Reform has value. There is probably always a better way to do things. Family Law is no exception. I'll say that going in.
But some reform is ill conceived and ill informed. Every now and then there's a notion to streamline Family Law, which is to say, make it more of an administrative matter rather than a legal matter. I think that's a bad idea.
I need to digress here. By administrative matter I mean a resolution based upon a pre-set formula contrived to create a pre-designed result, a cookie cutter approach. For example, Worker's Compensation uses the administrative method to achieve its ends. By regulation your hand is worth a specific sum, your foot is worth a different specific sum. In the end, it largely boils down to math. There is no nuance. There is no subtlety. The very facts that should make a key difference do not, because Worker's Compensation has decided that it is a waste of time. Just lower the standard and lower the result.
On the other hand (no pun intended), you have the legal method which is much more open ended. Rather than formulas which dictate an outcome, the legal method provides a trier of fact, usually a judge, who has great discretion to do what is right. There are norms within "what is right" as established over time and within the collective of the judiciary. This is largely what is meant by "Common Law." But what is right is affected by nuance and subtlety. What is wrong in one context can become right in another. These facts matter greatly in real life, but they can't matter if they fit outside of the formula of an administrative method.
So the reform of Family Law sometimes comes down to requiring that everyone's case fit a pre-determined model, the cookie cutter approach. It comes down to deciding that a whole host of facts (elements of people's lives) just don't matter.
Many Family Law cases can almost be handled in a cookie cutter fashion. There is no doubt but that this approach is the least expensive. Uncontested Divorce cases are manageable and affordable precisely because of this approach. But not all cases can be forced into a pre-determined model to achieve a cookie cutter result. Divorcing parties would be ill served by such an approach, and, given the low level to which administrative cases are relegated, Family Law would be ill served by being just another aspect of life that has been relegated to the administrative remedy.
I can imagine the administrative divorce. "Next," the civil servant would call from her window. "So you want a divorce?" she would ask, reading from the form you had completed a few hours ago when you first entered the large room filled with scores of other applicants. "Yes," you'd say, hoping that she hadn't found some defect with your paperwork. "Fine," she might say, checking boxes on the form. "Your wife gets the kids. You get to see them on Saturdays from noon until three and Wednesdays from six until eight." "But I work on Saturdays," you might say. "I guess you won't see them, then," she'd reply.
And so on, and so on. It's not a pretty picture.
The legal approach is, at its core, flexible. It can be fraught with drama, with intrigue, with high level diplomacy and skulduggery. It can be inefficient. But it is also effective, thorough and to an incredible extent, tailor made to the circumstance. Given the enormity of the legal institution, it is amazing that the system can be as flexible as it is.
And few people feel that their lives, their circumstances, their wants and their needs are ordinary, are average or appropriate for cookie cutter solutions. Given the weight of issues that arise everyday in Family Law, few are.
So, the art, the practice of Family Law is not all for show, though there is a fair bit of show to it. But, as the drama of human life goes, it calls for the show to give it the attention it deserves and to get it right.
To me, then, the bottom line: leave Family Law flexible. Don't try to make a round peg fit into a square hole or vice versa. Individually crafted solutions work. Institutional, administrative orders that apply to no one, don't.
Michael Manely
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
It has been a month
I'm not too terribly surprised that it has been over a month since I last blogged. So much has happened with getting the boys through another semester of school, then Christmas, then New Years, then one of the boys' birthdays then Snowcalypse (although with the unexpected break caused by Snowcalypse I would have thought I'd blog more, not less) and finally, a presentation I delivered on the United Nations Agreements reached in Cancun in December.
Still, all of that is a poor excuse for neglecting my nightly blog duties. A pox upon me for loafing.
The Firm continues to do exceptionally well. Looking back at 2010 we actually helped more people than in 2009 which was an astonishing accomplishment in this economy. Of course, you are familiar with our successful battles in Cyprus in getting little girls returned under the Hague convention and preventing the departure of a boy to non-Hague country, Nigeria with only 24 hours' notice, and the location and rescue of a boy who had been abducted by his estranged and violent father.
You no doubt recall reports of the trials, now too numerous to mention, but capping off with that $500,000 alimony award when the opposing counsel had asked the jury for $3.2 million.
All in all, while 2010 could have been better for our nation and our clients, it was not a bad year for The Firm.
