm citing misappropriation of funds and opioid addiction. We’re not done yet.
A housekeeper had a slip and fall at the estate and died. South Carolina is re-opening that case as well, citing “inconsistencies in the ruling of Satterfield’s manner of death, as well as information gathered during other ongoing probes involving Alex Murdaugh.” There was no autopsy performed and the death certificate lists “Natural Causes” which a slip and fall is not. A minor issue, potentially, but here’s another kicker for you: the attorney for her estate filed a civil suit saying Alex Murdaugh told her two sons to sue him so they could collect their mother’s life insurance settlement. Weird, even when you consider this guy was planning to kill himself but then Alex Murdaugh introduces them to an attorney- one who is his personal friend. Little weirder. So you want them to sue but not be successful? What’s the deal?
A Bungled Investigation leads to 7 years a nightmare for Innocent NC man
Before you read this article, know the victim received a horrific beating, and despite all evidence to the contrary she believes the right man went to jail. There are a few things I’d like to highlight from this article.
Brandon Edwards waited seven long years for a chance to tell his story.
He’d been accused of crimes he didn’t commit — attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping and assault on the handicapped — among other charges. He’d been arrested on the basis of sloppy detective work by the Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office and a questionable photo lineup conducted by the victim’s family that helped guide her to make an identification debunked in court.
He’d been jailed for months trying to make bond, had three different lawyers and was ultimately forced to sweat out a trial in which no law enforcement officers would take the witness stand. All that despite video evidence that showed he was at work in Winston-Salem when the victim first said the attack took place.
He was angry and very much looking forward to telling his story, which he views as a cautionary tale for anyone operating under the assumption that police and prosecutors never make mistakes.
“Whatever he tells you happened to him,” said Ashley Cannon, the defense lawyer who won Edwards’ acquittal, “the reality is 10 times worse.”
“It is easier (to question witness identification) especially when there’s no corroborating evidence,” Cannon said. “But the jury is still seeing someone point the finger at your client. That’s compelling for jurors. Even if he’s innocent.”
Edwards answered, thinking that if he just told the truth, everything would be OK and he’d soon be released.
“I was wrong.”
“I want people to know this stuff happens,” he said. “It took just one person to say ‘He did this’ and it cost me seven years of my life.”
That’s incredibly scary.
Petition or Complaint?
I filed a complaint with the court today (the legal kind, not the Karen kind) and realized I had never given any real thought to the difference between the two. To be fair, there isn’t a lot of difference in Georgia. In some states and especially in family law matters there can be a great difference but since I’m in Georgia here is the short difference:
-Complaint: Plaintiff is asking court to award monetary damages or make the defendant to do something or stop doing something.
Petition- Petitioner is asking court to rule on something.
Frequently, in family law I use a Petition. There is a petition for divorce, a petition to modify custody, a petition for child support. I have seen other attorneys have a Complaint for Divorce with the logic being they want the defendant to stop being married to the Plaintiff.
“Fatherless Families” the root of all evil?
The former Chief of Police in Martinsburg, WV blames certain family structures as the root cause of all crime. Take that for what its worth.
“The crisis of fatherless families is really the root cause of crime, but it’s really much more than that. We’re looking at poverty, lack of educational achievement, drug and alcohol abuse, much of that can be traced back to a lack of fathers and family,” Richards said.
“41% of all families now are fatherless. 70% in the African-American community, 50% Hispanic, 28% White. This is a national crisis,” Richards said.
Richards served as the Martinsburg, WV Police Chief from 2015 to 2020, after 24 years as an officer and lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department. Richards holds a doctorate in Adult Education from Northern Illinois University.
Officer charged with manslaughter after shooting mentally challenged man
The California attorney general’s office filed charges against Salvador Sanchez, a former Los Angeles officer who shot Kenneth French at a Costco while off duty in 2019.
Mr. Sanchez was off duty on June 14, 2019, when he killed 32-year-old Kenneth French and wounded his parents, Russell, 58, and Paola French, 59, during a confrontation. Mr. French, who relatives said had a mental disability and was nonverbal, had been shopping with his parents at a Costco in Corona, Calif., east of Los Angeles.
David Winslow, a lawyer for Mr. Sanchez, said in a statement that his client “was holding his baby when he was violently attacked and knocked to the ground” by Mr. French. Mr. Sanchez was momentarily knocked unconscious, Mr. Winslow said, and believed his life and his child’s life were in danger.
