Questions regarding custody and relocation

[Just Blue]

In all honesty I'm not even sure Tex has even suggested that s/he is an attorney.

Then again I'm not going to wade through every post LOL

Hence my ?? to Tex.

It is important for us and the newbie members to know whom they are dealing with.

 

[CJane]

Hence my ?? to Tex.

It is important for us and the newbie members to know whom they are dealing with.

Actually, IIRC, this has come up before and Tex stated that he is not an attorney.

Though I am curious...

Why, if Admin "vets" people who claim to be attorneys, is this:

FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding.

at the bottom of every page?

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, IIRC, this has come up before and Tex stated that he is not an attorney.

Though I am curious...

Why, if Admin "vets" people who claim to be attorneys, is this:



at the bottom of every page?

I would guess it stems at least in part from He Who Shall Not Be Named's shenanigans.

Maybe the disclaimer has been there from the beginning, but since IAAL caused so much chaos that admin wants to ensure someone claiming to be an attorney actually is an attorney.

Perhaps?

 

[CJane]

I would guess it stems at least in part from He Who Shall Not Be Named's shenanigans.

Maybe the disclaimer has been there from the beginning, but since IAAL caused so much chaos that admin wants to ensure someone claiming to be an attorney actually is an attorney.

Perhaps?

Perhaps. I just find it interesting that one who claims to be an attorney is immediately 'reported' to admin, and admin supposedly verifies their credentials, and yet their disclaimer specifically states that they do NOT 'warrant' the qualifications of anyone posting.

Just a curiosity, that's all.

 

[Just Blue]

Perhaps. I just find it interesting that one who claims to be an attorney is immediately 'reported' to admin, and admin supposedly verifies their credentials, and yet their disclaimer specifically states that they do NOT 'warrant' the qualifications of anyone posting.

Just a curiosity, that's all.

It's not that "interesting".

Admin vetts the attorney's. Said attorneys post their disclaimer so that what they kindly post does not LEGALLY constitute "Attorney/Client agreement".

 

[CJane]

It's not that "interesting".

Admin vetts the attorney's. Said attorneys post their disclaimer so that what they kindly post does not LEGALLY constitute "Attorney/Client agreement".

It's not a disclaimer posted by attorneys. It's in the disclaimer of this site in general.

I get why they verify those who claim to be attorneys - just not why they claim that they do not.

 

[stealth2]

Maybe to cover their butts if someone slips through?

 

[LdiJ]

I would guess it stems at least in part from He Who Shall Not Be Named's shenanigans.

Maybe the disclaimer has been there from the beginning, but since IAAL caused so much chaos that admin wants to ensure someone claiming to be an attorney actually is an attorney.

Perhaps?

You are right. The disclaimer has been there since the beginning. The vetting didn't start until "he who shall not be named" went nuts on the forums.

 

[haiku]

I have questions!

I only spend time pretty much here in family law land, and I assume the only vetted one is OG? Is this so? And is that why she has her own personal disclaimer, and is that how you would know with any other posters?

I asked someone before, and kind of got spoken to, like I was a moron, by someone else, but I never saw the person who was being veted, be officially vetted or not... and I was just curious.

Because truth be told, after the other fiasco, it really proved the point that, people can be whoever they want to be, for as long as they want to be, until they implode.. on the internet.....

 

[CJane]

I have questions!

I only spend time pretty much here in family law land, and I assume the only vetted one is OG? Is this so? And is that why she has her own personal disclaimer, and is that how you would know with any other posters?

No, there are several other attorneys who post on the forums. However, OG is the only one I know of who has "approved by the moderators" in her signature line. Which is actually what made me start wondering about the whole "no warranties" thing.

 

[LdiJ]

I have questions!

I only spend time pretty much here in family law land, and I assume the only vetted one is OG? Is this so? And is that why she has her own personal disclaimer, and is that how you would know with any other posters?

I asked someone before, and kind of got spoken to, like I was a moron, by someone else, but I never saw the person who was being veted, be officially vetted or not... and I was just curious.

Because truth be told, after the other fiasco, it really proved the point that, people can be whoever they want to be, for as long as they want to be, until they implode.. on the internet.....