So, now I'm back at the late night keyboard, typing out a line, reaching out into cyberspace, and dropping a few observations about this curious profession and the practice I've chosen and so dearly love - Family Law.
Stay tuned...
Michael Manely
Still, all of that is a poor excuse for neglecting my nightly blog duties. A pox upon me for loafing.
The Firm continues to do exceptionally well. Looking back at 2010 we actually helped more people than in 2009 which was an astonishing accomplishment in this economy. Of course, you are familiar with our successful battles in Cyprus in getting little girls returned under the Hague convention and preventing the departure of a boy to non-Hague country, Nigeria with only 24 hours' notice, and the location and rescue of a boy who had been abducted by his estranged and violent father.
You no doubt recall reports of the trials, now too numerous to mention, but capping off with that $500,000 alimony award when the opposing counsel had asked the jury for $3.2 million.
All in all, while 2010 could have been better for our nation and our clients, it was not a bad year for The Firm.
So, now I'm back at the late night keyboard, typing out a line, reaching out into cyberspace, and dropping a few observations about this curious profession and the practice I've chosen and so dearly love - Family Law.
Stay tuned...
Michael Manely
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Negotiation 101
There has been a lot of press about the art of negotiation this week. A very good argument can be made that any deal which divides a pie with 16 pieces to one party and 1 to the other is not a good deal. Yet that is the result of a significant deal which the national press has extensively covered.
I think an argument can also be made that no one is that bad of a negotiator. This leads to the direct inference that the negotiator who accepted one for his side while conceding 16 to the other may not have actually been playing for his side.
So how is this relevant to family law? Only in that sometimes clients jump ship, they move from one attorney to another. When I am consulting with a potential client who has left his prior counsel, I sometimes hear that the former counsel was so bad at negotiation that he must have been bribed or at least favored the opposing party or opposing counsel to such an extent that he took a fall against the client's interest.
In my several decades long experience that doesn't happen. It is true that extremely poor results can be attribued to counsel. Attorneys, like people everywhere, fall somewhere along a continuum. Some are great. Some are awful. But poor results can also be attributed to other factors. If it is the potential client's facts, that is usually easy to spot. Harder to spot are issues related to the Judge such as immutable pet peeves.
However, if the deal is 16 to 1, you can probably figure that the fix was in. But how often has that happened? Except for the recent infamous deal, I've never seen such a bad deal. Usually negotiations work more like my recent experience where we tortured numbers over months of work, analysis, research, offer and counteroffer to finally arrive at a settlement that cut both ways to both parties and was about as fair and equitable as you could ask. After a very long term marriage which accumulated significant assets, the parties were finally able to let go the years of building vitriol to allow each other, and most importantly themselves, permission to move on. The parties maturation allowed counsel to cross the Rubicon to end the litigation and strike the deal.
So if you think your counsel is taking a dive, if the deal is something like 16 to 1, you are probably right. If the deal is much closer to equal, then something far less sinister is taking place. It is probably the nuance of law, particularities of your history and vagaries of circumstance operating directly on your experience.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Local-Knowledge-Local-Courts.asp
I think an argument can also be made that no one is that bad of a negotiator. This leads to the direct inference that the negotiator who accepted one for his side while conceding 16 to the other may not have actually been playing for his side.
So how is this relevant to family law? Only in that sometimes clients jump ship, they move from one attorney to another. When I am consulting with a potential client who has left his prior counsel, I sometimes hear that the former counsel was so bad at negotiation that he must have been bribed or at least favored the opposing party or opposing counsel to such an extent that he took a fall against the client's interest.
In my several decades long experience that doesn't happen. It is true that extremely poor results can be attribued to counsel. Attorneys, like people everywhere, fall somewhere along a continuum. Some are great. Some are awful. But poor results can also be attributed to other factors. If it is the potential client's facts, that is usually easy to spot. Harder to spot are issues related to the Judge such as immutable pet peeves.
However, if the deal is 16 to 1, you can probably figure that the fix was in. But how often has that happened? Except for the recent infamous deal, I've never seen such a bad deal. Usually negotiations work more like my recent experience where we tortured numbers over months of work, analysis, research, offer and counteroffer to finally arrive at a settlement that cut both ways to both parties and was about as fair and equitable as you could ask. After a very long term marriage which accumulated significant assets, the parties were finally able to let go the years of building vitriol to allow each other, and most importantly themselves, permission to move on. The parties maturation allowed counsel to cross the Rubicon to end the litigation and strike the deal.
