|| Two Decades Of Intense Global Preparation Of Our Clients' Cases In The Newnan Area and Peachtree City Area Courts || Call For An Appointment Today: 770-253-7778
The Hard Truth: Some Clients Don't Want To Hear It
When a lawyer has practiced several years and spent his or her time in Court week after week, month after month, year after year, listening to what Judges have to say in a lot of cases and how they arrive at their decisions and what they want to support a wide variety of issues and asserted positions and then share that information|wisdom with a client and the client totally ignores that shared information ... what does the lawyer do? I document the file with a note, email or other memorialization that I have told the client what I thought the Court would do, want to hear, be interested in and I go forward and present the case the client wants presented as best I can prepare it and present it. Once in a blue moon the Court rules in a way that was unexpected. Virtually every time the Court|Judge rules the way he or she should based on the facts presented and the law applicable. A few generalizations to consider: (1) If children are involved the Court's interest above all else will be their best interests; (2) Infants and younger children, under 5 or so, almost always are better off with Mom as the primary custodian and Dad as the secondary custodian, but Dad should have as much visitation with them as he has historically, weekday(s), more weekend(s), diner visits etcetera: This generalization is sometimes balanced when the parents have jointly raised the child(ren) in terms of feeding, spending time with them, nurturing them and Dad is living just down the road and in the same school district; (3) If a parent is going to have to suffer supervised visitation there had better be a good reason with express testimony and history presented that the parent lacks parenting skills, is hot tempered, egocentric to a fault capable of not properly monitoring children and that more likely than not and that probably clearly and convincingly proven, the child(ren)s best interests are not served by being alone with Mom or Dad. If a party can't present evidence that would support a TPO, DEFACS is not involved, and a party cannot show that the other parent is unstable and, or, has absolutely no parenting skills, then why exactly should the Court who is charged by law with insuring that children are co-parented as much as possible, decided to rule against that mandate?