Dianne Bawit, a witness to the shooting, told The New York Times in 2019 that as Mr. Sanchez got up from the ground, appearing distressed, he pulled out his gun and fired several shots.
The officer was fired in July 2020.
As a mom to special needs child I have to say this entire scenario horrifies me. Anytime an officer involved shooting with a special needs person occurs my blood curdles and I can’t sleep at night.
TN trying to create “Safe Space” for Crime Victims
There is talk about THE RULE or invoking the rule. The rule in question is the Rule of Sequestration. Basically, witnesses set to testify cannot be in court when other witnesses testify. The rule is to prevent witnesses changing their stories to address what another witness may testify to while on the stand. All witnesses testify in a vacuum, if you will, free from influence from other witnesses.
But if you are one of those witnesses to be sequestered, where do you go? If you are the victim of a heinous crime, you may not want to share a hallway with those who are set to testify for the defendant. The courthouse may be small with no where else for you to go. Perhaps its big and you don’t want to get lost while waiting for your turn to testify. As if you are not already nervous enough, being asked to step outside can just add another level of anxiety.
Tennessee is hoping to make things more comfortable with its bill called “The Safe for Victims” bill. The District Attorney of Washington County, TN says county governments will have access to $5,000 to create “safe and accessible space for victims to meet with attorneys, law enforcement, counselors, and others.”
Personally, I know that the District Attorney’s office in Gwinnett County, Georgia have a lovely space for victims of Domestic Violence to wait during court. It is hidden away from the rest of the courthouse so there is privacy, and many couches and tvs, even a kitchen make it very cozy. There are plenty of books and toys for children. But I have been to many courthouses where that is not the case. Too many courthouses expect victims to meander the halls with feelings of anxiety, being unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Some make witnesses wait in a law library, which does little to calm feelings of being overwhelmed in a court setting.
Side note: This is why I often try to meet clients somewhere more friendly, like a cafe or restaurant. Offices and courthouses can make people feel intimidated which does not help build a relationship of trust and open communication.
So to that end I say, Good Luck Tennessee! I hope you are successful and that others follow your lead!
OG Teen Mom Amber Portman is in a custody WAR
Amber Portman and her ex, Andrew Glennon, have been fighting for custody of their son, James, since 2019. Andrew was granted primary physical custody (meaning the child stays with him) after Amber was charged with an act of Domestic Violence against Andrew in 2019. Amber recently filed to change visitation because the laws in Indiana allow for overnight visitation when the child turns 3 years old. (I have been unable to find such a corresponding law in Georgia.) The judge in this case ordered Amber and Andrew to work it out outside the court and sent them to mediation. As is all too often the case, mediation was unsuccessful. The original mediation was cutting against Amber, but then Andrew was held in Contempt of Court (meaning he did not do what the court told him to do). In this case, Andrew withheld the child from Amber. YOU CAN NEVER WITHHOLD A CHILD FROM THE OTHER PARENT. If there is an issue with you allowing your child to go with the other parent, call your local Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS), the local police department, and/or your attorney. Andrew then went on IG to share a post about gaslighting. Gaslighting occurs when somebody convinces you that what you saw, you didn’t see, what you hear, you didn’t hear, what you feel, you don’t feel. It’s to convince you that your reality is completely false. Gaslighting is a serious abuse tactic and a serious accusation in my book. It’s based on an old black and white movie from 1944 called “Gaslight.” Not a bad film. As a side note: PLEASE stay off social media as much as possible if you are going through some serious legal stuff. It can and will be used against you by everyone- your ex, his or her attorney, the judge, any officers of the court, etc. If you have to go on social media, the best thing you can do is follow the old adage, “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.”
PROBABLE CAUSE COURT TO GO AWAY IN NC?
