This guest Slog post is by Christopher Rao, managing partner of Rao & Pierce PLLC, and former Chair of the KCBA Family Law Section. He also runs decouplingblog.com, which helps make family courts more accessible to men and women who cannot afford attorneys.
A number of father’s rights groups have been increasingly vocal about the belief that fathers are typically treated unfairly in our courts—in essence, that dads are the real victims of nasty custody fights. It is disappointing that these misguided beliefs have been accorded an air of legitimacy by Nina Shapiro’s recent cover story, dramatically titled, “Ripped Apart: Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in King County family court.”
The article dutifully quotes a few female attorneys to make its point that men are consistently treated unfairly in King County Family Court. One attorney recounts a busy day on the calendar where a commissioner ruled against the man seven or eight times in a row. The piece narrates a couple of heartbreaking one-sided anecdotes—conveniently interviewing only the man’s attorney in each case. It then criticizes three female family law commissioners by name for a variety of offenses, including fining one man’s attorney $500 “for writing too much in defense of his client” (but the fine was for violating court rules on page limits).
Over the years I’ve seen many attorneys angrily (and disrespectfully) grandstand in court for the benefit of their pissed-off unrealistic clients, male and female—and heard these same attorneys, after losing their case, criticize the court for various types of bias. The truth is that wining in Family Court depends mainly on avoiding dubious he-said, she-said hysteria, and instead presenting a reasonable proposal to the court, backed by solid evidence from reliable sources.
Just last month, the week before Christmas, I represented a dad whose son had been removed from his custody via an ex parte restraining order based on flimsy evidence of allegedly beating his son—mere days after CPS apparently found that the mother’s complaints about the dad lacked credibility. My client was terrified before the hearing, partly because of how he looked (6’4″ with a prominent tattoo), but also because he’d actually been to jail for domestic violence against the child’s mother in the early 1990s and just been out of alcohol rehab last year. But the female commissioner relied less on what each parent said, and instead looked at the more reliable evidence: the boy’s school records, emails to and from teachers, highly detailed statements from neighbors, etc. She wisely noted that the dad had nothing more serious than a traffic ticket in well over a decade. She was pleased with his transparency, his consistent parenting over the years, his eagerness to submit to random urine samples and a domestic violence evaluation. And she returned this boy to his dad, just in time for Christmas.
While this careful treatment by the court was a huge deal to my client (who agreed to let me tell his story here), the point is that it was just an average hearing for the court, on an average afternoon with four or five other hearings. Tellingly, before we even knew which commissioner would be hearing the motion, we were confident that the court would take the time consider all the evidence and subtleties of the case. Even if the commissioner had got it wrong that day, litigants have numerous checks and balances at their disposal: You can file a reconsideration, and the court will often even look at new evidence. If you still feel aggrieved, you have an automatic right to have a do-over (called a “revision”), this time in front of an elected judge (more than half of whom are men, as if that matters). And if you are still dissatisfied, you can ask the judge to reconsider his or her ruling as well. In fact, if anything I believe that commissioners are more careful than judges because every single decision can be automatically sent up for revision. By contrast, judges cannot be revised, and appeals to the Court of Appeals typically require more than a year and tens of thousands of dollars.
It’s true that even after all these hearings and motions, many dads (and moms) still feel that they should have prevailed. That’s natural, given all that they’ve lost. Hell, Seahawks fans still gripe about how the refs robbed us in Super Bowl XL, more than six years ago—and that was just a football game. Institutional bias exists in the world. It’s a serious matter, and deserves proper attention. But to carelessly throw around these words absent proper data is irresponsible—it offers a convenient panacea to avoid taking responsibility for one’s own actions. The truth is that most men—and women—in family courts would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament, and that most of them are in court to begin with because of their own bad decisions and/or behavior.
Such claims of bias claims also excuse lazy lawyering, which starts with marketing one’s skills to frustrated men (“divorce for dads”), builds on unrealistic client expectations, and often ends with telling the completely disempowered (and substantially poorer) client that there’s nothing the lawyer could have done because the commissioner was a woman (four out of five in King County).
Finally, parading men as the victims of custody fights marginalizes the true victims—children. The standard for all custody issues in Washington state is “the best interests of the child.” Children suffer the violence and abandonment on a daily basis, from both their mothers and fathers, yet have almost no voice at all in this process.
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: Cite the rate at which a Motion for Reconsideration of a commissioner’s ruling is granted. Cite also the rate at which a Motion for Revision is granted versus a judge DEFERRING to a commissioner without re-looking at the matter de novo.
Back up your BS, liar.
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: Did anyone NOTICE THIS…In all the hype and BS of Rao’s radical feminist punk coward weasel attorney bullcrap I overlooked the following.
RAO thinks that his example was a VICTORY. This story was MERELY about a dad gettin a Christmas Break visit. This was not a VICTORY…the dad was dragged into court and FALSELY ACCUSED of domestic violence. THAT ALONE was harassing to the dad and abusive toward him. That’s like saying, “Hey my client who was falsely accused of robbery was found innocent…he should be happy about the process that he went through and the stress he endured.” This is how blind this dumbass attorney is.
That’s like saying, “Hey people of color, you should be happy you have YOUR OWN WATER FOUNTAIN here in Mississippi in the 50s”. No one is preventing them from their second class access to their own water fountain, so they should be happy, even though along the way they have to duck and dodge rocks, jeers, dogs, etc.
The example dad who “won” at the wonderful hand of Rao representation is supposed to be happy that he only gets to be a second class VISITOR in his child’s life and when the mother abuses the system against him, he should be happy cuz he got the “status quo” of the court system (according to Rao).
What a dumbass, PAB. I hope, I sooooo hope that Rao has to go through his own divorce and custody battle so he can reap what he sows and actually FEEL what he thinks does not exist.
What a PAB and a pathetic excuse of a gender claiming to have testicles.
A of one which has been around for some time, since it, obviously, is applicable here:
“Shortly after his retirement, Chief Justice Warren Burger shocked the ABA and just about every other lawyer and judge, by publicly speaking out in his keynote address, with his famous quote
that was well covered by mainstream media.”
“In all my years as a judge at every level of the bench, including the Supreme court, at least 85% of all lawyers that practiced before me were either INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, OR BOTH.”
Wow, folks. Lots of opinions tonight. Let me try to respond to each of you in turn. First, to the gentleman who made 9 posts and even sent me an email (ImRightAndRaoKnowsIt):
@43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 & 53
Your email subject line to me reads: “Hey, LYING CHINK !!! I dare you to engage in serious debate” I’m happy to engage in serious debate, and can see that you are too. But I think the racial epithet you’re looking for is “dothead.” I’m of east Indian descent, on my dad’s side (white on my mom’s side).
@ 43 – You write that I am “a fake, phony, punk, coward and HYOCRITE.” Pretty sure I’ve been all those things at some point in my life, but I never ever smoked clove cigarettes (even when they were cool). As for the coward part, you know my name (and, apparently, lots more about me), but I know nothing about you. To whom do I have the pleasure of conversing with?