So if you think your counsel is taking a dive, if the deal is something like 16 to 1, you are probably right. If the deal is much closer to equal, then something far less sinister is taking place. It is probably the nuance of law, particularities of your history and vagaries of circumstance operating directly on your experience.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Local-Knowledge-Local-Courts.asp
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Addiction, your spouse's real partner.
Marriages fail for a myriad of different reasons. Some fail because of addiction. Addiction can be to gambling, to shopping, to pornography. I have worked on divorces in 50 plus year marriages which are coming apart because of a recently surfaced sex addiction. But the most common addiction is drugs or alcohol. Tonight I'll talk about alcohol.
People are often isolated. They come to me with their own stories, their own experience. They know what they live through but they don't have the advantage of hearing thousands of stories. They can't see their story in the context of our larger culture. Almost always the client and I will consider the question of whether the spouse is just drinking or is addicted. "Does the drinking interfere with your relationship?" I'll ask. If the answer is yes, then there is a problem whether it is from addiction or from mores against alcohol. "Can your spouse put it aside at any time, not touch it for days or weeks?" If the answer is no, there is a problem. That may be simplistic but I think it boils down to that issue. If you can't leave the alcohol alone for a significant period of time, there's a problem, an addiction in some form. "If your spouse drinks sporadically when they drink, do they often get inebriated, affected?" A purely social drinker only drinks on social occassions and rarely drinks to excess. If your spouse often gets trashed when they drink, a binge drinker, there's a problem.
People who come to see me with this issue have often been living with a raging alcoholic for years but haven't really wanted to face it. Like Battered Women's Syndrome, there is an inherent denial in it. This is why groups like Al-Anon exist, to help you get out of that co-dependency. And alcoholics, like all people everywhere, are on a continuum. I have worked with folks who have been institutionalized for alcohol abuse and I have worked with folks who can't finish out the day without a couple of stiff drinks, though they don't slur their speech and they don't miss work because of it. Both, I think, are alcoholics. I don't know if the APA would support this, but in my practice it's a pretty safe charge.
Some people are violent when they drink. Some just fall asleep in their recliner by 7:00 p.m. All are removed, more distant than they would be without the drink. All are less engaged, less committed to their partners, because they are committed to their addiction.
Their addiction is not rational. This is the nature of addiction. It takes over rational thought. Rational thought is not a rational proposition in the face of addiction. Addiction is something else entirely. It can't be argued away. The addiction is the spouse's partner, not the person they are married to. And being the third wheel is very lonely. There is no intellectual adjustment that can be made. If your spouse won't get help, you will either live with it forever, in all of its forms, or you escape.
Addiction is not a fault in a moral sense. It is an illness. But at the same time, it is not a sinking ship with which you must perish. You can save yourself; that's fair. If you have kids, you must save them. Maybe leaving your addicted spouse will be the wakeup call they need, but that is irrelevant. You don't leave your spouse to get their attention, you leave your spouse to save yourself, to save your children.
I'm not being melodramatic here. It is a question of saving yourself and of saving your children. The life your children will live, growing up in the home of an alcoholic, is a brutish life in the best of circumstances. It's a short life in the worst. The abuse, even if it is purely psychological, is something no one should ever have to endure, certainly not the children. You don't want your children to grow up to be like your addicted spouse. But you make that outcome all the more certain by staying.
Addiction is a ground for divorce in Georgia, though most people still just claim "Irretrievably Broken" in their Complaint. You are permitted to end the marriage when your spouse is married to the bottle.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp
People are often isolated. They come to me with their own stories, their own experience. They know what they live through but they don't have the advantage of hearing thousands of stories. They can't see their story in the context of our larger culture. Almost always the client and I will consider the question of whether the spouse is just drinking or is addicted. "Does the drinking interfere with your relationship?" I'll ask. If the answer is yes, then there is a problem whether it is from addiction or from mores against alcohol. "Can your spouse put it aside at any time, not touch it for days or weeks?" If the answer is no, there is a problem. That may be simplistic but I think it boils down to that issue. If you can't leave the alcohol alone for a significant period of time, there's a problem, an addiction in some form. "If your spouse drinks sporadically when they drink, do they often get inebriated, affected?" A purely social drinker only drinks on social occassions and rarely drinks to excess. If your spouse often gets trashed when they drink, a binge drinker, there's a problem.