In Georgia, these are known by a few names: commitment hearing, a committal, a PC hearing, etc. The purpose remains the same regardless of what it’s called: prosecutors must prove to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the crime alleged in the warrant (arrest or search) is valid, and (2) the defendant is most likely the one who committed the crime. So- does the state have the right person for the right crime? In North Carolina, people charged with certain felonies could also plead at their probable cause court hearing. In Georgia I have not seen that be an option. Further, many people waive their hearing and wait for an indictment on felonies. Usually cases with co-defendants, issues of improper warrants, wrong charges, and cases with collateral matters such as extradition will have a hearing but for most other people they just want bond if they can get it but it’s usually a waste of a defendant’s time and money to hire an attorney to sit through a hearing when the burden is very low. In this case, the Chief Judge in NC says that Forsyth County is one of the few counties in NC that still has a probable cause court and to continue covering it means taking away resources from other courts. The Public Defenders in that county have taken serious umbrage with having their clients wait longer to handle their cases- in some cases well over a year – and while courts still stumble to catch up from the pandemic back log, it will only get worse. Other attorneys have pointed out that PC Court helps keep officers on patrol instead of sitting in court all day. It also helps people who are owed restitution to get paid more quickly if the case is settled in PC Court. After hearing all this criticism, the judge basically said it is on the DA to schedule the cases so the speed or lack thereof is on them. As a former DA I find this instance of passing the buck when under fire to be in very poor taste.
How Courts Fail mothers and children of abuse
Here is the bottom line: Courts want dads in their kid’s lives. Fathers have fought tooth and nail for their own rights, railing against things like “The Tender Years” presumption (the presumption that the younger the child the more it needs its mother), the fallacy of deadbeat dads, and even false claims of abuse by unhinged women in their lives. The pendulum in this back and forth between fathers being deadbeats or heads of households seems to have gone back and forth without factoring in the children and mothers, let alone each individual case.
TRIGGER WARNING: The case I am going to link to is about a child who was allegedly sexually abused and raped by his mother’s boyfriend. The article talks about how the court system gave the male adult probably way more leeway than it should have.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/14/courts-fail-mothers-children-abuse
There are a few other issues in this article I would like to address but not in this post.
As a result, mothers often find themselves on the defensive, says Joan Meier, a clinical law professor and the director of the National Family Violence Law Center at the George Washington University Law School.
“That’s like the ticket to death,” she says. “If you’re a mom and you raise [allegations of] child sexual abuse [by the father], the odds are you lose custody.”
The cases are so bad that some mothers are actually leaving the country and seeking – AND RECEIVING – asylum abroad.
One big issue: abusive partners usually use money to control the other party. How can one hire attorneys, pay legal fees, hire experts and pay their fees, pay the Guardian Ad Litem fees- if the other party holds the purse strings? In short, you can’t.
Police have been called to Stephanie’s homes in Florida and New Jersey – by Stephanie and her children –close to 30 times over the past 19 years, according to those police reports, and Luke has been arrested six times. One 2014 police report mentions Stephanie’s youngest child, then seven years old, “punching” Luke to “get him away” from Stephanie. In May 2020, Stephanie’s chiropractor wrote in a letter provided to the court that Stephanie had visited his office 157 times in nearly four years and that he finds her injuries to be consistent with domestic violence.
[Stephanie tried] to protect herself and her children from her ex after he allegedly threw their 16-year-old son down the stairs and against a wall.
But Stephanie says that the judge hearing her case did not consider the New Jersey child protective services report concerning her son’s allegations. Instead, she says, he urged her to “put aside [her] differences” with her ex and work things out for “the sake of [their] kids”.
WTF. Seriously. All I can do is shake my damn head.
Domestic violence being used against women and children is so bad that a state Senator had to sponsor a bill to redefine it after she was forced to resign the year prior to deal with her own messy divorce. When I checked today (Aug 23 2021) it had been sent to committee back in January with no additional notes. Sad but not terribly surprising.
Finally, I just wanted to point out that I currently have a male client wrongly accused of the same issues posted above so I’m not on some sort of man-hating tirade.
Crushing legal fees and Overworked Public Defenders
In the same article I posted above (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/14/courts-fail-mothers-children-abuse), there were two other points I wanted to address outside the initial blog because the fact that some men can be absolute douche canoes and get away with it deserves it’s own blog from top to bottom without any side note distractions.
First point: Crushing legal fees. In the article, one victim estimated she had paid $150k on her legal fees and monies owed to her husband’s legal fees. You read that right: you can end up having to pay your ex’s legal fees. Another woman in the article has been fighting for just shy of 8 years in the court system. She’s paid $200k in her estimation.
