Contempt of court for telling kids the truth?

[Sara Abrams]

You know, I actually just did that. I paid $320 to have an hour-long consultation with one of my former attorneys. He reviewed it all, made copies, said he would not personally be able to take the case because he would be on vacation that week, but said he would look into it and that another attorney from his firm could possibly help me. Days went by. He finally returned my call and said, "Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nobody in this firm who's available to take this case for you. But I'll tell you what: I know this really great guy- I'll even call him myself and put a good word in for you."

Is that even legal? Why did he take my money for a consultation if he couldn't take my case? Now I'm out all of that money and I never even got so much as an answer as to how I should plead from him.

 

[stealth2]

I'm curious why you think Dad recording his call with his children is illegal? While CA is a 2-party state, Dad obviously gave consent as one party, and consent on behalf of his minor children as the other parties. A judge MAY find it ill-advised and against the spirit of the order, but that does not make it illegal. Recording a call with *you* would be a different story. Perhaps I misunderstood whose call he recorded?

As for the lawyer who you paid for a consultation... Well... Not all attorneys give free consults. It's not required that they give away their time. I know the majority of lawyers I spoke with charged for the time spent, with that fee being credited if they were retained.(ETA) I'm thinking he couldn't convince anyone in his firm that you have a winning case.....

 

[Ohiogal]

You know, I actually just did that. I paid $320 to have an hour-long consultation with one of my former attorneys. He reviewed it all, made copies, said he would not personally be able to take the case because he would be on vacation that week, but said he would look into it and that another attorney from his firm could possibly help me. Days went by. He finally returned my call and said, "Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nobody in this firm who's available to take this case for you. But I'll tell you what: I know this really great guy- I'll even call him myself and put a good word in for you."

Is that even legal? Why did he take my money for a consultation if he couldn't take my case? Now I'm out all of that money and I never even got so much as an answer as to how I should plead from him.

A consultation is not a guarantee that the attorney will take the case. The consultation is to determine the issues and what can be done. And why would you plead guilty when it could be considered quasi-criminal.

 

[Sara Abrams]

I'm curious why you think Dad recording his call with his children is illegal? While CA is a 2-party state, Dad obviously gave consent as one party, and consent on behalf of his minor children as the other parties. A judge MAY find it ill-advised and against the spirit of the order, but that does not make it illegal. Recording a call with *you* would be a different story. Perhaps I misunderstood whose call he recorded?

As for the lawyer who you paid for a consultation... Well... Not all attorneys give free consults. It's not required that they give away their time. I know the majority of lawyers I spoke with charged for the time spent, with that fee being credited if they were retained.(ETA) I'm thinking he couldn't convince anyone in his firm that you have a winning case.....

Wrong. He cannot consent for the children. If he had primary custody he *might* be able to make that claim. The "vicarious consent" rule can only be applied in extreme circumstances where the parent has a reasonable suspicion that the children are being abused.

 

[Ohiogal]

Wrong. He cannot consent for the children. If he had primary custody he *might* be able to make that claim. The "vicarious consent" rule can only be applied in extreme circumstances where the parent has a reasonable suspicion that the children are being abused.

You are missing the point. HE can claim that he did (have a reasonable suspicion). You after all were behaving improperly and violating the court order at the very least.

 

[Sara Abrams]

He can claim whatever he wants. Vicarious consent can only be applied when there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse, and even then the recording could only be used to prove the abuse. He cannot say, "Oh, well I started recording her conversations because I thought she might be sexually/physically abusing the kids, but I ended up stumbling upon this instead." It's not enough. Telling the kids the truth about their dad's drug problem cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be emotional abuse.

 

[stealth2]

Does he have joint *legal* custody?

But go ahead and argue with the lawyer.

 

[Sara Abrams]

Yes to joint legal- however, the children were in my care at the moment. He would have to obtain consent from me.

 

[Just Blue]

Yes to joint legal- however, the children were in my care at the moment. He would have to obtain consent from me.

No he wouldn't.

 

[Sara Abrams]

How can supervised visitation be considered physical custody?

 

[stealth2]

LEGAL custody. Yes, he actually could make a case for consent. Especially since you were apparently listening to phone calls yourself.

 

[Sara Abrams]

I know I come across as being argumentative, but I have done a lot of research on CA two-party consent law and I do feel it is misunderstood by even CA attorneys. Therefore, if I am understanding it wrong, please fill me in. Otherwise, I may need to educate my public defender if he is unaware (f I am appointed one) because I cannot afford an attorney.

From Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers:

However, practitioners should be mindful that courts have only applied the vicarious consent exception in the following lim-
ited context: [A]s long as the guardian has a good faith basis that it is objectively reasonable for believing that it is necessary to consent . . . to the taping of phone conversations, vicarious consent will be permissible in order for the guardian to fulfill her statutory mandate to act in the best inter- ests of the children.

In Pollock v. Pollock, the Court stressed that this vicarious consent exception only applied in certain situations, such as “ver-
bal, emotional, or sexual abuse by the other parent.” The court directed that this exception “should not be interpreted as permit-
ting parents to tape any conversation involving their child simply by invoking the magic words: ‘I was doing it in his/her best inter-
est.’ Therefore, a determination of the consenting parent’s motive and intent in intercepting the communication is necessary
to determine whether the parent’s actions violate the Wiretap Act

 

[stealth2]

Good luck, then.

 

[Sara Abrams]

Thanks!