WHY YOU AREN'T GETTING RESULTS IN YOUR CASE?

Family law litigants are usually stressed out, unhappy, and are not pleased when Judge does not give them what they want, or ignores what they have said...........this is pretty much typical when cases first start for many people.   Family law cases involve huge amounts of emotional upheaval due to the family unit being disrupted, so this is not surprising.

In some cases, resorting to mediation (of the entire case) is used, but mediation of entire case means that neither client is personally represented. Instead, the parties agree and work out whatever it is that needs to be resolved.  The danger in this, is that usually only one attorney facilitates the mediation. 

And since legal advice to one party or the other is not given (because the mediator does not represent either party) the parties are basically just agreeing to do or not do whatever, on their own, unless they have actually hired separate attorneys to advise them.  If the judgment on the case is agreed upon in this fashion, sometimes the parties later realize they made a mistake or error in choosing whatever they chose at that time.  In fact, stipulated judgments on the record where both parties are represented in court, are usually not set aside unless there are some errant circumstances or exceptions.

This means difficulty in setting aside such a judgment, as the California Family Law Code has specific rules for setting aside orders/judgments; there are specific time limits and requirements; in addition the CA Civil Code/or CCP will or may affect it as well. 

Many issues are set to be heard at law/motion calendar (by a Request for Order motion)...there is not much time allotted for these hearings. Therefore, issues which are complicated usually cannot be resolved in such a short time; however, certain steps can be gained to set up the foundation for a winning strategy. Most of family law issues can be broken down into sections and tackled separately ahead of time via careful planning. Attorney herein is often inherits cases from other attorneys who have not made much progress in producing results.  

If you want/need results in your family case, call attorney of this blog at (530) 359 8810.  

Technology Addiction--Teens and Even Adults

If you find your child appears overdependent on technology devices or Internet sites--you are likely correct...........for example-- see link below--very relevant and informative........

........

Technology addiction: high-level definition

“Technology addiction” can be broadly defined as an inability to control one’s technology use due to a dependence developed through emotional, psychological, social, environmental, and biological factors. This means that an individual may have difficulty with impulse control when it comes to technology usage, be it the internet, gaming, texting, smartphones, social media, or otherwise.

The above definition is purposefully broad to align “technology addiction” with the more general definition of addiction as provided by the American Psychological Association(APA). The APA defines addiction as: “a chronic disorder with biological, psychological, social and environmental factors influencing its development and maintenance.”

https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/technology-internet-addiction/#Social_media_addiction_defined

((There is more to the test, see link..this is just the first part of test...))

Do you have a technology addiction?

Rate each item on a scale of 1 (“completely disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) and tally up your total score to find out. Be honest!

1. I would feel uncomfortable without constant access to information through my smartphone.
2. I would be annoyed if I could not look information up on my smartphone when I wanted to do so.
3. Being unable to get the news (e.g., happenings, weather, etc.) on my smartphone would make me nervous.
4. I would be annoyed if I could not use my smartphone and/or its capabilities when I wanted to do so.
5. Running out of battery in my smartphone would scare me.
6. If I were to run out of credits or hit my monthly data limit, I would panic.
7. If I did not have a data signal or could not connect to Wi-Fi, then I would constantly check to see if I had a signal or could find a Wi-Fi network.
8. If I could not use my smartphone, I would be afraid of getting stranded somewhere.
9. If I could not check my smartphone for a while, I would feel a desire to check it.

NOTE BY ATTORNEY OF THIS FAMILY LAW  BLOG:

In addition, PARENTS that allow their children to over-engage in various technology-related issues could be partially at fault, since the legal custody of children involves the health/welfare of the child.

Attorney Disbarred for Social Media Blitz on Custody Case.......

This is interesting below--not new, but interesting.......but when Hollywood media takes hold, there is seldom, if ever, any repercussions for most of the conduct; there might be slight damage, but clients actually like it when attorneys take more strides to to their job. Obviously, we can't so far as to go over the top and do just what this attorney did, since it likely was beyond what is expected of attorneys [since we are not supposed to lead people into breaking laws]  However, it's interesting because it's doubtful that in CA the attorney would have been completely disbarred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawyer is disbarred for 'social media blitz' intended to influence custody case and top state court

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_is_disbarred_for_social_media_blitz_intended_to_influence_custody
POSTED JUL 08, 2015
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS                                    


A divided Louisiana Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer who used Twitter and an online petition to urge readers to contact two judges she accused of being unwilling to consider the evidence in two custody cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse.

The supreme court disbarred 52-year-old lawyer Joyce Nanine McCool in a June 30 opinion (PDF), noted by the Legal Profession Blog. A hearing board and the disciplinary board had recommended a suspension of a year and a day, but the four-justice majority on the state supreme court said disbarment was warranted. Three dissenters would have imposed lesser discipline.

The majority opinion said McCook displayed an “utter lack of remorse” and a “defiant attitude” by asserting her actions had First Amendment protection.

According to the court, McCool’s social media postings contained many “false, misleading and inflammatory statements” about the way two judges were handling the cases. Among the untrue statements were assertions that judges had refused to admit audio recordings of children talking about alleged abuse, although the recordings were not offered into evidence at that time.

The court also said McCool had solicited others to make ex parte contact with the judges—and with the state supreme court—to express their feelings about the cases, which were sealed domestic proceedings.

The court cited several examples of McCool’s advocacy, including this tweet: “GIMME GIMME GIMME Evidence! Want some? I got it. Think u can convince a judge to look at it? Sign this petition.”

Another example was this blurb: “Please sign the petition, circulate it to all of your friends and families and call Judge Amacker and Judge Gambrell during the hours of 8:30 to 5:00 starting Monday, August 15 to ask why they won’t follow the law and protect these children. Let them know you’re watching and expect them to do their job and most of all, make sure these precious little girls are safe!”

McCool had claimed her actions were protected by the First Amendment, but the argument didn’t persuade the supreme court majority. “We disagree and take strong exception to respondent’s artful attempt to use the First Amendment as a shield against her clearly and convincingly proven ethical misconduct,” the court said.

“The appropriate method for challenging a judge’s decisions and evidentiary rulings, as respondent even conceded, is through the writ and appeal process, not by starting a social media blitz to influence the judges’ and this court’s rulings in pending matters and then claiming immunity from discipline through the First Amendment.”

McCool told the ABA Journal in February, after the disciplinary board recommended a suspension, that she “was willing to stand up to two judges who ignored the law. … I thought that was what our oath demanded of us and it is why I became an attorney.”

The suspension recommendation, she said at the time, doesn’t do “anything to protect the profession or make it more ‘honorable.’ ”

https://www.justia.com/lawyers/family-law/california/chico
Chico Family Law Lawyers - Compare Top Family ... - Justia
www.justia.com › Lawyer Directory › Family Law › California
Compare 18 family law attorneys serving Chico, California on Justia. Comprehensive profiles including fees, education, jurisdictions, awards, publications and ...

Searches related to family law attorney chico family law

child custody lawyers chico ca

butte county family law attorneys

best divorce attorney in chico ca

attorneys in chico ca

chico divorce attorney

Attorney Fees, Costs....Would you Pay $10,987 and Get Almost Nothing?

Well.....we aren't making it up when we say we have seen TONS of clients pay $250, $275, $300, $325, even $350/hr for legal fees (that doesn't include costs....) and what did they get for all that?
About an average of 23hr of work, supposedly. As a true example-- one of attorney's best friends actually paid over $23,000 for legal work which included one trial (custody) with no experts. All of the nickel and dime-ing for every single second of work adds up very very quickly--every stamp, every piece of paper, every email, every call, you name it. [Attorney herein believes the same case could have been done for about $7000 or less...]

IN many cases we have seen, most attorneys don't do anything that special, unless they are really dedicated. We have actually seen motions filed and continued which probably took 20 minutes to churn out by the assistant, got the client no relief at all, didn't change anything in the case except to avoid a long cause hearing, was not heard by any judge, and then it just gets done over again by the attorney going to court and RE-submitting the same thing?  This is not a joke. Sure there were a few emails and emailed conversations, and more of the same motion being continued and refiled?  When that client's bill is approaching $7,000, we say that's called not only bad lawyering, but a client rip-off in our opinion.  

Now when attorneys in the old days were billing (and by this, we mean PRIOR to everyone owning a computer, everyone on the Internet, and Facebook, and PRIOR to most services NOT requiring client to even come into the office????)........... then attorney overhead had to include taking the office RENT, all utilities, whatever things are needed for an office;  the office employee's salaries, ALL of the expensive print advertising, ALL of the stuff needed to keep current on the law (meaning PRINT and books...and all subscriptions in print)...........and then, most attorneys figure out what it's going to cost them to LIVE (not work, but live)............and by adding up all those numbers (what it costs to live and what it costs to maintain the office/ads/subscriptions,etc) then the attorney would take that number, and figure out if he/she worked 40, 50, or 60hr a week, what SALARY is needed for the attorney, in order to meet all of those expenses, PLUS additional money to have [not just to live on.]

Clearly, if an attorney is figuring $5,000 for employee salary/office and $5,000 for living expenses, the attorney needs $10,000 just to run the office/live. That doesn't include tax money being set aside either.  That's $2,500 per week. Many attorneys have no problem turning $2,500 per week. At 40hrs per week, if an attorney was actually charging $275/hour, that's $11,000 a WEEK--- if-- the attorney worked 40hr straight at the billable fee.