Second Point: Overworked public defenders. One of the reasons these women have racked up hefty legal fees is because they don’t believe an overworked PD can adequately handle the hundreds and hundreds of pages of paperwork (police reports, GAL reports, evaluations, court rulings) to keep up with and even champion her case. In Georgia, our PDs handle strictly criminal matters and family law is a civil matter so that is not an option here. However, from being a prosecutor for so many years I can assure you PDs are overworked and underpaid and it’s a damn shame.
That said, Fulton County has one of the best family law courts in the state if not the country with a legal library stocked full of forms and frequently lawyers or law students hanging out to give advice and help however they can. Many legal forms can be found online and of course, you can look for lawyers like me who take payment plans.
A Lawyer’s Deathbed Confession- Copied from the NY Times
Before dawn on Aug. 17, 1975, about 60 police officers and F.B.I. agents charged into the Brooklyn apartment of a fireman named Mel Patrick Lynch. The living room was dimly lit; its blinds were drawn. Mr. Lynch sat on the couch next to the unshaven, foul-smelling, bound and blindfolded 21-year-old scion of one of America’s richest families, Samuel Bronfman II, who had been missing for nine days.
The authorities arrested Mr. Lynch and an accomplice, Dominic Byrne. The men confessed to abducting Mr. Bronfman, describing the planning and execution of the crime and identifying the hiding spot of two garbage bags containing a $2.3 million ransom.
That seemed like the end of the drama. Actually, it was only a first act. The kidnapping trial turned out to have more narrative twists than the crime itself. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Byrne would be convicted of an extortion charge, but incredibly, after it seemed they had been caught red-handed, a jury pronounced them not guilty of kidnapping, a charge that could have put them in prison for life. They and their defense lawyers managed to convince jurors that there was, in fact, no kidnapping.
This miracle was pulled off in large part by Mr. Byrne’s attorney, Peter DeBlasio, who called the case “the greatest trial victory of my career.”
The Bronfman kidnapping is one of the stranger tales of New York’s criminal history, but over the following decades, hardly anyone had reason to recall the intricacies and mysteries — except Mr. DeBlasio. Even as he reveled in his triumph, he worried until the end of his life about what he had done to secure it.
Mr. DeBlasio’s mix of pride and unease combusted in July 2020, when he self-published a memoir, “Let Justice Be Done.” His book, which went largely unnoticed, reveals what he long told his two daughters was the secret of the Bronfman trial: His winning argument was premised on a lie — and he knew it.
It was effectively a deathbed confession. Just five months later, on Dec. 18, Mr. DeBlasio died of heart failure at 91.
Mr. DeBlasio’s memoir — along with an examination of 45-year-old court records and interviews with actors from this episode who are still alive — help set the record straight on a tangle of allegations. They range from a forbidden love affair to a yearslong surveillance campaign to a conspiracy that hoodwinked the nation.
On Aug. 8, 1975, Sam Bronfman was in a Tudor mansion surrounded by dense woods. This was the center of a 180-acre estate in Yorktown Heights, Westchester, owned by Sam’s father, Edgar, the patriarch of the Bronfman family. A small group had gathered for a candlelit dinner of chilled vegetable soup, roast beef and, for dessert, mousse au citron. At 11:30, Sam bade everyone farewell, got in his green BMW and drove into the night.
That June, Sam had graduated from Williams College, where he edited the sports section of the school paper and played varsity tennis. He was about to start a job in sales at Sports Illustrated. He and his girlfriend, Melanie Mann, whom he had met freshman year, were moving toward marriage. A night out without Melanie might entail Sam cruising around a familiar set of Westchester bars.
At 1:45 a.m., the phone rang at the Yorktown Heights estate. The family’s butler answered and heard Sam’s voice. “Call my father,” he said. “I’ve been kidnapped.”
The Bronfman family owned the Seagram Company, the sprawling conglomerate that The Times described around that time as “the world’s largest distiller.” Sam was an heir to a trust worth about $750 million, more than $3.5 billion today.
His abductors introduced themselves to the Bronfman family with a ransom note. They promised that if their plan went awry, a survivor of their group would track down and kill Edgar, Sam’s father, who was the chairman of Seagram. The note described bullets containing cyanide.
