I followed up regarding my concerns, posted here, about Representative Stan Lee’s sweeping and innaccurate portrayal of ALL the family court judges in Fayette County being against ALL of HB 151. I have confirmed from a very knowledgeable and reliable source that ALL of the Fayette family court judges were, in actuality, in favor of HB 151 as it had been amended. This directly contradicts Mr. Lee’s assertion. I will not venture in to try and discern why his stated reason for voting against HB 151 was false except that, even if the best light, it was sloppy on his part.
I try to take at least 24 hours to calm down over a topic before I write a post about it. This time I took about 96 hours. I recently had a conversation with Cabinet worker’s in Fayette County. The topic was reunification services to a parent whose child was removed by the Cabinet a few months back and where the child was placed in the temporary custody of the other parent. Even though the removing worker had been giving this parent hope of reunification, it turns out that the Cabinet’s official position is that they have nothing more to do; they have achieved “permanency” for the child by recommending custody be given to the other parent. I could tell the removing worker was struggling with what the right thing to do and I respect her for being willing to struggle with it. The other worker just summary stated, without knowing the family, circumstances or issues (and frankly without even being invited into the conversation) that should such a case be “transferred to [her], she would give it 30 days and then give permanent custody to the [other parent].” She stated quite righteously that her job would be done because she would have achieved permanency for the child.
Interestingly, the Cabinet, as an executive branch agency, has achieved something quite miraculous. They have changed the law. The standard for removal and placement given in KRS 620 is whatever is in the “best interest” of the child. The Cabinet, however, has decided the only thing that really matters is permanency. It gets even more interesting. Permanency is achieved by the Cabinet not when the child has a permanent place to live (I’ve seen enough disrupted adoptions to know this isn’t really possible), but when there is a goal in place that looks like it may lead to permanency. So, what is worker number 2’s rush to give permanent custody to the other parent really all about?
I hope you noticed that she said nothing about trying to figure out the best home for the child for the long-haul. She said nothing about why the child was originally with parent 1 to being with (which might have been an indicator that something about that parent was “best” for the child at some point - and may be again). No wrestling or struggling. That is why I was angry. This worker, with the blessing of the Cabinet, had changed “best interest of the child” to “best interest of the worker’s caseload”. You see, as soon as parent 2 gets permanent custody, the worker gets to close her involvement out. Since most teams go on a strict rotation basis for assigning new cases, she gets to have a lower caseload as a result.
You may be mentally telling me that it is obvious that if the child got hurt with parent 1, then of course it is in the best interest to be with parent 2 permanently. All I can say is that is an oversimplification. You may be right often enough to justify being simple minded about it. Certainly worker 2 felt very justified in staying simple minded. This is a life-altering decision that is multi-faceted. Parent 1 may have encountered a pure accident or something else beyond their control - a one time fluke - and otherwise be a good parent. Parent 2 may have some problems that were not discovered on the Cabinet’s very cursory home evaluation. There are many factors in both KRS 620 and KRS 403 that make it clear even the legislature knows it isn’t a simple matter. Besides, occasionally the Cabinet flat gets things wrong. How can this worker take it so lighlty?
On to rant number 2 which I touched on in a previous ponderment. Worker 1 had children (and even grandchildren). Worker 2 had none and was quite young (with the air of being used to getting what she wanted - perhaps thats why she felt okay about intruding in the conversation). I won’t now be simple minded myself and say that having children equals good worker or not having children equals bad worker. What I will say is that workers without sufficient life experiences to create a level of understanding and empathy towards their clients tend to be very hard in their approach. Having children tends to promote these experiences, but it is not the only path. Worker 1 had the experience and so she struggled. Worker 2 had not and so she had more empathy for her caseload than for a parent and child relationship that is to be forever altered.
Best interest is not exactly a fool proof or specific standard, but it is sure a sight better than “permanency”. Permanency should be left where it belongs - a factor to consider in determining best interest.
Please go see the movie Amazing Grace. It is truly an inspiring movie and it reveals how the devious mind of a lawyer thought up the legislative catalyst that finally brought down the slave trade. Glad we are good for something despite what all the jokes say!
A potential client called my office the other day. This person was expecting their spouse to serve divorce papers in the next few days and wanted to know what to expect. I talked to this person for a little over 20 minutes about the petition, being served, answering the petition and generally what to expect in a divorce. Towards the end of the conversation they made a comment that was very gratifying to me and made me aware of something that I just do routinely.
This person had worked at a big law firm in some capacity and thanked me for talking for so long without having the clock running. At Biglaw, the conversation would have been billed out for 0.4 hours. Actually, the conversation would not have happened because this person would have only talked to a secretary who would have insisted that she come in for an appointment. Of course, once a person walks down the marbled hallways to the mahogany desk of the Biglaw attorney, and once they had told their tale, they would be unlikely to continue searching for an attorney. Rather, they would reach for the check book.
Another person came and talked to me for an hour a few days prior and, even though I declined to take the case, they started to pull out a check book and asked me what they owed me. I also declined the check, but it highlighted to me what the common expectation is regarding attorneys and money.
Now, Biglaw attorney would say that I am committing business suicide by handing out knowledge and experience so freely. This person, and many others I have provided free consults to, are likely to proceed pro se (represent themselves) or soak up the information I give and end up with another attorney down the line. I can live with that.
Instead, I think it is fundamental marketing and time well invested. Why do supermarkets continue to have people standing at the ends of aisles with free food? First, people get hungry walking about the grocery store looking at food. Second, if their product is good, a few people may buy it whereas they never would have thought twice about it otherwise. I am the guy standing at the end of the aisle and the people I talk to are hungry for legal information. I am confident enough in my product to give samples out for free and without hiding a hook to pull them back. Many people will be grateful for the morsel and continue their shopping, but some will swing back around for more.
I do not actually do it for marketing though. And please, keep this a secret between you and I. I do it because I like to help people, because not everything needs the assistance of counsel, and because I believe the more general information about the law is available to the lay person, the more they will appreciate and turn to attorney’s when they really need the help. Marketing is just my excuse for doing something I believe in doing anyway.
I am not an advocate for socialized law, though it is an intriguing idea. I would prefer to make a healthy living for my family. However, I do not think being stingy with the intellect and education God allowed me to attain is the right approach. Rather, I believe generosity of my time and knowledge will create generous returns. If I never hear from this person again, I believe they will carry a bit of trust for me on to another person in need of some counsel with care.
Father, I come to you to lift up to You my clients and their families that You might bless them.
I specifically lift up to You ________________ for _______________________.
I ask for Your mercy upon them for any mistakes they have made that brought them to the point where they need legal counsel.
Ultimately, I pray that truth and justice will prevail in their lives; that Your will be done.
To that end, I offer myself up to You as an inadequate counselor on my own, that You might make me an effective advocate for my clients.
I pray that You will touch my head and my heart that I might have wisdom and discernment.
Touch my tongue and my hands that I might speak and write that which is true and just so that anyone who hears or reads those words will be convicted of that contained within them that honors You.
I ask Your blessing upon my partners and myself that we might expand our territory and prosper so that we can better serve Your kingdom and provide for our family in Christ.