People who come to see me with this issue have often been living with a raging alcoholic for years but haven't really wanted to face it. Like Battered Women's Syndrome, there is an inherent denial in it. This is why groups like Al-Anon exist, to help you get out of that co-dependency. And alcoholics, like all people everywhere, are on a continuum. I have worked with folks who have been institutionalized for alcohol abuse and I have worked with folks who can't finish out the day without a couple of stiff drinks, though they don't slur their speech and they don't miss work because of it. Both, I think, are alcoholics. I don't know if the APA would support this, but in my practice it's a pretty safe charge.
Some people are violent when they drink. Some just fall asleep in their recliner by 7:00 p.m. All are removed, more distant than they would be without the drink. All are less engaged, less committed to their partners, because they are committed to their addiction.
Their addiction is not rational. This is the nature of addiction. It takes over rational thought. Rational thought is not a rational proposition in the face of addiction. Addiction is something else entirely. It can't be argued away. The addiction is the spouse's partner, not the person they are married to. And being the third wheel is very lonely. There is no intellectual adjustment that can be made. If your spouse won't get help, you will either live with it forever, in all of its forms, or you escape.
Addiction is not a fault in a moral sense. It is an illness. But at the same time, it is not a sinking ship with which you must perish. You can save yourself; that's fair. If you have kids, you must save them. Maybe leaving your addicted spouse will be the wakeup call they need, but that is irrelevant. You don't leave your spouse to get their attention, you leave your spouse to save yourself, to save your children.
I'm not being melodramatic here. It is a question of saving yourself and of saving your children. The life your children will live, growing up in the home of an alcoholic, is a brutish life in the best of circumstances. It's a short life in the worst. The abuse, even if it is purely psychological, is something no one should ever have to endure, certainly not the children. You don't want your children to grow up to be like your addicted spouse. But you make that outcome all the more certain by staying.
Addiction is a ground for divorce in Georgia, though most people still just claim "Irretrievably Broken" in their Complaint. You are permitted to end the marriage when your spouse is married to the bottle.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp
Monday, December 6, 2010
Child Support: it's a matter of ethics and a matter of law.
We were recently hired by a mother who needs child support from the father. The parents were never married so this is not a divorce case. The parties lived together until she was three months along, then he decided he really didn't want the commitment so he left, he moved on.
This is not an atypical story. We handle many, many cases like this. What makes it fairly atypical is that the father earns seven figures a year. Yes, seven figures.
Laws are written by rich legislators, most often to benefit rich people, or so my perception holds. Laws almost always seem drafted to protect those that have so that they can have more. Our child support laws fall into this category, too.
Until January 1, 2007, we had a very straightforward percentage basis for child support. Roughly put, if you were calculating child support for one child, you took 20% of the non-custodial parent's gross income as child support. Under the 2007 law, percentages no longer apply. The way the child support law is now applied is premised upon how much it costs to raise a child. What child? Apparently one that eats a lot of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.
The law has become almost impossibly complex, but the gist of it is that a parent earning greater than $30,000.00 a month can now pay less than a parent earning $6,000.00 a month paid under the old guidelines. It's nice to have friends in legislative places, huh?
But the law does provide room for the judges to maneuver. The law does seek equity and fairness, in the best interest of the child.
In the old law, passed in 1984, the statute said that a judge could deviate from the percentage guidelines if the parent had unusually high income, which it defined as $75,000.00. That law, too, had wiggle room. Before too awfully long, about 10 years from its enactment, judges began to blow the doors off of that cap, finding that it bore no rational relation to how a child of a particular parent should be raised. Hence the new statute with the new effort to keep children in penury.
But this is what the bard meant when he called for the killing of all the lawyers in King Lear: we have recourse, we have argument, we have rightness and righteousness on our side. For the child of Donald Trump should live no differently than a child of Donald Trump's should live, as Donald Trump's child. (Pardon me, Donald Trump for using you as an example.) What would The Donald do?
This is the standard the judges can and should employ when setting child support on non-custodial parents of significant means. Payment of Child Support should pinch. It's your child. It should not matter whether you are poor, of modest means or quite well off, your obligation to your children, financial and otherwise, should not be easily tossed off, like a nice night on the town.