In statements to the press, the Bronfman family pleaded for evidence that Sam was still alive and assured the kidnappers they would pay the ransom. Spokesmen were sent down the long driveway from the Westchester compound to more than 50 reporters camped outside the front gate. Curiosity-seekers dropped by, along with hot dog and ice cream vendors.
While reporters, lacking better material, analyzed the significance of grocery deliveries, Edgar Bronfman, one of the richest men in America, spent three nights dashing between telephone booths in and around Kennedy Airport, struggling to understand terse instructions given by a man who called at prescribed times.
At about 3 a.m. on Aug. 16, Edgar met the man below an aqueduct in Woodside, Queens. Edgar delivered the ransom. Lurking in the background were about 100 F.B.I. agents idling on motorcycles, in trucks, in a van, on at least one helicopter and in at least two decoy taxis. Yet after the handoff was made, the brigade of federal agents somehow allowed the rust-colored Oldsmobile that picked up the ransom to elude them and make a clean getaway.
The F.B.I. was saved by a revealing blunder made by their target. The bagman had driven to the handoff in his own car; all the agents had to do was look up the license plate number.
They traced it to an apartment in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn belonging to Mel Patrick Lynch, an Irish immigrant from the tiny village of Banagher. Mr. Lynch was 37 years old and a tall, broad bachelor who was losing his hair. His neighbors, who called him Fireman Lynch, said he was polite and reserved. When the guys at his fire company watched “Jeopardy,” Mr. Lynch knew all the answers.
The F.B.I. staked out the area around Mr. Lynch’s apartment. One car with two agents parked around the corner — improbably, right outside the home of a man named Dominic Byrne, Mr. Lynch’s partner in crime.
Mr. Byrne found himself unnerved by the mystery car. He sent his daughter, Mary, to a police precinct a few blocks from their home. She told officers there that her family feared two hit men were lying in wait on their block.
Like Mr. Lynch, Mr. Byrne was an immigrant from rural Ireland, in his case a village called Taughnarra. In other respects, Mr. Byrne, a 53-year-old limousine service operator, was the opposite of Mr. Lynch. He was about 5-foot-4 and known for theatrical blarney, greeting friends with a “top o’ the morning” while on walks with his dogs. A family man and joiner of civic groups, he attended Mass with his wife every Sunday.
The police quickly realized the hit men in the idling car were F.B.I. agents, and they all converged on the Byrne family home. Mr. Byrne confessed on the spot, telling officers and agents that he had been forced into participating in the kidnapping. He persuaded officers that storming Mr. Lynch’s apartment could lead to violence, whereas following his normal protocol by giving Mr. Lynch a call to say he was on his way would smooth over the moment of their entry.
But on the phone, Mr. Byrne took a deep breath and tipped off his partner. “It’s all over, Mel,” he said. “They are coming over.”
Mr. Lynch’s place was two blocks away, and when the officers burst into the apartment, they found him and a blindfolded Mr. Bronfman sitting next to each other on the couch.
After being arrested, Mr. Byrne and Mr. Lynch explained that they had been friends for years and formally confessed to the crime. Their statements, coupled with a corroborating account from Mr. Bronfman, enabled the authorities to piece together a clear story about what had happened.
“With the Bronfman kidnapping,” The Times editorial board wrote, “the men of the F.B.I. did the job that American society expects and needs them to do.”
Despite its speedy conclusion, it was a crime long in the making. Years before the actual abduction, Mr. Lynch persuaded Mr. Byrne that a kidnapping would be easy to pull off without hurting anyone. One night late around summer’s end in 1973, they took their first trip to the house where Sam lived with his mother in Purchase, a hamlet in Westchester County, N.Y. Mr. Lynch pointed out that no fence separated the house from its border on the Hutchinson River Parkway. Over the next two years, the men took 30 or 40 trips.
The final visit was Aug. 8, 1975. Mr. Lynch watched Sam pull into the garage in Purchase after the dinner with his father. He seized the moment. He ran toward the BMW, and as Mr. Bronfman emerged, he announced, “This is a stickup.” He handcuffed Mr. Bronfman and put a .38 automatic into his captive’s ribs.
Mr. Bronfman spent days begging not to be killed and struggling to go to the bathroom while restrained. After picking up the ransom, Mr. Lynch told Mr. Bronfman he suspected that the F.B.I. was on to him and that he was thinking of fleeing the apartment and taking him hostage on the road. He said he would kill Mr. Bronfman and himself before going to jail. Then came Mr. Byrne’s call.