You rightly point that I “brought ONE SINGLE anecdote.” Quite right. I was given a word limit by The Powers That Be, so one was all that would fit. In fact, I’m not so much a fan of argument by anecdote, but the one I gave was literally the last time I had been in court at the time I wrote the article, so it came easily to mind. The problem with anecdotes is that they are by nature self-selected, and so tend to confirm one’s prior impressions, whatever they may be. Hard data is my preference (see my post @37)
You say that I’m a sellout to my race. Since I’m mixed, that’s perhaps inevitable 😉
@44 – You write that I look “like a greasy-haired pedophile.” I don’t really know many pedophiles, so I don’t have an adequate basis for comparison. Oh, and by the way, I’m no longer on the RPC committee (keep meaning to update that website!).
@46 – You write that I am “pimped, controlled and brainwashed by the radical feminist dominated Family Law Section of the Bar. I mean WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wants to make their living dealing with family law drama and setting policy?” I like practicing family law because it matters. Period. But I don’t set policy. I could claim that I’m not brainwashed by radical feminists, but no one who is really brainwashed actually believes that they’re brainwashed, right?
You call Stuart Greenberg a pervert. I only met the man once before he died, but sadly, you appear to be correct.
@48 – Thanks for giving out my work and home addresses. I have two small children at home, so this is super-cool.
You list my email address as topher@RoaandPierce.com. It’s actually topher@raoandpierce.com.
You write “I dared Christopher Rao to actually debate me on his hot-air, empty, no fact having, specious, drivel-filled diatribe bullcrap above.” I’d be happy to debate you. Let’s do it in person. Just let me know where and when, and I’ll make it if I can. How about a restaurant, with plenty of good eats and drinks? Bring your friends. I’ll even buy the first round.
If you’d rather talk one on one, just call my office and make an appointment. There’s a cool coffee shop across the street and we can talk there. I’ll even buy you coffee. Who knows? We might have more in common than you think. I do represent lots of guys who are accused of domestic violence, after all.
@38
I may surprise you here – I totally agree that DVPO’s are sometimes abused. In the past year, I’ve had two male clients and one female client who were on the wrong end of a DVPO I believe should never have been issued. In each case I read the pleadings and wondered, even if every word was true, how the DVPO could have been granted without the responding party even being able to defend himself or herself.
To me, using bogus claims of domestic violence to get the upper hand in a custody fight is reprehensible – right up there with selling drugs to middle schoolers. I don’t blame the parties as much, because both moms and dads are so freaked out by the whole process. But we lawyers ought to know better. And pleading this crap is an affront to victims of true domestic violence.
Tell you what? Every single protection order I’ve ever filed for a client is public record. If you want, look through them all and let me know if you can find a single case that you think follows this pattern. I stand by my record on this, precisely for the reasons that you list- because DV is a serious thing, and should not be thrown around like it’s some sort of game. Just today, I told two clients (yeah, two), that we weren’t going to file a protection order because we just didn’t have the facts to justify it. You may be surprised to learn that there are a lot of family law attorneys who take this conservative attitude towards ex parte orders. And – I routinely show up at a hearing two weeks later and blast these dubious orders out of the water, on behalf of my clients.
I do disagree with you that handing out DVPO’s too loosely is a gender bias issue. I think it’s more an issue of Front Page Phobia – where ex parte Commissioners are afraid of ending up on the front page because of a homicide.
I’ll tell you what I told the unnamed dude who posted 9 comments – if you want to talk to me about any of this, I’m happy to buy you a cup of coffee (or a beer – your choice) so that we can discuss it in greater detail. As I told the unnamed gentleman, we may have more in common than you think. Even if we don’t, I think it quite possible that we can disagree without being disagreeable. First round’s on me!
Black or White, Red or Green, Nina or Christopher.
Havin spent many years working with Fathers Rights activists, I am biased, no doubt. However, it was only after witnessing bias that I learned to start fighting to protect fathers and their relationship with their children. It makes no sense to debate this with Christopher Rao, he has his opinion, and he values it highly for whatever he and everyone else choses to believe in themselves.
I would only caution men, I don’t believe that his line of reasoning will help you in a bar fight, that is a fight at the bar in a court of law. His failure to open his mind to view the facts that others have presented will only cloud his judgement.
Men, you need to chose your attorney’s carefully. You need to research who will her your case, and understand their personal biases based on cases they have handled. Even go watch them prior to your own hearing.
When Senator Kastama presented to the House Judiciary Committee about shared parenting, he quoted a Pierce County Judge when the judge asked for his support and he asked the Judge for his support – The judge stated simply – “In this County we do every other weekend for dads, thats what we do”. Christopher, that is a fact, that is available from that hearing. Now, tell me how that has anything to do with the best interest of the child, and how that doesn’t show bias by the courts in Pierce County.
Yes, I know, you will have some smug response to this, that will make you feel loftier than everyone one else. This has obviously become your person debate. Just think about this – nobody really gives a crap about your opinion, you have proven in this forum that it is of little value to anyone unless they believe in your narrow minded version of the courts.
On choosing your legal representative carefully, good advice. Remember too, it is your case, not your attorneys. While he may be paid to handle some or all aspects of it, that fact does not terminate your right to control your own case. This applies even when dealing with court appointed attorneys.
Some individuals give their attorneys notice of what they expect in the case. For example, they may direct them on building a record (many attorneys really are ignorant of the laws and rules they are working under and erroneously claim the case file is the record for appeal, for example). Building a record can include making objections, introducing exhibits an moving them into evidence and so forth.
In addition to looking into an attorney’s experience in the type of law you need help with (e.g., family law, criminal law, etc.), check to see if he is overloaded. Too many cases make an attorney incompetent.
@39
Derek (it is you, right?),
The article you pointed me to is excellent – and I agree with many things the author says. The studies she cites are listed, but without links, so I can’t speak to the veracity of the statistics she quotes (and they aren’t from Washington), but her common sense advice is great. Here’s the link again for anyone who missed it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandar…
You write: “So, I ask you, how do you prove the decision was bad? If you can’t prove it, then by your logic, courts must never make bad decisions. Right?“ Courts make bad decisions every day because judges/commissioners are human and family law cases are messy. As I wrote earlier, the way you prove a decision was bad is to provide the court with reliable, impartial evidence whenever possible.
I disagree that it’s a gender issue because I’ve also defended many women who were on the wrong end of such an order. In the end, in nearly every case I believe that the best evidence – yes, evidence – has prevailed. Here is my advice to anyone, male or female, who gets this kind of order entered against them:
1) Take it seriously, even if the underlying facts are BS: Prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges on the underlying DV (because it’s hard to prove), but instead bring charges for violating a protection order because it’s so easy to prove – even an otherwise innocent text message (“Please say hi to the kids for me.”) is often enough evidence of a violation.
2) Get a good attorney for the hearing two weeks later. Hire Derek! Seriously, the real gatekeepers in this arena are not the ex parte commissioners, but the much-maligned Family Law commissioners. Making sure that you have great evidence for that hearing is what it’s all about. Too many lawyers combat dubious attacks with their own dubious attacks, then claim that the judge/commissioner was biased.
3) In general, don’t attack the petitioner in your court pleadings, even if she (or he) is lying. Courts don’t really like he-said, she-said. Instead, look for reliable third party information – declarations from your boss or even an ex-spouse (who is less likely to lie for you), school attendance records, court records for both you and the other party.
