It's a Boy!

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a boy! Congratulations to the new parents.   Even though they have every advantage and endless resources, they're just like new parents everywhere.  Children are overwhelming.  They want their parents' attention constantly.  They sleep when their adults are awake and are awake when their adults want to sleep.  Everything revolves around them.  Everything.  When children are young, it's hard for their parents to maintain, let alone improve, their relationship.  They're too tired for dinner out, for conversation, for sex.  They're tired.  They forget what brought them together in the first place.  They begin to define themselves in terms of their roles, at work and in the family.  The couple part of them gets lost.  For the successful couples, that part is just taking a little vacation.  Once the munchkin is able to be a little bit more predictable and a little less needy (and they get a little more sleep), they are able to reconnect as a couple and navigate both roles.  For others, the  "couple" took a hike and never came back.  These are the people we see here in the Trenches.  These couples forget what brought them together in the first place.  They see only the here and now, and forget their past and can't envision the future.  Because they can't remember what it was like before children, they aren't willing to put in the effort to reinvent their relationship as a couple.  Then, if something goes wrong with the children, or they simply grow up and leave home, there's nothing left.   That's when they come to see us - Here in the Trenches.

There's a Reason I've Been Missing

Leonard Robbins

3/5/1921 - 7/8/2013

  RIP Dad.  Here in the Trenches.

Justice Anyone?

"It's called a Judicial Center, not a Justice Center."  Don't you love that?  No?  Well, me neither, but it's the truth.   What's dispensed at the Judicial Center is not necessarily justice, but what the judge says it is.  It really stinks, especially when the judge doesn't dispense justice to your client, but rather dumps it on them.  It really really stinks when your client is a nice person who has always done the right thing, for the right reasons.  I hate when nice guys finish last.  So, how did this happen when the evidence seemed to be obviously in his favor?  This is the part that clients don't understand.  I tell them all the time, that the story and the evidence are only part of what happens in the courtroom.  In the courtroom, the judge also observes the parties, the attorneys and the witnesses.  That observation isn't just to determine whether someone is telling the truth.  It is also for fact finding.  That was the case today.  We had an expert that said one thing about one of the parties, but when the judge observed that party in the courtroom, she decided to discount what the expert said because of what she observed about the party n the courtroom.  The judge based her entire decision on that observation.  That's why it is so hard to win a family law appeal - the appellate court regularly defers to the trial judge because the judge observes the people in the courtroom and discerns information not apparent from the written transcript.  That information can color how the judge views all the other evidence, and the appellate court knows it.  Managing that information is difficult and there's an art to it.  It's why not just anyone can be a good trial lawyer.  Here in the Trenches.

Rules of Thumb

My favorite bloggers have some gems this week that pertain directly to the work we do here in the Trenches.  As you know, I love Gretchin Rubin's, The Happiness Project blog, which is based on her book of the same name.  Yesterday, she talked about 5 common mental rules of thumb, and how those rules of thumb can cause us to incorrectly interpret the data our senses take in.  There's the recognition heuristic, the likelihood heuristic, the anchor and adjust heuristic, the fluency heuristic and the social proof.  I'm not going to talk about all of them, as Gretchen such a good job, and if you click on "5 common rules of thumb" up above, the web will take you right there.  The point is that here in the Trenches, all of those rules of thumb come into play with our clients and their ability to interpret data.  When you add the overlay of emotion we see here in the Trenches, what you have is a real interpretation mess.  Nowhere do we see that played out more often than with the "social proof."  That rule of thumb says that if "everyone" is doing it, it must be right, better, best.  Not only is that not true in real life, it is especially false here in the Trenches.  Just because a friend or neighbor got lifetime alimony, had a bad experience with lawyers, or was awarded full custody, doesn't mean this client will get those results.  Every case is different, from the facts of the client's life, to their personality and that of their spouse and children, to the interplay of the personalities of the clients, lawyers and judges, to the effect their friend and family witnesses have on the judge.  All those variables make it impossible for a lawyer to give a client any more than a rule of thumb as to what might happen in their case based on similar cases before.  That doesn't stop the client's mental rule of thumb from continuing to add layers and "facts" to arrive at an expected resolution.  Understanding the client's social proofs and successfully working with them and around them is a large part of what makes a good lawyer - here in the Trenches.

