please i really need advice...

[rofella]

If i receive a subpoena from the court to witness a divorce case on the side of the husband for the time when I was their nanny , can i refuse?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[mistoffolees]

If i receive a subpoena from the court to witness a divorce case on the side of the husband for the time when I was their nanny , can i refuse?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

No, you can not refuse.

However, you may find that when you get there, the court may not bother with your testimony. In my state, for example, courts generally don't listen to witnesses other than those with legal standing (teachers, doctors, etc). Sitters don't count.

If you do have to testify, just tell the truth of what you saw with your own eyes - no second hand stuff, no embellishment, etc.

 

[Ohiogal]

No, you can not refuse.

However, you may find that when you get there, the court may not bother with your testimony. In my state, for example, courts generally don't listen to witnesses other than those with legal standing (teachers, doctors, etc). Sitters don't count.

If you do have to testify, just tell the truth of what you saw with your own eyes - no second hand stuff, no embellishment, etc.

Teachers and doctors do NOT have legal standing.

 

[mistoffolees]

Teachers and doctors do NOT have legal standing.

Probably bad wording on my part.

The way my attorney explained it to me was that certain groups of individual are legally responsible to report things like child abuse to the State if they witness it. Because they have a legal obligation related to witnessing events, that gives their testimony more credibility (although I personally feel the the logic here is somewhat flawed, they never asked my opinion).

Therefore, in my state, a doctor or teacher's testimony as to parenting carries some weight. An individual off the street may not even be heard - unless they witness something truly evil. The way it came up is that I was going to ask my baby sitter to testify in a custody hearing (my daughter spends alternate weeks at the two homes and the sitter spends the same amount of time at each home, so she would have a good idea). The attorney told me her testimony wouldn't be admissible.

Since the OP didn't mention what state they were from, I have no way of knowing if this applies to them or not.

 

[Bali Hai]

Probably bad wording on my part.

The way my attorney explained it to me was that certain groups of individual are legally responsible to report things like child abuse to the State if they witness it. Because they have a legal obligation related to witnessing events, that gives their testimony more credibility (although I personally feel the the logic here is somewhat flawed, they never asked my opinion).

Therefore, in my state, a doctor or teacher's testimony as to parenting carries some weight. An individual off the street may not even be heard - unless they witness something truly evil. The way it came up is that I was going to ask my baby sitter to testify in a custody hearing (my daughter spends alternate weeks at the two homes and the sitter spends the same amount of time at each home, so she would have a good idea). The attorney told me her testimony wouldn't be admissible.

Since the OP didn't mention what state they were from, I have no way of knowing if this applies to them or not.

Teachers lie, doctors lie and preachers lie. They are no more credible witnesses than any other person.

You've been watching too many "Little House on the Prairie" re-runs!!

 

[Ohiogal]

Probably bad wording on my part.

The way my attorney explained it to me was that certain groups of individual are legally responsible to report things like child abuse to the State if they witness it. Because they have a legal obligation related to witnessing events, that gives their testimony more credibility (although I personally feel the the logic here is somewhat flawed, they never asked my opinion).

They are MANDATED REPORTERS. That is the words you were seeking.

 

[mistoffolees]

They are MANDATED REPORTERS. That is the words you were seeking.

Thank you.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thank you.

You are welcome. But if they didn't report abuse then apparently they didn't witness anything.

 

[mistoffolees]

You are welcome. But if they didn't report abuse then apparently they didn't witness anything.

Apparently. So their testimony might be limited to "no, I didn't witness any reportable abuse".

It seems that (at least in my state), the court is mostly interested in testimony from professional psychologists and others trained to evaluate child rearing and mental health status. The impression I get is that they are trying to eliminate all the 'he said, she said' kind of nonsense. If they let just anyone testify, then each side is likely to bring in friends saying "xxx is a great parent" which doesn't do much to clarify the situation (since each side is undoubtedly going to only bring in people who say positive things) but would waste a great deal of court time.

 

[Bali Hai]

You are welcome. But if they didn't report abuse then apparently they didn't witness anything.

What they report as "suspected" abuse turns out many times to be nothing more than a notion conjured up in their own heads.

