Hire attorney or not?

[kaizen]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I have an upcoming appointment with the Friend of the Court for their "investigation and recommendation regarding custody/parenting time of minor child".

I've had custody of our 14 year old son his entire life, since our divorce 12 years ago. Dad is using the trouble our son got into that resulted in him being put on the probationary diversion plan for the next three months as change of circumstance. (charge was incorrigibility)

My question is this: I have limited funds. I could not hire a lawyer out of the gate. I had intended to go to the FoC meeting alone also. Now I'm second guessing that. What happens there? With limited funds, do you recommend hiring a lawyer for that meeting, or saving the money for hire of a lawyer for the court hearing when the judge rules? It says on the forms "if you have an attorney, he/she is expected to attend your appointment."

Note: I believe dad does have an attorney.

Thank you.

 

[stealth2]

If I were in your shoes? I'd move heaven and earth to have a lawyer in my corner.

 

[CJane]

If I were in your shoes? I'd move heaven and earth to have a lawyer in my corner.

Ditto.

Also, per the statute I posted in one of your other threads, the "trouble" that kiddo got into did not result in the incorrigibility charges. What resulted in the charges is YOU asking to have those charges filed against him by telling the state you could not control him.

That's a HUGE change in circumstances and a HUGE burden to overcome.

 

[kaizen]

Thanks.

I think what I have going for me is that all this trouble started when Dad took son off his anti depressant meds. Not only is there documentation of good school conduct the year prior and no law enforcement involvement, I've got the doctor writing a letter saying he told Dad when he agreed to take him off meds to "call if there were any changes or anything relevant happening".

Then I have Dad's attorney who said (in court to the referee) that Dad began calling him "about a year ago" (right after son was taken off the meds!) to report that he saw troubling behavior and was concerned - what could he do, etc.

Ummm...he could have called the doc back per his agreement instead of setting the kid up for failure for his own selfish agenda. All the trouble began when Dad took him off the meds.

Anyhow, they've been angling for for this for some time. Complete with Dad telling me "f*** you" while standing next to son (how I wish I'd caught that on tape and other such instances). It's no surprise the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

And to answer what might be the next question, that is precisely why I did not immediately call the doc and get son back on the meds. In son's eyes, I've already been painted to be a mean ole controlling mom by his father's comments and conversations with him. To veto Dad's decision would have furthered the ongoing alienation. So I went with it for a while until it became evident to me that there was no other choice and that is when I called the doc and asked to have son put back on meds. Then of course I had a fight on my hands with son (because Dad didn't make him do it), but it was was it was at that point. Take your pill, son. And things have been going great since getting him back on meds.

Dad did get his butt handed to him at the first court date for saying he had numerous conversations with our son about him going to go to court to get custody. Truth is, Dad's talked to him for years about this and I've been swimming upstream a lot of the time because of it.

But....now I am going to go move heaven and earth. Thanks again.

 

[gam]

So your going for a foc investigation. Normally I would say no on taking a lawyer because you would still have a chance to object. But you are talking a change in custody and some serious issues that could go against you. So there is no way you should go to an investigation with foc on a custody change without a lawyer. That recommendation really needs every resource you have.