4) When there are kids involved, always focus on what the kids need, not what you need. If the other party is attacking you right and left, it’s tempting to tell the court “She (or he) is a liar!” but commissioners get really tired of hearing that all day. Instead, if your ex is always pointing the finger at you, show the court that you care more about the injustice to your kid than whatever perceived injustice there is towards you. Like for instance “Because I have historically put Joey to bed every night, and made him breakfast every morning, I’m concerned that this disruption in his routine will be confusing for him.” It’s not about “I deserve my son (or daughter). It’s about “My son (or daughter) deserves his/her dad (or mom).”
5) Present a calm demeanor in court: it’s easy enough to claim that you aren’t a hothead. Similarly, walking into court with an attitude that the court is just against you makes you look like a jerk. Don’t be a jerk. Don’t ever interrupt the judge or commissioner. Don’t make faces when your ex lies through her/his teeth. Showing that you can listen to spurious accusations with grace and dignity proves the point more eloquently than any words can. If anyone’s going to challenge the court more aggressively, let it be your lawyer.
6) Tell the truth, no more no less. Don’t embellish. Being nice to the other party in your pleadings and in court also usually doesn’t hurt, nor does showing some insight into your own failings. Most abusers have very little self-insight, and think that everything is the fault of their ex. Saying something as simple as “She’s a really good mom” (if it’s true) can go a long way to showing the court that you care more about your kids than about proving someone wrong, or proving yourself right. And if you screwed something up, like yelling at your ex in front of your small child, just admit it, say it was a mistake, and move on. True abusers are rarely able to show this much self-insight in court.
7) If you think the results are unfair, ask for a reconsideration, and then, perhaps, a revision. Be aggressive in protecting your rights, but always respectful to everyone in the process.
8) Whatever the result, follow the orders in spirit, and to the absolute letter. If the order says to pee in a cup, pee in a cup. If it says to undergo a DV evaluation, do it with candor and humility. Use humor. If you show the court that you can comply with court orders – even ones you don’t agree with – it’s far more likely that the court will trust you in relaxing those orders at a later time. Don’t give up. Believe me, we’ve had some long-ass fights. But in the end, if you’re smart, humble, you follow orders, and you focus on your kids, you will usually succeed.
@40, 41
I’m really sorry to hear that you haven’t seen your son in months.
You apparently don’t like what I have written, but tell you what? Give me a call and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, and perhaps offer some helpful advice. No charge.
Your son needs you. Don’t give up.
@ 52:
You write: “Cite the rate at which a Motion for Reconsideration of a commissioner’s ruling is granted. Cite also the rate at which a Motion for Revision is granted versus a judge DEFERRING to a commissioner without re-looking at the matter de novo.
Back up your BS, liar.”
Very good question, actually.
I don’t have statistics for all reconsiderations and revisions, county-wide. Conventional wisdom is that they usually fail. I would guesstimate that about 50-60% of the ones my firm has filed in the last two years have succeeded, but a big reason why it’s this high is because we only do reconsiderations/revisions when we think the ruling below was really in left field.
Otherwise, it’s just a waste of the client’s money.
Plus, I really don’t enjoy getting my ass kicked in court 😉
Christopher Rao, you clearly have the patience of a saint.
Christopher,
All of your suggestions are spot on. And it is possible to win TROs or DVPOs with enough hard work.
But a victim has a built in or systemic advantage including the use of ex parte orders and DV advocates. A victim is given all the information and help. Declarations are tailored to hit all the right statutory factors. The other side is not present. To me, that is an advantage or bias.
During my volunteer work with legal clinics, I see too many pro se clients restrained with Ex Parte orders. They didn’t even have a chance to respond or have time to hire an attorney. Because of that, he either loses the case or it is delayed. By far most of the clients with this problem are men.
Some commissioners claim its only a restraint of a couple weeks, but I’ve seen ex parte ROs and DVPOs extended for weeks and months. That is a long time to be out your house and children being denied time with a parent. To say the person is not being punished stretches credulity. To say the kids are better off is dubious.
Whether bias or other factor, the system needs correction. Perhaps we can talk more about this (maybe on the listserve) and discuss solutions.
Derek
http://www.medina-law.com
Derek,
Thanks for the constructive comments.
You say that “it is possible to win TRO’s or DVPO’s with enough hard work.” Isn’t hard work what we’re paid for, whoever we represent? I can’t speak for others, but in my personal experience, I’ve never found it particularly difficult to blow away hysterical accusations.
You write that “a victim has a built in or systemic advantage including the use of ex parte orders and DV advocates. A victim is given all the information and help. Declarations are tailored to hit all the right statutory factors. The other side is not present. To me, that is an advantage or bias.”
First and foremost, this is a public health issue. The year by year statistics I have found for domestic violence fatalities in Washington State, by gender are:
1997 – 4 male victims, 20 female victims
1998 – 2 male victims, 30 female victims
1999 – 4 male victims, 20 female victims
2000 – 2 male victims, 18 female victims
2001 – 1 male victim, 30 female victims
2002 – 3 male victims, 24 female victims
2003 – 4 male victims , 24 female victims
2004 – 3 male victims, 25 female victims
2005 – 6 male victims, 34 female victims
2006 – 8 male victims, 18 female victims
2007 – 5 male victims, 24 female victims
2008 – 2 male victims, 23 female victims
2009 – 5 male victims, 28 female victims
2010 – 6 male victims, 24 female victims
==================================
1997-2010 – 55 male victims, 342 female victims
http://www.wscadv.org/docs/DVHomicideRat… For much more in depth analysis, see http://www.ncdsv.org/publications_domhom…
I use fatality statistics because they are inherently more reliable. What is striking about these statistics is how little they change from year to year. Note that in this 14 year period, the number of female victims was less than 20 just once (18) and more than 30 just once (34). Likewise the number of male victims was below 2 just once (1) and above 6 just once (8).
Incidentally, I just remembered that I wrote an article on this back in 2009, after reading that a Graham, WA dad shot all 5 of his kids, apparently because his wife was cheating on him. He couldn’t find his wife, so then he shot himself. – http://decouplingblog.com/2009/04/virtua…
Note that these five children are not part of the above statistics – nor are any other child victims of DV.
It’s also important to note that many “familicide” perpetrators – who kill their children as well as their partner – had no prior criminal record. I believe that neither of the dads I wrote about, who killed their families a few days apart in April 2009 had criminal records. One was a white diesel mechanic, the other an Indian-American software engineer.
All this leads to an imperfect balancing act for our ex parte commissioners. They may err a bit on the side of caution, but what would you do, given the above statistics?
Clearly, most of us guys are not homicidal lunatics, just as most guys who look like me are not terrorists. And yet pretty much every time I fly I get “special” attention, ever since 9/11 (well, unless my wife is with me). I don’t know that it’s fair to me, but I sure understand it. It’s just part of being brown in America.
This issue is tough because there are fundamental asymmetries at play (see above statistics). Similarly, I would guess that someone who owns a restaurant or other cash-based business probably faces more scrutiny by the IRS than say, a Boeing engineer. Not all restaurant owners cheat on their taxes, and some Boeing engineers certainly do, but that doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics of the situation.
Yes, if anyone is a victim of a dubious DVPO, and they don’t properly bring the facts to the court’s attention, two weeks can easily turn into two months or longer. Obviously, this is just plain wrong. Like you, I defend these folks regularly against hysterical accusations, and statistically, it’s likely that a majority of these folks are men (because statistically, more men commit violent acts against their families). But the ex parte court is not in a vacuum. And if we remove protections, and cut funding for DV advocates, what do you think the likely results will be?