Some non-custodial parents will read this and decide that mine is not the firm for them. So be it. If they so grossly put their pocket book before their progeny, I couldn't represent them anyway. After all, if there is no right answer in the caring for children, are there ever any?
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Child-Support.asp
This is not an atypical story. We handle many, many cases like this. What makes it fairly atypical is that the father earns seven figures a year. Yes, seven figures.
Laws are written by rich legislators, most often to benefit rich people, or so my perception holds. Laws almost always seem drafted to protect those that have so that they can have more. Our child support laws fall into this category, too.
Until January 1, 2007, we had a very straightforward percentage basis for child support. Roughly put, if you were calculating child support for one child, you took 20% of the non-custodial parent's gross income as child support. Under the 2007 law, percentages no longer apply. The way the child support law is now applied is premised upon how much it costs to raise a child. What child? Apparently one that eats a lot of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.
The law has become almost impossibly complex, but the gist of it is that a parent earning greater than $30,000.00 a month can now pay less than a parent earning $6,000.00 a month paid under the old guidelines. It's nice to have friends in legislative places, huh?
But the law does provide room for the judges to maneuver. The law does seek equity and fairness, in the best interest of the child.
In the old law, passed in 1984, the statute said that a judge could deviate from the percentage guidelines if the parent had unusually high income, which it defined as $75,000.00. That law, too, had wiggle room. Before too awfully long, about 10 years from its enactment, judges began to blow the doors off of that cap, finding that it bore no rational relation to how a child of a particular parent should be raised. Hence the new statute with the new effort to keep children in penury.
But this is what the bard meant when he called for the killing of all the lawyers in King Lear: we have recourse, we have argument, we have rightness and righteousness on our side. For the child of Donald Trump should live no differently than a child of Donald Trump's should live, as Donald Trump's child. (Pardon me, Donald Trump for using you as an example.) What would The Donald do?
This is the standard the judges can and should employ when setting child support on non-custodial parents of significant means. Payment of Child Support should pinch. It's your child. It should not matter whether you are poor, of modest means or quite well off, your obligation to your children, financial and otherwise, should not be easily tossed off, like a nice night on the town.
Some non-custodial parents will read this and decide that mine is not the firm for them. So be it. If they so grossly put their pocket book before their progeny, I couldn't represent them anyway. After all, if there is no right answer in the caring for children, are there ever any?
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Child-Support.asp
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
A Very Happy Thanksgiving
Though Thanksgiving is now last week's news, I want to share events of that week with you as it relates to one 12 year old boy.
On the Friday before Thanksgiving, late in the afternoon, 4:31 to be precise, I was just starting to watch the premier of Harry Potter with my three boys when my cell phone buzzed. I usually will ignore such stimuli when engaged in family activities, but the movie hadn't yet grabbed me and I was out of the office early. So I pulled the phone from my pocket and checked.
An Opposing Counsel in a very contested divorce matter had emailed me an attachment. I opened the email then the attachment which was his letter. His letter informed me that his client, the opposing party in a divorce action, was high tailing it back to her homeland in Nigeria the next day, Saturday, with my client's and the opposing party's 12 year old son.
I immediately called The Firm. We sent a letter to Opposing Counsel; we called Opposing Counsel; I sent an email to Opposing Counsel, all to object in the strongest terms possible to the removal of this boy from the State of Georgia, not to mention the United States of America.
When you file a divorce, the Court grants an automatic Standing Order. The Standing Order sets some ground rules that all the Superior Court judges think are a good idea in every divorce. The first section of the Order says that children of the parties are not to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court. This means you can't take kids out of the State of Georgia, absent approval from the opposite party or the Court itself.
And here the opposing party was taking off to Nigeria, which is quite outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, Nigeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This means that if the opposing party decided not to return, she could never be forced to return the child, even though he was born here, raised here and had never set foot in Nigeria.
The silence from Opposing Counsel was deafening. We had ample reason to worry that the opposing party was, in fact, running. My most excellent team sprung into action.
Associate Jeremy Abernathy drafted a quick Motion for an Emergency Hearing; Paralegal Robyn Midanaky checked every corner of the Courthouse for a judge at that late hour. Sadly, none could be found. All our judges had left for the day and would not return to the Courthouse until after the child had been successfuly spirited out of the country and into hostile territory, from the Hague's perspective. Opposing Counsel had timed his strike perfectly.