“They’re on their way,” Mr. Lynch said.
“Who?” Mr. Bronfman asked.
“The F.B.I.,” Mr. Lynch replied.
Mr. Bronfman steeled himself. “What are you going to do?” he asked.
“We’re going to give up,” Mr. Lynch said. He gave Mr. Bronfman his sneakers back and told him to put them on. He sat next to Mr. Bronfman on the couch. Moments later, federal agents, guns drawn, barged in.
The mood of celebration started to sour at the bail hearing a month later. The two defendants had retained separate counsel, and Mr. Lynch’s lawyer made the remarkable claim that Sam Bronfman had masterminded his own kidnapping.
The prosecution called the allegation “absurd,” and Mr. DeBlasio portrayed Mr. Lynch as the mastermind, arguing that the fireman was guilty of “coercion” in forcing Mr. Byrne to participate in a real kidnapping.
By the time the trial began in October, Mr. Lynch had rejected the confession he gave to F.B.I. interrogators. He had a new story to tell.
Mr. Lynch said he and Mr. Bronfman were, in fact, lovers: They first met at a bar in June 1974 and shortly thereafter began having sex, he testified, often in the pool house of the Bronfman property in Purchase. Mr. Byrne drove Mr. Lynch there because he owed Mr. Lynch favors, and Mr. Lynch made the trips to meet Mr. Bronfman, not surveil him. The reason he entered Mr. Bronfman’s property from the highway through the woods was for the sake of secrecy. Their conversations, he told the court, focused on Mr. Bronfman’s desire to shake down his family for cash; it was Sam’s idea to stage his own kidnapping.
Mr. Lynch agreed to join the caper, he explained, because Mr. Bronfman threatened to inform the fire department that he was gay, which he said would jeopardize his employment.
Mr. Lynch’s tale lacked basic information. He could not offer even a motive for the crime, like Mr. Bronfman’s need for immediate money. Asked what he and his lover talked about, Mr. Lynch referred to “things in general.” He said nothing about romance or desire beyond the clinical phrase “we had sex.”
Yet the prosecutor, Geoffrey Orlando, an assistant district attorney in Westchester, never broached the supposed love affair.
“Being called gay was much, much worse then,” Mr. Orlando said in a recent phone interview. It was 1976, and the topic of homosexuality was so taboo, he decided, that directly challenging the claim of an affair would be pointless.
Despite what his story lacked in logic or evidence, Mr. Lynch, the notably taciturn fireman, was mesmerizing as a storyteller during four days on the witness stand. N.Y.P.D. officers and F.B.I. agents would contradict themselves recounting basic police work; Mr. Lynch, whose story alleged an intricate hoax, could not be tripped up. “Anybody else join you at the table?” Mr. Orlando asked Mr. Lynch about his first meeting with Mr. Bronfman. “No, sir,” Mr. Lynch replied, confirming a minor detail of his testimony. “We were at the bar.”
Preparing for the trial, Mr. DeBlasio planned to attack Mr. Lynch as “a monster who preyed upon his feebleminded friend Dominic, forcing him under duress to aid in the most terrible of crimes imaginable.” Then he saw Mr. Lynch on the stand.
“I can look back now after a 50-year, 600-trial career and say that among the thousands of witnesses I observed, nobody approached the magnificence of Mel Patrick Lynch,” Mr. DeBlasio wrote. “He was the Arturo Toscanini and Enrico Caruso of witnesses. He turned a horror story into a tragedy of operatic dimension. The jurors were mesmerized. If they could have, they would have exploded in applause and cried for an encore.”
Mr. Orlando agreed with that assessment. “He was a great liar, absolutely positively, and a sympathetic character,” Mr. Orlando said of Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Bronfman, conversely, looked to jurors like a man caught in a nightmare, fighting back tears and biting his fingernails while on the stand. Following a torrent of accusations about secret sexual escapades and plans to film pornography, the judge halted proceedings, took Mr. Orlando aside, accused him of a “lack of propriety” and said he was “amazed” Mr. Orlando had not objected when the defense made “smearing innuendos” about Mr. Bronfman.
“In a case like this, the victim gets put on trial and yet he has no means of making a defense,” Mr. Bronfman said after the trial.
