looking for some moral support (and maybe prayers, if you pray)

[potato]

Today I finished filing my appellate brief contesting an order granting visitation rights to a non-parent over the parent's objection.

I know a lot of you have fussed at me for suggesting that non-parents might have the ability to successfully assert rights to a child, but I wouldn't have thought it possible if I weren't experiencing it. I felt very guilty that I had made (rather certain) conclusions that this legal stranger to this child would not succeed in gaining a court order to visitation- imagine my surprise when I turned out to be wrong!

I sincerely hope that everyone who has called my concerns into question is correct, and that the appellate court will reverse the trial court's decision.

However I also know that my appeal stands the possibility of causing our court of appeals to further expand non-parental rights.

Hopefully you guys are all correct and the appeals court will either toss the trial court decision out on some grounds where they don't really need to say much about the law (i.e. an unpublished decision) or even better, will take a stand and explain that just because our state has "partial waiver" doesn't mean that parents can end up ceding visitation rights because they allow a non-parent regular involvement in a child's life.

In the meantime, I would still continue to caution parents about who they allow into their child's life, and how they do so (step-parents, parents of their other children, caregivers, etc). Hopefully in a few months I can come back here and thank you all for being correct in chastising me for being so concerned about the expansion of non-parents' rights.

I initially came here because I felt like I had dropped into a rabbit hole with some of the trial court decisions I have been given of late. It has been nice to see that most of what I find here mirrors what I repeat over and over again to my clients. Sadly what I predicted to my client who now has an appeals case in front of them turned out to be incorrect, in spite of the fact that it would align completely with the sound advice I see repeated on this board.

All I am meaning to say is that we would all do well not to be so assured of ourselves, every decision (no matter how well founded in "law") stands at the mercy of the deciding court.

Thanks again to everyone here and I will continue to channel you guys as I hope for a good result with my appeal. I wish nothing more than for the appellate court to repeat what you have repeatedly tried to tell me and to prove my misgivings wrong!

 

[Proserpina]

Today I finished filing my appellate brief contesting an order granting visitation rights to a non-parent over the parent's objection.

I know a lot of you have fussed at me for suggesting that non-parents might have the ability to successfully assert rights to a child, but I wouldn't have thought it possible if I weren't experiencing it. I felt very guilty that I had made (rather certain) conclusions that this legal stranger to this child would not succeed in gaining a court order to visitation- imagine my surprise when I turned out to be wrong!

I sincerely hope that everyone who has called my concerns into question is correct, and that the appellate court will reverse the trial court's decision.

However I also know that my appeal stands the possibility of causing our court of appeals to further expand non-parental rights.

Hopefully you guys are all correct and the appeals court will either toss the trial court decision out on some grounds where they don't really need to say much about the law (i.e. an unpublished decision) or even better, will take a stand and explain that just because our state has "partial waiver" doesn't mean that parents can end up ceding visitation rights because they allow a non-parent regular involvement in a child's life.

In the meantime, I would still continue to caution parents about who they allow into their child's life, and how they do so (step-parents, parents of their other children, caregivers, etc). Hopefully in a few months I can come back here and thank you all for being correct in chastising me for being so concerned about the expansion of non-parents' rights.

I initially came here because I felt like I had dropped into a rabbit hole with some of the trial court decisions I have been given of late. It has been nice to see that most of what I find here mirrors what I repeat over and over again to my clients. Sadly what I predicted to my client who now has an appeals case in front of them turned out to be incorrect, in spite of the fact that it would align completely with the sound advice I see repeated on this board.

All I am meaning to say is that we would all do well not to be so assured of ourselves, every decision (no matter how well founded in "law") stands at the mercy of the deciding court.

Thanks again to everyone here and I will continue to channel you guys as I hope for a good result with my appeal. I wish nothing more than for the appellate court to repeat what you have repeatedly tried to tell me and to prove my misgivings wrong!

I guarantee I'm not the only person doing a double-take here.