The class of people who have the greatest ability to change these dynamics are lawyers. DV advocates have a hard, but narrowly defined job. It’s not reasonable given their budgetary constraints to ask them to create a further hurdle to people coming for help. But too many of these hysterical ex parte motions are drafted by lawyers – including, ironically, lawyers who publicly complain about bias against men (not you, Derek). Such practice is reprehensible, just as it is reprehensible when lawyers knowingly intimidate the victims of domestic violence, and effectively perpetuate the cycle of domestic violence in the litigation process itself.
On the occasions when I have asked these attorneys who drafted hysterical accusations why they filed such mean-spirited tripe (usually after my client defeated the order at a hearing a couple of weeks later), I generally get either a) more hysterical accusations, or b) some lame excuse like “This is what my client told me; there’s nothing I could do.” Poppycock. We family law attorneys need to change the culture so that it’s just not cool to use domestic violence for tactical advantage.
Once again, I believe that the misuse of the ex parte calendar is a complex and multi-faceted issue rather than a gender-specific issue. Right now in my practice I have a fairly equal gender split of clients who were on the wrong end of a hysterical ex parte order. For my practice at least, this is common. The only real difference I see is that male clients appear more likely to believe that they are the victim of bias than female clients.
I would love to talk more about possible solutions. The first thing I can think of off the bat is that ex parte commissioners could more closely scrutinize why the opposing party cannot be present at the hearing – at least by phone. True, in some cases, giving the other party notice itself creates a public safety hazard. But in many cases I see, just from reading the petition and declaration, there was just no good reason not to at least give the other party 2 or 3 hours notice, and at least let them talk to the court by phone. One reason I think it happens is that if the ex parte order is granted anyway, the other party may evade service of process – and without the actual order in hand, that party cannot be arrested for violating that order. This isn’t an issue if the restrained party is there in person, but of course, that creates other public health issues – because a pre-scheduled court hearing is the one place an abuser knows when and where his victim will be. Every time you take the 4th avenue entrance you walk past the plaque commemorating the woman Susana Blackwell, 25, who has eight months pregnant when she was shot and killed by her estranged husband at the courthouse in 1995, along with two of her friends, Phoebe Dizon, 46, and Veronica Laureta Johnson, 42. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
Not every guy is a dick like Timothy Blackwell. And yes, some guys get shafted by the court just like some women get shafted. But when we throw around incendiary terms like “systemic bias,” and talk about all the “advantages” that victims get, let’s at least look at both sides of the equation with cold, discerning eyes.
@Rao (regarding your statistics):
So, 20 – 40 murders per year justifies 100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders WITHOUT a full hearing, WITHOUT evidence, except the word of a woman?
How many of those murder victims would have been protected with a protection order. I can confidently say: NONE. Why? Cuz someone risking the DEATH PENALTY or LIFE in prison doesn’t give a crap about a piece of paper that says don’t go near the person you want to kill. Many psychologists will admit the restraining order system is a scam. And here you are justifying it because sometimes murder occurs. You are comparing apples with oranges….you’re doing a spin doctor attorney misdirection trick.
@Rao 64:
You mention you understand a responding party’s absence in Ex Parte. You know how attorneys USUALLY proceed in Ex Parte. They call a responding party father while he is at work or they DON’T call him AT ALL and they LIE to the Commissioner and say they gave him notice.
Or if it’s a pro se mom she goes in there NOT knowing about the notice requirement and doesn’t give the dad notice at all and the court grants it anyway. Or she says that she’s afraid he will get violent so the notice requirement is waived.
BUT THINK ABOUT IT….the “waiver of notice requirement” is based upon actual harm. Most women say, “If he finds out I’m coming down here, he will get violent.” Well, (1) he’s gonna find out about the return hearing, won’t he get violent THEN? and (2) If he shows up in Ex Parte, there’s Sheriff Deputies everywhere and the court will LIKELY GRANT THE ORDER ANYWAY.
The ENTIRE proceeding in Ex Parte restraining orders is SCAM. Like PreTend Comm. Deborah Bianco ADMITTED, the courts grant them because they are afraid of a hypothetical: that the mother may be killed or assaulted if they don’t. YOUR COMRADES ADMIT that they err in order to protect their own hypothetical reputation…they are afraid of the boogeyman. They hand out THOUSANDS of restraining orders without due process, setting a guy up for a crime, all for the fear of that ONE person who MIGHT get killed. (which is bogus, again, because a killer does NOT care about a restraining order)
@Rao 64:
Why are there “special” DV laws for assaults and murders? Why don’t the courts just criminally prosecute the murder/assault laws? Answer: the radical feminists created a “special” law that makes intimate victims of murder/assault more special than others SO THAT they could prosecute them easier, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Anyone with half a brain, who thinks for themselves, and thinks about this issue for a minute can see this for what it really is. Explanation:
Domestic Violence has to do with a violent CRIME. But, many times a woman ONLY goes to family court and gets a CIVIL protection order. What’s the burden in civil court to prove that a man will kill, assault or harm her (in the future)? A preponderance of evidence. If she says she fears that, then they grant it, PERIOD. The dad is deprived of life, liberty, property, his Constitutional right to access to his children WITHOUT a trial, WITHOUT a jury of his peers, WITHOUT the right to an attorney, WITHOUT a hearing lasting longer than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any evidence except the wife/girlfriend/babymama’s WORD.
This is the ONLY law that will deprive someone of freedom based upon what they MIGHT do in the future (except for THREATS, but those are tangible and its the actual incident of a threat that’s prosecuted). But, here, the issue at hand is that if a psychotic, schizophrenic woman is in fear for her life, then those around her have committed DV because of her paranoia. Or if she lies, she is believed, because idiots like you have set up the laws, the court’s M.O. and all other systems to deprive men of their rights on demand.
If you cannot see the scam of DV protection orders and the Ex Parte department, then you are blind. Period. I’ve seen many DV protection orders entered WITHOUT notice and EVEN WITHOUT a claim of imminent harm. Psycho Bradburn-Johnson, or Hollis Holman, or Arden Bedle, or little-man-disease Velategui (who never reads anything) all sign off on these orders ALWAYS.
@ Rao 64: And what if a dad wants a restraining order against a child abusing/DV perpetrating mother. Does he get one? Never. If he goes to Ex Parte without notice, it is demanded that he notifies her. If he notifies and she’s a no-show it is denied because they assume he’s lying.
Recently, a dad walked into Arden Bedle’s courtroom and provided PROOF that the mother committed DV. On top of that, she SWORE UNDER OATH in a protection order petition that her new husband committed DV against her. RCW 26.09.191(2) requires restrictions against the mother because SHE IS and her live-in husband IS a domestic violence perpetrator.
What does Bedle end up doing? Taking every-other-weekend visitation from the dad altogether…because he harassed the mom by attempting this legit motion. And the mom gets a free attorney because she is giving sexual favors to James Michael Gallagher (who brags to you and your comrades about all the coochie he gets from female clients who are destitute).
And YOU say that there is NO bias whatsoever in this family court system full of perverts like Bedle, and Gallagher and Stuart Greenberg, and GAL Don Layton (who writes favorable reports for sexual favors), and so on.