Example: A friend of mine's wife died and left behind a 12 year old daughter. The daughter became depressed because of the loss of the mother.

A teacher at school noticed that she acted "different" than the previous school year. Knowing full well that her mother had passed away that summer, the teacher reported that the daughter might be sexually abused by the father.

After an investigation into the "suspected" sexual abuse, the teachers detective abilities turned out to be a big fat NOTHING stemming from her own over-active imagination!!

 

[mistoffolees]

What they report as "suspected" abuse turns out many times to be nothing more than a notion conjured up in their own heads.

Example: A friend of mine's wife died and left behind a 12 year old daughter. The daughter became depressed because of the loss of the mother.

A teacher at school noticed that she acted "different" than the previous school year. Knowing full well that her mother had passed away that summer, the teacher reported that the daughter might be sexually abused by the father.

After an investigation into the "suspected" sexual abuse, the teachers detective abilities turned out to be a big fat NOTHING stemming from her own over-active imagination!!

Yes, there are false charges. But, as your example shows, investigation resulted in the truth coming out. So what's your point?

You should have chosen an example where the man (or woman, although less frequently) was falsely accused - and then found guilty. I don't think anyone would deny that this has happened. So what's the alternative? Make a rule that no one is allowed to file abuse charges?

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes, there are false charges. But, as your example shows, investigation resulted in the truth coming out. So what's your point?

You should have chosen an example where the man (or woman, although less frequently) was falsely accused - and then found guilty. I don't think anyone would deny that this has happened. So what's the alternative? Make a rule that no one is allowed to file abuse charges?

Mandated reporters -- let me clarify what I said earlier because I was a bit off -- are to report anytime they believe someone is being abused or neglected. I.e. they see bruises, the child tells them they are being abused, the child tells them there is no utilities/water/food in the house, the child tells them mom/dad are doing drugs, or other things that could possibly be abuse or neglect. But if they have not reported then they haven't seen anything/heard anything that makes them believe that abuse/neglect is happening.

 

[Bali Hai]

Yes, there are false charges. But, as your example shows, investigation resulted in the truth coming out. So what's your point?

You should have chosen an example where the man (or woman, although less frequently) was falsely accused - and then found guilty. I don't think anyone would deny that this has happened. So what's the alternative? Make a rule that no one is allowed to file abuse charges?

That's not why I gave the example.

I gave the example because you profess teachers and doctors to be credible witnesses, more inclined to believed in court and "average joe blow" less credible.

That's horse manure and my example shows this.

The only "expert witnesses" are police officers and people who are paid to do that for a living.

 

[mistoffolees]

I gave the example because you profess teachers and doctors to be credible witnesses, more inclined to believed in court and "average joe blow" less credible. [/QUOTE]

I really wish you'd stop making things up. I never said that teachers and doctors are more credible witnesses than others. In fact, I specifically said that the logic my state used was flawed.

What I said was that IN MY STATE, the courts treat their testimony differently than people who are not mandated reporters.

The only "expert witnesses" are police officers and people who are paid to do that for a living.

That's nonsense, as well. A police officer can lie, too. The courts are supposed to evaluate every witness individually to assess their testimony, any conflicting testimony, and how credible the witness is. Putting on a uniform doesn't change it. (funny how you're arguing both sides here - first you say that you can't treat one class differently, but then you say you should).

 

[Bali Hai]

I gave the example because you profess teachers and doctors to be credible witnesses, more inclined to believed in court and "average joe blow" less credible.

I really wish you'd stop making things up. I never said that teachers and doctors are more credible witnesses than others. In fact, I specifically said that the logic my state used was flawed.

What I said was that IN MY STATE, the courts treat their testimony differently than people who are not mandated reporters.



That's nonsense, as well. A police officer can lie, too. The courts are supposed to evaluate every witness individually to assess their testimony, any conflicting testimony, and how credible the witness is. Putting on a uniform doesn't change it. (funny how you're arguing both sides here - first you say that you can't treat one class differently, but then you say you should).[/QUOTE]

I didn't say police officers don't lie. I said they are expert witnesses and they are just that.