Smitty Jacobowitz convinced his wife Mildred that since they were getting an amicable uncontested divorce that they didn't need to bother with a lawyer and they could save a bundle in divorce lawyer fees.
Mildred went along with it because they didn't have much money. Mildred and even Smitty were thinking they had nothing to lose except money paid to a lawyer.
They both filled out the paperwork and Smitty filed the Rhode Island divorce paperwork as the plaintiff. Smitty served his wife properly. They talked about what they each wanted and agreed what Smitty would ask for from the court. The only thing Mildred wanted to be sure of was that Smitty made sure she had health insurance because she had a pre-existing condition. Smitty agreed.
Smitty wanted to get things right so he even took a week off from work just before the hearing date. Smitty sat in court and watched uncontested Rhode Island divorce hearings over and over again for three (3) days.
Smitty wrote out a script and went through their Nominal Divorce Hearing (aka uncontested divorce hearing) without much difficulty and asked that he be required to keep Mildred on his insurance pursuant to the Rhode Island Health Insurance Continuation Act. That was the wording used in every single divorce proceeding he watched so he determined that it must be correct.
The judge let a few things slide and Smitty and Mildred made it through their nominal divorce hearing and the divorce was granted.
Smitty figured out how to draft and submit the Interlocutory Decision Pending Entry of Final Judgment after the 2nd rejection by the clerk's office and everything seemed fine.
Smitty and Mildred were pleased.
Smitty prepared and submitted their Final Judgment of Divorce which was entered 3 1/2 months after the hearing date.
Smitty and Mildred were now happily divorced. That lasted about 2 weeks.
Two weeks after the Final Judgment entered Mildred received a letter from Smitty's employer telling her that she was being discontinued from Smitty's health insurance plan effective in two weeks.
Mildred called Smitty and asked him what was going on. He said he'd check on this letter she received. Smitty found out from his employer that he had no choice. He was told that since Mildred was now his "ex-wife" she was no longer going to be covered under the company's health insurance plan.
Smitty went over to see Mildred at her apartment. Smitty broke the news to her that he didn't have a choice and he was very sorry.
Mildred was crying because she had a major pre-existing condition and she had already checked on health insurance before their divorce. Mildred already knew no company would insure her, or if she found one the premium would be so outrageous that she wouldn't be able to survive. She had counted on Smitty's company health insurance.
Mildred went to see lawyers about what she could do but because she had represented herself and had a chance to get legal advice and assistance before and during the divorce there was very little she could do. She was stuck.
Mildred demanded that Smitty make this right and provide her the health insurance they had talked about. Smitty hunted around, but Mildred was right. No company would insure Mildred except one. The one company that would offer Mildred health insurance cost would cost Smitty just about 2 paychecks per month. He couldn't do it and still survive and pay his bills. He told Mildred it wasn't possible.
Mildred and Smitty became mortal enemies. They no longer talked or were friendly with each other. Mildred looked for state and federal health insurance programs to help her but they just weren't available.
Nine years after the divorce Mildred was barely surviving and paying everything she made to be able to buy and take her medicine half as much as had been required. Ten years after their divorce Mildred became sick and died. Smitty was at the funeral and scorned by many of the morners who felt he was to blame. Smitty quickly left and went back to his car where he spent the rest of the night crying and blaming himself for her death all because he didn't want to pay for the help of a divorce lawyer.
All of this could have been solved if Mildred or even Smitty had sought some legal advice or coaching about the divorce process and the health insurance issue. It is entirely possible that this could have been avoided for as little as one coaching session at a cost of $145.00 for a one hour session with me.
Smitty and Mildren saved the money. Was it worth it?
I hope this helps many people to think twice. Believe it or not, sometimes we as Rhode Island lawyers actually save lives by what we do.
My Very Best to All Who Go Before the Rhode Island Family Court,
I'm Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall and
I am "The Rhode Island Divorce Coach."
Give me a call to set up your Coaching or Advice Session at (401) 632-6976.
Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers Ponder whether getting at the Truth is Prohibited in Rhode Island Family Court?
A particular Rhode Island Family Court issue arose a little more than four (4) years ago. It was in the form of a particular question that I discussed with no less than nine (9) lawyers only a few of whom I even remember and who shall remain nameless.
Yet it doesn't matter who the lawyers were. It matters that I overheard several lawyers who were unfamiliar to me discussing the same question not long ago relating to their own experiences in the Rhode Island Family Court.
The Rhode Island Family Court judges each have discretionary power by law. Most assuredly they are the authority as to what can and cannot be done in their courtrooms short of a directive from the Chief Judge of the Family Court.
One of the main things that the Rhode Island Family Court judges generally endeavor to do is to protect and preserve the family unit as a whole. I have not found this wording in any specific manual, statute, treatise, case law or Administrative Order of the Court. I have learned this consistently from numerous judges over my years of practice in the family courts and before various judges.
Yet I am not the only Rhode Island Attorney who been thwarted in his or her divorce and/or post-divorce efforts at presenting the best representation possible for clients by a judge's prohibition of calling a child of the parties as a witness in a divorce or post-divorce case.