@Rao (re complaint of home address):
Your home address is public record, just like your office address is, you idiot. Don’t complain to me that it’s available on the internet. Talk to Google.
I just posted all the info for the convenience of anyone who wanted to write you, complain, or share information with you directly to help change your distorted, illogical views.
What makes you think that your children are in danger because your PUBLIC address was once again made public? You sound like those feminists who create paranoia and an emotional frenzy in order to pass illogical, unconstitutional laws, in order to execute their agenda. If you don’t want to be subject to public scrutiny, then stop being a horrible father and putting yourself out in the public. (or maybe you were just being specious with your concern to project blame on me for doing something wrong). Whatever, dude.
@69 I can imagine that it’s just possible that having an anonymous and fairly deranged Internet stalker post your address in the same thread that they accuse you of being a pedophile (among other things) might be just a little bit unsettling.
As a MALE divorce client of Christopher’s I can you that he’s been extremely professional and done a great job of navigating me through what is / is not reasonable in the process. On the other hand, I have no kids, and am also lucky enough to have kept a good enough relationship with my ex-wife to do this on a mediated / uncontested basis so I thankfully don’t have direct experience of the tougher side of the family court.
By the way, I have to assume that your choice in women must be absolutely atrocious – the idea that any judge would give custody of a kid to someone as clearly unhinged as you is frightening, even if the system were fair. I hate to imagine what kind of woman could lose a custody battle to someone with your temperament in a system as biased as you claim it to be.
You’ve made your points and you’ve also demonstrated a broken sense of proportion combined with a complete lack of civility which means nobody is listening anymore – the only reason I’m here is because Christopher canceled an appointment with me this morning because he’s behind in his real work from answering these questions. I don’t know how many other clients have bad their stuff rescheduled because of this but I’m pretty sure I speak for all of Christopher’s clients when I ask you, politely, to stop bugging my lawyer so he can get on with working on my stuff.
This conversation is over – feel free to crawl back under whatever rock you came from (Ok, maybe that bit wasn’t so polite…)
@65,66,67,68,69
James (the name I got from the email you sent me),
You actually raise some good points, and I’m happy to discuss them further, in a coffee shop or restaurant of your choice. Feel free to invite Chris Hupy, GoodDad, Medina, and anyone else you wish. As I said, I’ll buy the first cup of coffee for anyone who shows. Till then, I’ll try to respond to as many of your points as I can reasonably track.
@65, you write: “So, 20 – 40 murders per year justifies 100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders WITHOUT a full hearing, WITHOUT evidence, except the word of a woman?”
Briefly, yes. Every human life is sacred. To put this in perspective, a 2003 Center for Disease control report summarizes: Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur among U.S. women ages 18 and older each year. This violence results in nearly 2.0 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cos… Let’s just ignore the 2 million injuries a year and look only to DV fatalities – which as I’ve noted earlier are statistically very reliable indicators. If we use a conservative estimate of 1,200 homicides a year, that makes 13,200 homicides between 2001 and 2011. To put this in perspective, it’s estimated by one anti-Islamic website that 3,094 people have died in the US from 66 Islamic extremist attacks between 1972 and 2011 (including 2,996 on 9/11/2001). http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/….
Yes, this means that 4 times as many women were murdered by intimate partners in just ten years than by Islamic extremists in 40 years.
I think we all know what some of the civil liberties consequences have been for brown people – and for everyone – in America after 9/11 (!). As a person of color, I accept this scrutiny every time I fly even though it’s ridiculous to think I would ever harm anyone on an airplane or anywhere else.
Statistically, think how much more dangerous it is for women in their own homes than flying on a plane. I believe the public safety issue alone justifies a heightened level of scrutiny for men accused of threatening and/or violent behavior. We can agree to disagree on this, but these particular numbers show the extent of the public safety issue.
You also write: “How many of those murder victims would have been protected with a protection order. I can confidently say: NONE. Why? Cuz someone risking the DEATH PENALTY or LIFE in prison doesn’t give a crap about a piece of paper that says don’t go near the person you want to kill.”
I respectfully disagree with this premise, for a number of reasons. Certainly it’s true that someone completely committed to violence cannot be stopped by a piece of paper. In fact, the rise of suicide bombers has shown that dedicated murderers often can’t be stopped by laws, guns, police checkpoints, and concrete barricades (each of which are a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens). But that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to prevent suicide bombers, or that we should try to use our civil laws to protect victims of DV.
There’s also plenty of statistical evidence showing the correlation between “paper restraints” and declines in violence. For example, a 2004 study published by the National Institute of Health succinctly concluded: “Abused women who apply and qualify for a 2-year protection order, irrespective of whether or not they are granted the order, report significantly lower levels of violence during the subsequent 18 months.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
More in the next post…
James,
@65- You claim that there are “100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders.” I wonder what evidence you have of this.
@66- You write: “You mention you understand a responding party’s absence in Ex Parte. You know how attorneys USUALLY proceed in Ex Parte. They call a responding party father while he is at work or they DON’T call him AT ALL and they LIE to the Commissioner and say they gave him notice.”
Dude, I am seriously with you on this one. Using ticky-tack specious allegations, then not giving proper notice is despicable. And yes, some lawyers lie (as do some engineers, carpenters, computer programmers, hair dressers, etc.) They should be sanctioned by the bar – in my opinion, these bad apples should actually be sanctioned far more than they are now. On the other hand, some of the very most honest people I have ever met are lawyers – because lawyers see the slippery slope from puffery to exaggeration to white lie to bald-faced lie every damn day. This experience makes some people more dishonest, and some people far more diligent in the being honest, even in the small things.
You write “The ENTIRE proceeding in Ex Parte restraining orders is SCAM.” Sorry, but I just don’t see this. As I’ve written earlier, the restraining orders and OFP’s that I’ve filed – sometimes with notice, sometimes without notice, depending on the risks involved as I saw them – are public record. I stand behind every single one I ever filed. And like you, I think that lawyers who file these motions purely for tactical advantage suck nasty cow pies.
You write: “They hand out THOUSANDS of restraining orders without due process, setting a guy up for a crime, all for the fear of that ONE person who MIGHT get killed.” Legal due process is not a rigid line. Rather, it’s a delicate and imperfect balancing act between protecting civil liberties and assessing real threats to public safety. Just ask some of the hundred of poor folks stuck at Guantanamo Bay for years, who never committed any crime at all. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0425/guantan…
Again, let me reiterate my invitation to have this discussion in a coffee shop or restaurant, at your convenience. Just not tomorrow – it’s the Super Bowl! I find that talking to people who disagree with me is far more interesting than preaching to the choir.
James,
@67 – You write: “Why are there “special” DV laws for assaults and murders? Why don’t the courts just criminally prosecute the murder/assault laws? … What’s the burden in civil court to prove that a man will kill, assault or harm her (in the future)? A preponderance of evidence. If she says she fears that, then they grant it, PERIOD. The dad is deprived of life, liberty, property, his Constitutional right to access to his children WITHOUT a trial, WITHOUT a jury of his peers, WITHOUT the right to an attorney, WITHOUT a hearing lasting longer than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any evidence except the wife/girlfriend/babymama’s WORD.”