Move Along

Today was an interesting day along the Trenches highway.  I had speeders - those who are done with the marriage and are racing toward the day they can be divorced.  Unfortunately, their spouse is stuck in the slow lane and her car is having trouble picking up speed.  I had folks in the slow lane, desperately trying to keep their spouse away from the off ramp.  I had another driving along in the middle lane, completely unaware of all the cars on each side, some moving quickly and some slowly.  She was also oblivious to the fact there are on and off ramps.  What they all have in common is that they're all traffic hazards.  The smooth flow of traffic depends on everyone moving at more or less the same rate of speed, obeying all of the traffic rules, and paying attention to the entrance and exit ramps.  Here in the Trenches, we're highway management.  Safe travels to all this holiday weekend.  Here in the Trenches.

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

I really feel very lucky.  Those of you who read this blog know that my father's health has taken quite a turn for the worse.  This week, I have to take an unexpected trip to see him.  I feel so lucky I have had my parents with me for so many years of my life, that my children have gotten to have a meaningful relationship with them, both as children and adults.  Right now, I feel lucky that I have had and have the opportunity for closure.  I am also so fortunate to have the friends I have in the Trenches.  Sure, a lot of time, we are on opposite sides of cases, but no matter what, we are friends and colleagues.  As I said, I have to fly down to Florida.  I thought I was going to have to fly down a few days ago.  In order to do this, I need someone to cover my cases.  I need someone to go to court for me on at least one occasion.  I called my friends in the Trenches.  It's the last minute.  It's a holiday weekend.  It didn't matter.  They responded - they were happy to help.  They rallied to my aid.  I'm so lucky to have their support.
I think about my clients.  I think about how much better their lives would be if they only had the support of their friends and family.  Some of them do; and some of them don't.  I can always tell which ones have meaningful support as they go march through the Trenches.  The walk is a little easier; their step is a little lighter; their recovery  and ability to move on is faster.  It doesn't take much to make a difference.  Here in the Trenches

SCOTUS

The past couple of weeks have been huge ones in terms of Supreme Court decisions related to life here in the Trenches.  First, there was the Baby Veronica decision, then the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8.  Despite all the hoopla surrounding these decisions, they're not really about family law.  No, really, I'm serious.   All of those decisions were based on constitutional mandates, and not substantive areas of family law.   The Proposition 8 decision didn't strike down Proposition 8:  the Supreme Court decided that the Petitioners did not have standing to bring their claim.  You see, in order for a court to decide a case, the person filing the case actually has to have been injured or aggrieved; and in this case, the Petitioners were simply members of the voting public and not actually directly affected in any way more that the general public by Proposition 8.   The Defense of Marriage Act decision wasn't about recognizing gay marriage:  the Supreme Court affirmed that the law of marriage and family was left to the states by the Constitution, and that once the states have determined that certain classes of individuals may marry, the federal government may not act to deprive them of rights granted to any other married couple.  There was also a subsidiary discussion of judicial power to determine the issue, akin to that presented in the Proposition 8 case. In other words, the DOMA decision is about separation of powers and state's rights, and only incidentally about gay marriage.  The DOMA decision is kind of interesting when you read it with the Baby Veronica case, which dealt with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and adoption.  That's right, a federal statute governing family rights.  What's really interesting is that in the Baby Veronica case, Dad would not have been successful challenging the baby's adoption under state law - except for the fact that he was 1/125 Cherokee Indian.  You see, with ICWA, the federal government decided that the states have to give American Indians more protection in adoption matters than they give anyone else.  The Supreme Court did not find that ICWA was unconstitutional as usurping state rights in matters of marriage and family.  Rather, they found that under ICWA, Dad just didn't qualify to contest the adoption.  Confusing, isn't it?  It's even more confusing if you read the opinions.  I wish you would.  They are fascinating discussions of legal principles, and a demonstration of how brilliant legal minds can differ on questions of law and argue both sides persuasively.  Honestly, the concurring opinions and dissents are every bit as intriguing as the main opinions.  (Remember, these are all 5-4 decisions).   If nothing else, the opinions give you a taste of the art of lawyering, and hopefully a newfound respect for what we lawyers do - here in the Trenches.