Some other people have been vetted, because it ended up being discussed here. Although not all of them have stuck around. The admin kind of vetted me (as a tax professional) also.

OG even apologized publically for disbelieving that someone was an attorney. People are not required to put disclaimers on their sig lines.

IMO most people cannot pull off stating that they are an attorney or any other professional for very long, if they are not. They cannot hold up the pretense. The guy who caused all the chaos managed to do it, but I don't think that most people could. He however was at least a paralegal and obviously educated enough to pull it off.

 

[Ohiogal]

No, there are several other attorneys who post on the forums. However, OG is the only one I know of who has "approved by the moderators" in her signature line. Which is actually what made me start wondering about the whole "no warranties" thing.

My sig is NOT about being vetted as an attorney by the moderators but rather about the CFT portion. Which came from an accusation made by someone about me. Just to let you know. There are other attorneys that have been vetted -- I can think of four total on this portion of boards (including me). There are also others that have been "vetted" as to what they claim to be (LD for instance). However not everyone is vetted and not all attorneys are known.

 

[MichaCA]

I was in a similar situation as you ***11 years ago***in CA, and did pay for consults with several attorneys before picking one. Each one said it was legal for me to move with baby as there were no custody orders. As pointed out here, they all did say if dad went to file for custody/visitation, the court MIGHT order child(and I'm with her) to return. I was advised if I moved, to simply be prepared for the possibility of returning...so to have a place to live, etc.

If you plan to move, know you may be ordered to return (the child). IF IT WERE ME, I would go ahead and move. I would not file custody/visitation papers. Once you do that, there is an automatic restraining order from moving the child out of state.

I do disagree with Tex, from my experience in talking with attorneys and seeing cases on here, CA is NOT inclined towards moveaways. Well, maybe they are in certain counties...but on the whole, CA family law is all about both parents having as much contact with child as possible, alas the high level of 50/50 custody cases with very young children.

If you move now, there are no legal repurcussions...but possible financial ones...if you wait til after you file, then you will need to go through the - minimum - several months of ironing out paternity, visitation, custody, probably child support. Depending on what an attorney says...filing for a moveaway then or waiting til thats all settled. If dad shows any involvement with the child at that time, and opposes you moving out of state, IMO you are stuck.

I think the best thing you can do is get out to talk with a couple of local family law attorneys, and address this. Make lots of calls to attorneys offices...I would always ask for referrals when getting off the phone or leaving the room. The referrals started winding down to 3 to 4 attorneys...thats who I would talk to.

 

[haiku]

So, Is this a case where the only way for example, I would know that OG and LDiJ are legit, is if I were to email the admin?

The point in my question, was really, when people say they are "vetted" are they? And how would we know by looking at thier posts?

In general I know who I consider capable of giving a decent legal answer, I have been here long enough with a few of you, and I have seen many folk come and go-but I just find it interesting when people want to start throwing credentials around, but then there is no one in an official capacity to back it up- "I got vetted" on its own is kind of meaningless, in that respect. The other forums I participate in, the admin takes a more vocal role when it comes to this stuff. So I was just a bit curious. Thats all, sorry for contributing to the derail

 

[LdiJ]

So, Is this a case where the only way for example, I would know that OG and LDiJ are legit, is if I were to email the admin?

The point in my question, was really, when people say they are "vetted" are they? And how would we know by looking at thier posts?

In general I know who I consider capable of giving a decent legal answer, I have been here long enough with a few of you, and I have seen many folk come and go-but I just find it interesting when people want to start throwing credentials around, but then there is no one in an official capacity to back it up- "I got vetted" on its own is kind of meaningless, in that respect. The other forums I participate in, the admin takes a more vocal role when it comes to this stuff. So I was just a bit curious. Thats all, sorry for contributing to the derail

I think its more a case of if someone claims to be an attorney or other professional, and they are not or refuse to be "vetted" that they are booted from the forums by the admin.

So its not a question of some people here having more "credentials" than others, its a case of if someone says they are an attorney, and are still here after a couple of days, that indicates that they really ARE an attorney.

The admin didn't vet me to give me any special credentials, she vetted me to make sure that I was really who I claimed I was. I don't think that the admin even uses the term "vetted"....I think she just checks some people out to make sure that they are really who they say they are.