This is a decent question. The purpose of criminal laws is to punish. The purpose of civil protection orders is to protect – especially to protect children. Yes, preponderance of evidence is the standard, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Again, it’s an imperfect balancing act designed to prevent serious injuries and fatalities – and as I think I’ve shown, there are a lot of them.
Remember that all ex parte orders are temporary, usually no more than 2 weeks. And as long as the restrained party follows legal process and doesn’t violate the order in that 2-week period, no one’s getting locked up.
I definitely think that this process can be, and is, abused. BUT it’s abused by lawyers for both men and women, as I’ve said earlier.
Also, I absolutely believe that there are good, fairly predictable safeguards in the system – motions to quash, full hearings, reconsiderations, revisions, CR 60 motions, parenting evaluations. http://decouplingblog.com/2009/05/ask-a-…
My own experience is that the courts don’t always get it right the first time around, for a variety of reasons – but if you present good evidence in a calm, methodical and respectful way – then upon further review, the court will almost always get it right.
My experience is that the cases I see where men and women fail to reverse adverse paper restraints, their lawyers typically present their own dubious, hysterical, angry, he-said, she-said statements, ignore proper extrinsic evidence, often treat the court with open disrespect and even contempt – then complain about how unfair the court was. Yeah, lazy lawyers don’t usually blame their own lack of preparation. Big surprise.
Obviously you disagree about how good these safeguards are. I’m happy to discuss this in detail with you, and with anyone else who believes that these processes are inadequate to protect the rights of fathers or mothers. You got my number. Just call me to set up a time and place.
James,
@68
I’m not going to comment specifically on individual commissioners or lawyers, or DV evaluators, or GALs in a public forum, because I think that it’s just irresponsible. I will say that a couple of the names you list have widespread reputations that are not terribly dissimilar to your characterizations. Look, there are bad eggs everywhere – contractors who hide their crappy work behind sheet rock; engineers who rubber stamp dangerous designs that end up killing people; auto mechanics who rip off the unwary as a matter of course; reporters who ignore facts that don’t fit the headline they want to write; politicians who use fear and sleight of hand to get elected, then pick the pockets of the people who put them there; over-privileged athletes and rock stars who can’t be bothered to be nice to the fans who are responsible for their millions of dollars; jerks who dent your car in a parking lot and don’t leave a note, and so on.
The world is an imperfect place.
You write: “And YOU say that there is NO bias whatsoever in this family court system…”
No, I have never said this. I have harshly attacked a slapdash article which makes broad accusations which I believe were not supported in any significant way by the facts that Ms. Shapiro presents.
I have stated that my personal experience is that our family courts usually get it right, based on the most credible evidence presented, and that I have seen no significant bias against men or women.
Do I think that commissions, judges, and evaluators sometimes make awful mistakes? Of course I do. These are human beings, and human beings are full of pre-conceived notions. It’s part of being human, part of how we are able to make sense of the onslaught of new data we get each and every day.
I have been personally involved on the wrong side of some major injustices – representing both women and men – including a former client dad who has gone to the Court of Appeals three times because of a series of terrible decisions. This is a matter of public record. http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/c…
Representing moms, I have also been on the wrong end of some bonehead orders, like the commissioner who ruled that, several years after the divorce, my client’s long-time boyfriend of could never spend the night at her house while her teenage kids were there because it suddenly offended the deadbeat dad’s religious sensibilities – even though the boyfriend knew the kids well and the kids liked him, had been spending the night there for 3 years without incident, and did nothing else wrong.
These are examples of two truly awful court orders, made by commissioners/judges – orders that really messed with my clients, and did no favors their kids. Maybe the decision makers were biased, maybe they didn’t read the materials carefully, maybe they didn’t like my client, maybe they didn’t like me. You can get on your soap box and say the whole system is corrupt in one way or another, or you can look at each individually, and not jump to rash conclusions unless there is truly compelling impartial evidence to support it.
You want an example of compelling impartial evidence? About 15 years ago the Seattle Times reported that although 92% or so all heroin overdose fatalities were white people, 50% of all SPD arrests for possessing heroin were black people. (I have no idea if this discrepancy is as big now.) Now, I just don’t know any way you can look at those two numbers without seeing institutional bias of some sort. I mean, unless you really want to argue that black heroin addicts are somehow smarter about not overdosing… Note again that I look to fatality statistics because I believe them to be more generally reliable.
I am perfectly willing to read, and listen to, evidence that contradicts my specific experiences. After all, I’m just one lawyer, working in a small firm. I don’t see thousands of cases a year; I see dozens of cases a year, maybe a couple of hundred. I like to think I can look evidence as it is, and not as I wish it to be.
What I’m arguing for is getting good data so that we don’t mistakenly put 2 and 2 together and get 13. Yeah, before I was a lawyer I was a wannabe policy wonk. True story.
Again, let me know if you want to meet in person, 1 on 1, or with some of your other friends present. You can find me most days at my Rao & Pierce office on Beacon Hill. You can call me at 206.721.8880 to set up a time. I ask only one thing. I’m not terribly concerned with any names you want to call me, but I insist that you – and anyone else who calls my firm – treat my staff politely and respectfully. Whatever you think of me, it’s on me and not the nice people who work for me. This is not their fight.
James,
@69
You write: “If you don’t want to be subject to public scrutiny, then stop being a horrible father and putting yourself out in the public.” I honestly don’t know what you mean by “horrible father.” I am, I think, better than some and worse than others. I just hope, like most parents, that my love for my kids is stronger than the prejudices and insecurities I unintentionally inflict on them, just by being who I am. Hopefully, I won’t ruin my kids by accident!
And I’m not sure what I have written – and it’s a few thousand words by now – that would make anyone think I “don’t want to be subject to public scrutiny.”
You write: “Your home address is public record, just like your office address is, you idiot. Don’t complain to me that it’s available on the internet. Talk to Google. I just posted all the info for the convenience of anyone who wanted to write you, complain, or share information with you directly to help change your distorted, illogical views.”
I have no problem with your posting my office coordinates. In fact, my original article links to my firm’s blog, which in turn gives my firm address. I am not hard to find. But to claim that you post someone’s home address for the “convenience” of people who could already reach me at my office, nearly in the same breath as you call me a “lying chink” and a “greasy pedophile”?
Sorry dude, but I call bullsh*t.
I will say that since your original posts on Wednesday I’ve been contacted 8-10 times by other family law attorneys who appeared genuinely concerned for my personal safety, and for the safety of my family. Several of these people told me that they thought I was not concerned enough. A couple of people told me of their own scary stories with disgruntled opposing parties in family law cases. Another couple of people told me about Tom Neville (he was killed before I moved to Seattle, and I had never heard of him) – http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/16/…
I’m not trying to be dramatic; I’m just offering a reality check on how you may be perceived, at least by some of my fellow vultures, and perhaps by some of the readers here.
You don’t strike me as a violent guy, just a guy who has been very frustrated for a long long time, and who perhaps thinks that no one is listening or cares. In other words, you sound like a lot of my clients. Clearly, this is something you care about deeply, and I respect the passion of your convictions. No joke.
I also don’t think you are necessarily off base with everything you say. Even if I don’t agree with your conclusions, I think that you rightly put your finger on some difficult issues, and you’ve obviously done some homework on all this. But if you use needlessly invasive, bullying tactics, your ideas won’t be taken seriously and you’ll be written off by a lot of people (though perhaps not by me) as a creepy, unhinged jerk. Trust me on this, even if you believe nothing else I say.