 

[potato]

pros I've happily bowed out from offering "advice" around here, but I've been poking at you guys as much as I could to try to get someone to suggest to me where I have been wrong about this issue I have been dealing with.

All anyone has done is give replies (arguments?) that support why I should be right with my issue (yes, mostly because you all have been telling me about how stupid I am, but I'll take reasoned advice where I can get it).

I hope to everything holy and right with this world that you all are right, and I really do thank you all for the thoughts you have offered.

One the one hand, months from now I will be up here posting the appellate court decision showing you all where you can stick it and proving I was right.

On the better hand, that will never come to pass. I sincerely hope for the latter.

 

[Ohiogal]

pros I've happily bowed out from offering "advice" around here, but I've been poking at you guys as much as I could to try to get someone to suggest to me where I have been wrong about this issue I have been dealing with.

All anyone has done is give replies (arguments?) that support why I should be right with my issue (yes, mostly because you all have been telling me about how stupid I am, but I'll take reasoned advice where I can get it).

I hope to everything holy and right with this world that you all are right, and I really do thank you all for the thoughts you have offered.

One the one hand, months from now I will be up here posting the appellate court decision showing you all where you can stick it and proving I was right.

On the better hand, that will never come to pass. I sincerely hope for the latter.

I thought you were leaving, counselor, because you didnt' want to prove that you are an attorney.

 

[CurrentlyUndone]

Oh I didn't mean to imply that, I have no problem proving that. See watch...

"Pennoyer v. Neff!" ha, I don't remember the details but my civ pro prof used to tell some joke about that being some kind of way to prove you were a lawyer. So I don't remember the joke, I just remember that punchline but it still manages to make me laugh even though I don't really know why. Probably just because that prof was awesome and it brings back good memories.

But seriously, I just meant I didn't see why it mattered if I was or not, pros explained that it didn't it's just a thing asked of anyone who says they are an attorney. (Guess I missed that in the TOS/info post (or just forgot).) I only said that I was because they asked, so obviously the whole thing was some business of (not so subtly) giving me a hint to shut up about my opinions. I could have easily lied and said "no I'm a parent coordinator" or "paralegal" or "support group leader" or "televangelist" and I guess then I would have gotten a different subtle hint

I mean, I'm not lying about be a lawyer, though I have no idea how I would prove that to anyone's satisfaction so I figure it's not worth debating. It's easier to just go back to reading and keeping my "advice" to myself than to debate the validity of my opinions. Then nobody has to be worried if I am some crazy fake attorney or not (or worse yet, a real one that they apparently think is an idiot ) and I'll stay out of threadjacks.

Though I did want to say "thank you", and I thought it would be ok to do that, so I did.

Contact admin and provide your credentials.

 

[potato]

Contact admin and provide your credentials.

Der, I thought my human name was part of my account info and since with that and my state (which I have disclosed) you can verify my creds I thought the admins already had that info.

Apparently, however I am too stupid to figure out how to "contact admin"- how do I do that?

 

[Ohiogal]

Der, I thought my human name was part of my account info and since with that and my state (which I have disclosed) you can verify my creds I thought the admins already had that info.

Apparently, however I am too stupid to figure out how to "contact admin"- how do I do that?

Did it for you by reporting your post where you claim again you are an attorney.

 

[potato]

Did it for you by reporting your post where you claim again you are an attorney.

Thanks! I found it in my email and have replied with the requested name/bar ID/state.

Apparently I had another email from the nice admin before the one your report generated but the address this account is associated with gets so much mail I missed it, so thanks for causing another email to be generated so I could find what I needed to respond to.

The nice admin explained to me that some time ago there was actually a "fake" attorney around these boards, and that the senior members will remember that, hence the trepidation.

Not sure how giving my name/bar ID/state will show anything, as anyone could get that, but I will guess (hope?) they follow up with contact to my phone/snail-mail as listed on the bar website.