Mr. Byrne did not testify, but he appeared strangely disassociated, indiscriminately beaming smiles at everyone in the courtroom: the jurors, the journalists, his co-defendant and even the Bronfman family.
Following Mr. Lynch’s commanding performance, Mr. DeBlasio tailored his defense to fit with the hoax angle, telling the court what he knew to be an outright lie. “There was no kidnapping,” he said, addressing the jury. As for the F.B.I., he offered, “They should have been checking Sam Bronfman.” Mr. DeBlasio portrayed the Seagram heir as resentful that he had not “grown up the way the father wanted him.” Calling Mr. DeBlasio “brilliant,” Newsweek wrote that he “stirred jurors to his summation.” Two jurors told The Times they believed that Mr. Bronfman had indeed “engineered his own kidnapping.”
Mr. De Blasio waited nearly 45 years to reveal that he had no doubt the story that convinced those jurors was false.
“About Sam,” Mr. DeBlasio wrote toward the end of his memoir. Noting that Mr. Lynch and Mr. Byrne were both dead, he felt compelled to set the record straight before his own death. “I want it to be clear to all who may ever read these pages that Samuel Bronfman was not a part of the kidnapping.” He added, “Neither he nor Lynch were gay as far as anyone ever knew and certainly they were not lovers.”
This kind of admission from a lawyer, even in a tell-all memoir, is extraordinary. Experts say Mr. DeBlasio’s ethical breach did not come in his cunning courtroom argument, but rather in his attempt to clear his conscience.
“His obligation to his client continues forever, even after his client’s death,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who specializes in legal ethics. “He’s saying, ‘My client, who was acquitted of kidnapping, is really a kidnapper.’ That’s exactly what he’s not allowed to say.”
Mr. DeBlasio’s daughter, Alessandra DeBlasio, notified Sam Bronfman about her father’s book. In an email to The Times, Mr. Bronfman responded to what he called a confession by Mr. DeBlasio. “I was really kidnapped in 1975 and his and Lynch’s defense was a fraud,” Mr. Bronfman wrote. “I am glad he acknowledged this fact.”
According to Ms. DeBlasio, Mr. Byrne’s signed confession to the F.B.I. (a document that Mr. DeBlasio managed to suppress in court) made an overwhelming impression on her father. “He knew all along from Day 1 that his guy had done it,” she said. She added that at no point in the trial did Mr. Byrne tell Mr. DeBlasio his confession was false.
Then there was the blindfold Mr. Bronfman wore. It was a “putrid mess” with “ripped-off pieces of Sam’s flesh and his facial hair growing into the adhesive tape,” Mr. DeBlasio wrote. “What hoax? Nobody faking their own kidnapping would wear a blindfold.”
Following Mr. Lynch’s and Mr. Byrne’s exoneration as kidnappers, the Bronfman family held a news conference at their corporate headquarters, the Seagram Building on Park Avenue in Midtown. “I went into this kidnapping a little boy,” Sam Bronfman said, “and I came out a man.”
Despite his escape from a harrowing ordeal, the resolution was disturbing for Mr. Bronfman. However baseless, the charges that he had hatched a conspiracy with a lover to defraud his family lingered in the decades to come.
“It poisoned the atmosphere forever for Sam,” said Mr. Orlando, the prosecutor, who became friendly with Mr. Bronfman during the trial. “He will forever be tagged with that allegation.”
Mr. Bronfman declined to comment on the impact the episode made on the rest of his life. Mr. Orlando said Mr. Bronfman, now 67, recently told him that his adult children “have no idea” the kidnapping took place.
Ten years after the trial, Edgar Bronfman named Sam’s younger brother, Edgar Jr., head of Seagram, in what Fortune magazine called a “surprise.” Sam had worked at the company longer; unlike his younger brother, he had a college degree; and his elevation would have continued the tradition of the company’s passing to the eldest son of the family.
Edgar Jr. oversaw a series of questionable investments and sold the company in what came to be seen as a financial debacle.
The title of Mr. DeBlasio’s book, “Let Justice Be Done,” was also his favorite legal expression. He used the “plain but powerful” phrase to conclude all of his closing arguments, including in the Bronfman trial. Yet something about that “greatest trial victory” caused him to question his credo.
“Whether justice was done in this case,” he wrote, “may not be for me to say.”
Follow My Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.