Look, you want to seriously debate these issues – and I suspect you do, given all the energy you’ve put into your posts – then let’s talk in person and see where that takes us. Just leave my office staff and my family out of it, and you can call me whatever the hell you want. I’m at 206.721.8880.
Also, apropos of nothing perhaps: WAG MORE. BARK LESS. LIFE’S JUST TOO SHORT.
Now I gotta go be a dad. Ever since we got back from Chuck E. Cheese around 3 pm, my kid’s been patiently awaiting my attention. I’ll try not to ruin him 😉
Wow, I don’t know where to start.
You state as evidence of lack of bias a case that began with a biased ex-parte restraining order “based on flimsy evidence”. Isn’t that an admission of bias? The case ends happily as the commissioner makes the right decision after being given lots and lots of reliable evidence. I certainly hope so. The point of the article is to describe bias when there is ANY gray area. A commissioner who consistently made biased rulings in one party’s favor despite solid evidence to the contrary would eventually (we hope) lose their job. They’re not that stupid.
Regarding the “numerous checks and balances” – a commissioner won’t overturn themselves on reconsideration. By law, they cannot look at new evidence. So you’re stating inaccurate legal information.
Here’s the law on that:
“After a formal order has been entered, it is improper to offer new evidence. New evidence may not be submitted to a court for purposes of reconsideration after a formal order has been entered.”
AIMCOR v. Melton;
Meridian Minerals Co. v. King Cy., 61 Wn. App. 195, 203, 810 P.2d 31, review denied;
Felsman v. Kessler;
So, given they can’t look at new evidence, why would they overrule themselves? Again, they’re not that stupid. I’d love to see the statistics on reconsideration. What’s the success rate on that? 5%?
You can’t consider new evidence in a revision either. Here’s the law on that:
“A judge in a revision hearing must remand if additional evidence is sought by the judge because no new evidence is allowed at a revision hearing (Iturribarria).”
Iturribarria Perez v Bazaldua Garcia
By the way, judges are extremely busy people, have little time to attend to revisions and schedule them between morning coffee and a bathroom break. Since they’re the ones who appoint, work alongside, socialize and trade favors with, the commissioners, they tend to rubber stamp commissioner’s decisions unless they’re egregiously wrong. They certainly don’t check or balance bias.
One other thing Mr. Rao-it will probably cost someone several thousand dollars to hire you to even seek a revision. The client has already paid you several thousand for hearing on temporary orders. At some point, he has to decide where best to strategically allocate the money he has left….seeking an unlikely revision or saving it for to fight custody.
The analogy to losing a Seahawks game is distasteful. Do you GET the pain that’s being inflicted here. Please try to put yourself in these men’s shoes. This is not a football game. This is loss of their parenting rights, loss of their dignity, loss of their savings, and yes even the loss of their spousal relationship is painful.
You speak of there being a lack of “proper data”. True, there is no scientific data. But at what point do the opinions of the 4-5 well known and regarded attorneys in the article, the attorneys responding to your blog, the attorneys responding on the listserves and discussion groups, etc. etc. at what point do their own experiences regarding the bias of certain commissioners deserve any weight in your judgment? How many King County attorneys does it take before you’d be convinced there may be a shred of truth here? 50%? 75%?
You state “The truth is that most men—and women—in family courts would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament”. Well, that certainly begs the question, doesn’t it? That they “are in court to begin with because of their own bad decisions and/or behavior” makes no sense at all. Are you referring to their decision to marry a liar, or live in a county with certain biased commissioners? I don’t get it.
The claims of “lazy lawyering” is just a cheap shot. I think marketing to men is a sham, but still a cheap shot to your colleagues.
Finally, the article did not parade men as victims. It specifically pointed out children as the chief victims of the bias.
John,
@76
First, thank you for your thoughtful post.I may not agree with you, but I enjoyed reading your post. If nothing else, you have raised the level of discourse here by stating the “bias exists” argument with restraint and some logic.
You write: “You state as evidence of lack of bias a case that began with a biased ex-parte restraining order “based on flimsy evidence”. Isn’t that an admission of bias?” No, it’s simply evidence of what I believe to be a bad order. Bad orders happen. As I’ve written in detail above, 1) Ex parte commissioners have a really hard job, balancing the rights of those who are not present against possible devastating harm for not granting orders; 2) I myself am critical of granting orders when the pleadings themselves, even if 100% true, don’t add to up, IMO, to a good enough reason to grant orders without any notice to the restrained party. But I am sympathetic to the very tough job these commissioners have; 3) In my experience, both men and women sometimes end up on the wrong end of these orders, and I have seen no credible evidence that men are unfairly targeted.
You write “The point of the article is to describe bias when there is ANY gray area.” It’s family law. There are ALWAYS gray areas. Our courts wrestle with them every single day, and, I believe, overwhelmingly get it right. The fact that they sometimes get it wrong is not evidence of bias.
The point of my article is that Shapiro’s claims of bias were mostly anecdotal, speaking only to the attorney for the man, and not backed by any credible evidence. Institutional bias exists in this world, as does good evidence. As I wrote, if for example, there is a huge difference between the percentage of drug overdose deaths by race and the percentage of heroin possession arrests by race, well to me, that creates a pretty credible prima facie presumption of bias. See also http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06d…
You write: “Regarding the “numerous checks and balances” – a commissioner won’t overturn themselves on reconsideration.” Commissioners often reverse themselves on reconsideration – if there’s good reason to. And they often look at new evidence – but only if there’s a good reason why the evidence wasn’t available in the first place. I stand by my statement (and can probably supplement with my own case law when I get back to the office on Monday).
I don’t know what the statistics are for reconsiderations, but I suspect that many reconsiderations are filed pro forma, making all the same tired arguments again. As I wrote, we file reconsiderations and revisions sparingly, and only when we think a decision is truly without merit – and win about 50-60% of them. I can’t speak to the experience of other attorneys, but nearly everything we file is a matter of public record (except for parentage actions, which are sealed).
You are correct that judges won’t consider new evidence on revision. This is why lawyers typically offer new evidence on reconsideration, even if they think they’ll lose the reconsideration – so that it’s part of the record for an eventual revision.
You write that judges “tend to rubber stamp commissioner’s decisions unless they’re egregiously wrong. They certainly don’t check or balance bias.” Revisions are a check on all sorts of errors at the commissioner level, whether you call those errors bias, legal error, or what have you. Also, the mere knowledge that any ruling can easily be revised itself tends to make commissioners more careful, IMO. But judges SHOULDN’T reverse lower court rulings unless they are egregiously wrong. The family courts are there to create a safe and stable status quo up until trial. If every tough 51/49 decision were routinely overturned, it would mean chaos in the court system.
Revisions don’t cost thousands of dollars. They are relatively cheap because no new evidence is presented. The typical revision motion is a two or three page long pro forma exercise. It’s a do over.
You write: “The analogy to losing a Seahawks game is distasteful. Do you GET the pain that’s being inflicted here. Please try to put yourself in these men’s shoes.” I put myself in their shows just about every day. My point was that if people vociferously complain about the refs in a football game years later, it’s natural to do so when there is so much more at stake. I think we’re both saying that football games are trivial compared to the heartache of divorce.