Next, paralegal Nora Stocks came on board. She, too had been spending a late afternoon/early evening with her family but left all of that aside and spent the next 18 hours working closely with the United States' State Department, Customs, Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atlanta Police Department coordinating everyone's activity and obtaining and providing them with the necessary documents to stop the opposing party from fleeing the country with the boy the next day.
After dozens of calls and hours upon hours on the telephone, at 11:00 on Saturday night, United States and local officials intercepted the opposing party at the gate and explained to her in no uncertain terms that she was not stepping onto that airplane with that boy. The boy was saved.
The opposing party decided to fly on to Nigeria that night. She left the boy behind in the care of her 22 year old daughter from a prior relationship, who had also been booked on that Nigeria bound flight.
By Monday we had filed our Motion. By Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., the Judge assigned to the divorce case heard the weekend's history and Ordered Opposing Counsel to turn over the boy to my client.
That Thursday, in the middle of the afternoon, my client bowed his head with his son to pray, thankful that his boy was with him, feasting at the table in this most American holiday.
I want to express my sincere and deep thanks to my most excellent staff, and particularly Nora. Their hard work and dedication to our purpose saved this boy and provided our client with a very happy Thanksgiving.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/International-Family-Law.asp
On the Friday before Thanksgiving, late in the afternoon, 4:31 to be precise, I was just starting to watch the premier of Harry Potter with my three boys when my cell phone buzzed. I usually will ignore such stimuli when engaged in family activities, but the movie hadn't yet grabbed me and I was out of the office early. So I pulled the phone from my pocket and checked.
An Opposing Counsel in a very contested divorce matter had emailed me an attachment. I opened the email then the attachment which was his letter. His letter informed me that his client, the opposing party in a divorce action, was high tailing it back to her homeland in Nigeria the next day, Saturday, with my client's and the opposing party's 12 year old son.
I immediately called The Firm. We sent a letter to Opposing Counsel; we called Opposing Counsel; I sent an email to Opposing Counsel, all to object in the strongest terms possible to the removal of this boy from the State of Georgia, not to mention the United States of America.
When you file a divorce, the Court grants an automatic Standing Order. The Standing Order sets some ground rules that all the Superior Court judges think are a good idea in every divorce. The first section of the Order says that children of the parties are not to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court. This means you can't take kids out of the State of Georgia, absent approval from the opposite party or the Court itself.
And here the opposing party was taking off to Nigeria, which is quite outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, Nigeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This means that if the opposing party decided not to return, she could never be forced to return the child, even though he was born here, raised here and had never set foot in Nigeria.
The silence from Opposing Counsel was deafening. We had ample reason to worry that the opposing party was, in fact, running. My most excellent team sprung into action.
Associate Jeremy Abernathy drafted a quick Motion for an Emergency Hearing; Paralegal Robyn Midanaky checked every corner of the Courthouse for a judge at that late hour. Sadly, none could be found. All our judges had left for the day and would not return to the Courthouse until after the child had been successfuly spirited out of the country and into hostile territory, from the Hague's perspective. Opposing Counsel had timed his strike perfectly.
Next, paralegal Nora Stocks came on board. She, too had been spending a late afternoon/early evening with her family but left all of that aside and spent the next 18 hours working closely with the United States' State Department, Customs, Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atlanta Police Department coordinating everyone's activity and obtaining and providing them with the necessary documents to stop the opposing party from fleeing the country with the boy the next day.
After dozens of calls and hours upon hours on the telephone, at 11:00 on Saturday night, United States and local officials intercepted the opposing party at the gate and explained to her in no uncertain terms that she was not stepping onto that airplane with that boy. The boy was saved.
The opposing party decided to fly on to Nigeria that night. She left the boy behind in the care of her 22 year old daughter from a prior relationship, who had also been booked on that Nigeria bound flight.
By Monday we had filed our Motion. By Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., the Judge assigned to the divorce case heard the weekend's history and Ordered Opposing Counsel to turn over the boy to my client.
That Thursday, in the middle of the afternoon, my client bowed his head with his son to pray, thankful that his boy was with him, feasting at the table in this most American holiday.
I want to express my sincere and deep thanks to my most excellent staff, and particularly Nora. Their hard work and dedication to our purpose saved this boy and provided our client with a very happy Thanksgiving.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/International-Family-Law.asp
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Physics in human form explained.
"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." As best I recall, that is a principle in physics. I don't think it holds true in human relations.
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