I was thinking earlier about how often me and other attorneys refer to other counsel and/or various judges as an "idiot" or "stupid" (well, I at least try to never say that about a judge, but others are more loose-tongued). It just reminded me that I should not feel so bad if people on this board dub me an idiot- for sure various opposing counsel espouse that opinion on a regular basis!

Thanks again for your help Ohiogal

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

The reality of custody going to a non-parent may be a "best interest of the child." Yes, parents have a right to parent their children, but sometimes, that is NOT the best interest.

For example, a child has lived with one parent and their spouse for over a decade and the other parent has been completely absent. The custodial parent dies. Should the child remain with the spouse who has been a consistent presence and de facto parent, or go with a stranger? To possibly be ripped out of their community, etc?

Now, I'm not saying that the absent parent can't or shouldn't have contact. But, what is best for the child? I've seen it where a child stayed with the stepparent because THAT was what was best for THIS child.

We do NOT have the facts on your case that you are appealing. What I hope is that the courts recognize what is best for the child and not best for the egos of the adults in litigation.

 

[Just Blue]

As bizarre as it may seem..OP is an actual licensed attorney. S/He should not be posting to laypersons for advice.

 

[tranquility]

Did you lose the case on the law, on the facts or did the other side bang the table?

 

[potato]

Did you lose the case on the law, on the facts or did the other side bang the table?

The law, so to speak. The trial court invented law in order to support what it did (so in reality I guess that means we lost on the facts?)

Regardless, appellate court will decide on the law, which is really what matters in the long run at this point.

Why on earth Blue would think I would be posting for "advice" after the brief has been filed is beyond me, but whatever you want to think, more power to you. As for what I did prior to... any person with regular involvement in the court system will know that what the system does and what the system should do are not necessarily the same thing. I don't think it evinces a fault of mine that I want to seek information outside of how it actually works to get some insight about how parents think it should work.

Tink in your scenario in my jurisdiction a step-parent could never be a "de facto" custodian. Regardless, I think you are correct that children shouldn't be ripped out of everything they know to fit a legal construction. The problem is that sometimes the law that arises to prevent such a thing from happening can be equally perverted to cause such a thing to happen. All I have ever advocated for is that people not be so black and white about their understanding about what will or could happen when it comes to the law in this area. Yes, it should work to protect the kids, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it works to cause the exact opposite of what you are suggesting it should do.

Now if I am living in an unhappy bubble where the law actually generally supports what is "right" please let me know what state I need to move to where if I stand on the law I am going to end up with results that are right for the child.

Goodness knows it certainly doesn't happen that way where I am now.

 

[LdiJ]

The law, so to speak. The trial court invented law in order to support what it did (so in reality I guess that means we lost on the facts?)

Regardless, appellate court will decide on the law, which is really what matters in the long run at this point.

Why on earth Blue would think I would be posting for "advice" after the brief has been filed is beyond me, but whatever you want to think, more power to you. As for what I did prior to... any person with regular involvement in the court system will know that what the system does and what the system should do are not necessarily the same thing. I don't think it evinces a fault of mine that I want to seek information outside of how it actually works to get some insight about how parents think it should work.

Tink in your scenario in my jurisdiction a step-parent could never be a "de facto" custodian. Regardless, I think you are correct that children shouldn't be ripped out of everything they know to fit a legal construction. The problem is that sometimes the law that arises to prevent such a thing from happening can be equally perverted to cause such a thing to happen. All I have ever advocated for is that people not be so black and white about their understanding about what will or could happen when it comes to the law in this area. Yes, it should work to protect the kids, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it works to cause the exact opposite of what you are suggesting it should do.

Now if I am living in an unhappy bubble where the law actually generally supports what is "right" please let me know what state I need to move to where if I stand on the law I am going to end up with results that are right for the child.

Goodness knows it certainly doesn't happen that way where I am now.

You are in Kentucky correct? Kentucky also has case law that is favorable to parents in third party cases. Did you not find that and use it?

 

[stealth2]

I'm sorry, but this poster is off. IMO only, of course.