Now, I understand and agree with the preservation of the family unit. I am a strong advocate for uncontested divorces, reasonable people, counseling for those who need it, reunification of parents with their children if it is reasonably possible without psychological injury to minor children.
Ultimately I believe this should be a concern of the RI Family Court as a judicial institution as well as the individual family court judges appointed to serve the people and address the countless issues they hear day in and day out both fairly and equitably.
Yet it is disconcerting as a Rhode Island lawyer representing a party in, for instance a post-divorce matter involving the violation of the court's order to (1) be prohibited by a judge from calling a child of the parties as a material witness to defend my client or prove my client's case when the "child of the parties" is no longer a minor and/or when the child of the parties has insisted on testifying to reveal the truth of what he or she knows has occurred, and (2) to then have the judge berate or accuse me or my client of trying to take steps to undermine and possibly destroy the family unit.
Most assuredly, if the child of the parties were a minor of younger years then I might expect some skepticism on the judge's part and the attorney and/or client might well deserve a rebuke in the eyes of some judges. Yet some judges have prohibited children of the parties who may be as old as 23 and who are married, have children of their own and who may have developed a career that rivals their own parents. In such cases, wouldn't the prohibition of testimony violate a person's right to present either their case or their defense, notwithstanding a RI Family Court Judge's concern for the preservation of the family unit?
Perhaps a proper alternative for a 17 year old might be for the RI Judge to speak with the minor child of the parties in camera with counsel so that the judge might determine the nature of the testimony, the level of it's material significance, the weight that might be given to the testimony or even the maturity level of the 17 year old minor child to determine the appropriateness of the testimony.
Clearly some attorneys might simply call a minor child to the stand and ask questions designed to emotionally injure the other parents by using the minor child merely as a tool. Such conduct should not be tolerated. Yet to jump to the conclusion that this is what is happening when one party calls a child of the parties to the stand without further examination or consideration by the judge may place blind faith in mere allegations made by counsel who is zealously representing his or her client and who might clearly benefit by the exclusion of say, the 22 year old daughter who saw and/or heard the father violate the court's order directly and without hesitation.
However, might a better route be for the Judge to suss out the nature of the testimony offered by the child of the parties and it's purpose, determine any possible bias of the child, and consider other pertinent factors.
This would seem to be a more prudent route that would result in a more equitable decision and the pursuit of justice via hearing what may be the clearest indicator of the truth as to what did or did not occur rather than a family court judge simply setting a rule that in his or her courtroom a child of the parties shall not be allowed to testify regardless of age, maturity level, or the direct importance or content of the testimony itself.
There is always the fear that as practitioners before the Rhode Island family court, that if we mention an issue that may be considered by some to be controversial that as legal practitioners we might then become a persona non-gratis (a person not in favor with the court) and thereby risk that judge's will suddenly rule against our clients at every turn.
However, I choose to believe that the members of our judiciary are above such a juvenile standard of conduct. Absent an extreme and direct encounter with a particular judge to a significantly greater degree, I believe that our judiciary is always cognizant that our family court judges are always aware that they are capable of improvement in their roles in the Rhode Island Judicial System just as we should be as Rhode Island lawyers.
This seems to simply be a matter of counter-balancing the two issues of family preservation with the search for truth with lies in each parties right to present evidence before the court to either made their case or to defend themselves against what may be unfounded allegations.
Therefore, I bring this issue to the forefront more for the consideration of the judiciary and for the betterment both of practitioners and the clients they seek to serve.
I certainly welcome any comments from the court, fellow practitioners and from the general public as I am certainly not beyond learning which I find to be a daily and never-ending practice of improvement to better serve my clients and present information to the court in a way that does not waste the court's time but also presents to the court the information needed for our judiciary to make well-informed, equitable, and just decisions for all.
Happy Holidays to the Members of the Rhode Island Family Court and to all who read my articles.
Posted by Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall on December 14, 2011 at 10:38 AM in Commentaries, Divorce & Questions, Divorce & Trials, Divorce Hearings and Trials, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Lawyers & Practice Philosophies, Divorce Principles, Divorce Questions, Family Court & Children, Family Law Protective Measures, Minor Children, Post-Judgment Divorce Issues, Protection from Abuse, Rhode Island Divorce Articles, RI Attorney Misconduct, RI Divorce and Perspectives, RI Family Court and Witnesses, RI Family Court Judges - Philosophy, Tricky Divorce Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: attorney berated, attorneys in ri, bar child from testifying, berated lawyers, calling minor children as witnesses, children of parties as witnesses, constructive criticism, destruction family unit, divorce ri, in camera considerations, in chambers meeting, judicial discretion, judicial discretion, lawyers ri, lawyers ri divorce, material testimony, minor child witness, motions for contempt, Non-minor child of parties, post-judgment ri matters, practice of law, preservation family unit, preserve family unit, preventing witness testimony, rhode island, Rhode Island Family Court, Rhode Island Judiciary, rhode island post-divorce matters, rhodeisland attorneys, RI, ri divorce matters, ri family court judges, ri family lawyer concerns, ri judges, testimony prohibited, witness bias, witnesses, witnesses in ri
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |