http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/799784.opn.pdf is the link to the case in question.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Dear Seattle Times:
Your editorial, “Free attorney, not always says the court,” obviously overstates the argument that was being advanced. The argument being advanced was not that one is always entitled to an attorney, but rather that one is entitled to an attorney when a fundamental right is being taken from an individual or it is going to be significantly altered. It was then argued the right to custody of your children is a fundamental right. A long time ago the United States Supreme Court stated that in almost all cases, attorneys need to be provided in parental termination cases. The foolery begins when jurist note distinctions without a difference as between a parental termination case and a custody case, without recognizing their great similarity. In a typical divorce case in most states, fathers are left with a very small amount of parenting time—breadwinners are especially targeted. While there are some differences between completely losing your child and retaining 15% of the parenting time you once had, this is not enough of a difference to justify an attorney in the former case but not the latter. Indigents should be provided attorneys not only when fundamental rights are to be completely taken, but when they are going to be highly compromised or significantly altered, as happens to the fundamental right to custody in divorce proceedings.
Your editorial stated, “To our knowledge, no state allows [state-paid attorneys to handle child custody matters] in divorce cases.” New York is one state that does by statute, and the statute was created as a reaction to case law, for the principles outlined in this letter.
Sincerely,
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.
100 North Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 445-6789
The author is a practicing family and constitutional lawyer, and spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
Original Article
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
It is the attorney-polluted legislatures that have introduced the wickedness of family law, overturning, hiding, refusing the obligations of parents, jointly and severally (to use an attorney term), wholly and totally to care and provide for their children.
Creating percentage obligations has opened the door for endless squabble, mediated, overseen and billed by the hour, by attorneys.
A pox on them all.
Present company excepted.
January 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
rastus said,
For those who might object that this imposes an unfair burden on a particular profession that is not imposed on others, I would point out that few seem to have any problem with prohibiting politicians who have business interests from acting on legislation that directly benefits those interests. It would be considered scandalous, for instance, for the owner of a large plumbing and heating contracting business to be in charge of establishing the rules by which such services are awarded by the state. Such a person would be required to abstain from any such activities. This is different only in degree, but necessary because the very act of a lawyer generating the laws upon which his practice is based is a prima facie conflict of interest.
January 2, 2008 at 10:37 pm
DcFather said,
Family law is one huge corrupt farce nationwide, and one major media outlet on a mission with more principle than political agenda could expose and end it, particularly if were exclusively female so as to disarm the stereotyping and prejudice that now reigns supreme.
Corruption in family law seems to depend on three legs to sustain it, i.e. feminists (to generate hate, stereotyping, and gender bias), Bar Associations (willing to exploit children for money), and media (more concerned with political agenda than government corruption). Take away one of the three, not that the other two wouldn’t fight to protect their turf, and children might get their fathers back.
January 3, 2008 at 4:32 am