You write “You speak of there being a lack of “proper data”. True, there is no scientific data. But at what point do the opinions of the 4-5 well known and regarded attorneys in the article, the attorneys responding to your blog, the attorneys responding on the listserves and discussion groups, etc. etc. at what point do their own experiences regarding the bias of certain commissioners deserve any weight in your judgment?” I’ve been very clear that I’m just one attorney, running a small firm of just five attorneys. I certainly don’t think I have a monopoly on objective truth. But I do know a little about data. The point is not simply that there’s no scientific data presented, but that this data is obtainable, and those who complain make little effort to obtain it.
IF THE CLAIMED ANTI-MALE BIAS REALLY EXISTS, I BELIEVE THAT RELIABLE DATA CAN BE FOUND TO PROVE IT.
I am happy to look at any purported data. Little has been offered. I am inherently suspicious of anyone who eschews hard data in favor of an emotionally resonant narrative.
By contrast, I believe that I have cited to several fairly reliable academic studies – and these have been ignored by those on this thread who disagree with me.
It’s true that a few fairly well know attorneys were quoted claiming bias. This is disappointing, but not terribly surprising to me. It’s easy to blame the court rather your client or your own bad lawyering. Ultimately, the percentage of lawyers who make this claim is less relevant to me than getting to the truth of the matter. With data. Absent such data,I believe that I have made my own systemic analysis as to what factors might help prompt some lawyers to say such things. I stand by this.
You question my statement that most men and women are in family courts because of their own bad decisions, and that they “would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament.” This is an uncomfortable point, but it does reflect my experience.
You write: “Are you referring to their decision to marry a liar …?” I think you live in a simpler world than I do, a world where good people simply marry bad people.” The world in which I live is substantially more complex. It’s a world where everyone has good and bad in them, everyone wants to do better but most do not, and everyone, in these cases, is carrying around a great deal of pain – all of it real. I see family courts not so much as good vs. evil but as a cadre of flawed individuals doing the best that they can.
You write: “The claims of “lazy lawyering” is just a cheap shot.” If you say so. Doesn’t make it any less true.
You write: “I think marketing to men is a sham, but still a cheap shot to your colleagues.” I think that wild, unsupported accusations of institutional bias are cheap shots. But you think that pointing out a marketing sham that results in more pain and poverty to guys who are already in a world of hurt is a cheap shot?
Yes, I believe that the article indeed paraded men as victims – and that this inference is fundamentally misleading.
The questions we should be asking ourselves are this: What agenda is being furthered by these largely unsupported claims of systemic bias, leveled primarily at female professionals? Who does this agenda benefit? And why are the chief complainers not spending their plentiful energies collecting actual data? Talk is cheap.
My own agenda is simple:
First, I want more quality lawyering in King County family courts, and I want us lawyers to take more responsibility for the mistakes that we make.
Second, I want to see more respect given to our courts, who do a very hard job, and do it admirably, even with terrible funding cuts.
Third, I want more focus placed on the needs of children, who are substantially more vulnerable than either their mothers or their fathers.
Let’s demand solid evidence, instead of giving in to hysteria. To use a non-football analogy, let’s actually find the weapons of mass destruction first, BEFORE spending a trillion dollars we don’t have.
@ Rao 75: YOU ARE THE ONE who claimed/insinuated that I put your children at risk by posting your contact information. You insinuate that doing so endangers the children. You tried to pin that on me. But, your info is PUBLIC and ON THE WEB. YOU are putting YOURSELF out there on a regular basis. So, YOU ARE THE ONE opening yourself up to public scrutiny and/or observation. Since your home address is ALREADY PUBLIC then YOU ARE THE ONE who is “putting your kids at risk”.
UNLESS that was just a disingenuous, specious lawyer trick to somehow make me look bad and de-legitimize the merits of my claims here. But, you’re a lawyer, you’re bound to be honest at all times, you couldn’t possibly ever play misleading games right?
How is it that you passed the LSAT but you have a hard time with deductive reasoning or following the logic of this point and I have to break it down to you as if I’m an elementary school teacher? Bizarre. I guess Justice Burger was right (as quoted above).
@ Rao 74: OF COURSE you are not going to comment on specific judges, GALs or commissioners….because you’re a coward, just like 95% of all family law attorneys are. You’re afraid of the “boogeyman”….the untrue legend that if you call a commissioner or judge out, then your profession will suffer.
Also, this “there’s always a few bad apples crap” is a crock. In Mississippi, in the 50s would you say there’s “a few bad racist apples”? No, idiot, you would say the entire system is corrupt. So, being the truth-teller that I am, I declare that THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM is corrupt. It is IMPOSSIBLE that 90% of the time in contested cases that the mother is the better custodial parent. A 60/40 ratio would be biased. 90/10 is outrageous. That speaks of SYSTEM-WIDE corruption.
And your buddies are all in on it. They give custody to mom cuz dad usually has the $$. Then DSHS and DCS get Federal money matching the child support, which all goes in to a pool that pays commissioner salaries. So, the transfer of wealth, corruption of child support racket brings money to the state agents who impose custody and determine child support. Morevover, Child Support Orders are routinely signed off on with enforcement collections (by incompetent attorneys as yourself) so that DCS can put the $$ in interest bearing accounts, further making money. Also, incompetent attorneys will include daycare in the transfer payment so that if mom pulls a kid from daycare and dad doesn’t know it, he still gets $$ extorted from him and then has to go back to get reimbursement for the money ripped off (which is only a credit and not actually reimbursement). Don’t tell me there’s only “a few bad apples” you ignorant fool! You are further and further incriminating yourself as being incompetent on this issue.
Moreover, your admission of “a few bad apples” (an understatement) is STILL contradictory to your blog that the system is fair and just. Hypocrite!
@Rao72: the “evidence” I have of bogus restraining orders is the 100s and 100s of cases I have personally observed as a paralegal at two family law firms and as a volunteer for a couple other organizations AS WELL AS the overhelming complaints of men about the bogus restraining orders in existence. On top of this, an ACTUALLY COMPETENT well known attorney who was an instructor of mine, who does criminal defense and is a pro tem says that they “hand out restraining order 100% of the time to anyone who asks”. Also, this includes my personal observations in court. How’s that for evidence for your ignorant azz?
Before you go saying these men’s word isn’t evidence, you should use half a brain and think and realize that the vast majority of domestic violence restraining orders are entered solely upon the word of a petitioning mother, wife, girlfriend. So, the court’s “orders” are entered on the same basis that I am claiming that they are bogus. So, don’t use that cockamamy point that the court made a finding so it can’t be bogus. It’s all based on his word vs. her word.
Also, COMMON SENSE and personal experience tell me that the REAL victims of DV actually DONT get restraining orders because they are too afraid. Women get them against “good guys” cuz they know they can punk them and those guys will obey the orders. REAL CRIMINALS won’t bother. That’s why many psychologists think that the restraining order system is a scam. But, weasel attorneys like you think that the system serves justice.
John,
@78,79,80
It’s not really clear to me that you read any of my detailed responses at all. Seems like you’re just repeating yourself to get the last word. That’s fine.
If you want to talk sensibly about these issues, call me at my firm – 206.721.8880 – and we can set something up.
Peace out.
Christopher