Office costs might remain the same, but the Internet and non print data have created far less cost as far as law advertising goes.  Internet advertising is much less expensive than print advertising. Many attorneys don't keep hard copies anymore, they keep DATA files. Even the Courts are moving to all data files. Why pay an attorney huge fees unless you definitely have a very very complicated case?

It's safe to say, this attorney herein,  does nothing remotely even close to the nonsense talked about above (regarding the huge fees for very little time/work...) Attorney works harder than 95% of attorneys out there, to gain a result for client, not to line attorney's pocket. Attorney's cases have been in the media, in newspapers, online, in Verdict Search, and on television.

Most of the cases involved family law and animal law issues; the Verdict Search case involved premise liability in a murder case.  And not just in Chico, Oroville, Red Bluff or Redding,  but Sacramento, Santa Cruz,  Roseville, San Diego and even Washington.

If you don't want to pay full price and get nothing, then contact attorney herein. Full authentic recommendations from actual clients.

Chico Family Law Lawyers - Justia

https://www.justia.com/lawyers/family-law/california/chico

Is Marijuana ..Child Endangerment, but a Loaded Gun is Not??

http://marijuanapolitics.com/pot-child-endangerment-loaded-gun-not/

Why Pot is Child Endangerment...

but a Loaded Gun is Not?

by Russ Belville

    

11-year-old Benjamin Tiller will spend the rest of his childhood, until age 19, in the custody of the state of Tennessee. Benjamin was just convicted of the cold-blooded murder of 8-year-old McKayla Dyer. Benjamin had gone hunting often with his father and grandfather and had been trained in firearm safety. Benjamin got angry at McKayla in a spat over some puppies, so Benjamin retrieved his father’s shotgun, made sure it was loaded, aimed it out the window and fired a blast to McKayla’s chest.

Meanwhile, the 11-year-old son of Shona Banda is spending his childhood without his mother in Kansas. He had the audacity to tell school officials in his drug education class that their sinister claims about marijuana were unfounded. His mother uses cannabis to treat her Crohn’s disease and he’s well-educated on the subject.
That led to calls to child protective services, who called police, who called a judge to get a warrant. They took Shona’s son away and arrested Shona when they found her cannabis medicine in their home.

Now guess which parent – Benjamin’s father or Shona – is facing child endangerment charges?

Just so we’re clear: the father in the first story taught his kid how to fire a shotgun, took him out to kill animals with a shotgun, and left a shotgun and ammo available to his unsupervised kid, who then straight-up murders a little girl.

The mother in the second story uses cannabis as medicine, taught her kid cannabis was a non-toxic medicine that saves her life, and the kid is not found to have ever ingested cannabis, who then tells the truth about cannabis in a drug education class in school.

OK, which one is facing the child endangerment charge – the father or the mother?

If you guessed the parent whose kid had access to accurate education about cannabis, you are correct.

If you guessed the parent whose kid had access to a shotgun and used it to murder, you are sane, but, unfortunately, also incorrect.

There are so many stories of marijuana consuming-parents (medical or otherwise) whose kids don’t smoke pot who then lose their children and face charges of child endangerment.

There are so many stories of gun enthusiast-parents (hunters or otherwise) whose children shoot and kill people who then keep their children and don’t face charges of child endangerment.

*****************

Comment by blog attorney:  This is an interesting question, and although there is heated debate on the issue of firearms, if a minor has been trained to properly handle a firearm, it is highly likely that the child should NOT be using the firearm without adult supervision; meaning, the firearm should not be accessible, and without adult supervision-- the weapon should never likely be accessible unless it was required to save another's life?  In a very unusual case out of Sacramento some years ago, a juvenile (age 14-15 or thereabout)-- accessed a rifle which belonged to his dad, knew how to handle a rifle, and was allegedly pretending to sniper with the gun, by aiming it at passing motorists, but pulling the trigger, allegedly claiming he thought the gun was unloaded? Well, his aim was so good, he killed a person in a car by shooting him in the head. And for that, Judge Jane Ure sentenced the kid to 500hrs of community service. That's all he got, plus perhaps some hours in the juvenile detention center.
It should be noted that murder normally requires the specific intent to kill CA PC187(a)

The Supreme Court has considered over the years, the difficulty in sentencing juveniles to life in prison, see

http://www.upi.com/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-When-children-commit-murder/12851332055800/

"This case presents important constitutional questions regarding the propriety of imposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole on a 14-year-old child ... ," his petition to the Supreme Court said. "Evan Miller is one of only 73 [U.S.] children who have been condemned to be imprisoned until death for an offense committed when they were 14 years of age or younger. Evan, like nearly all of these young adolescents, was sentenced under a statute that made a life-without-parole sentence mandatory, precluding any consideration of his age or other mitigating circumstances which would call for a sentence of less than lifelong incarceration. ..