WHAT IS THIS? KINDERGARTEN? NO, FAMILY COURT CAN'T TREAT EVERYONE AS AN INDIVIDUAL!

I heard testimony before the task force stating that each family court case is "individual."  Every case is individual and has to be treated individually. 

 

There is something sacred about a concept like that--to the point where ordinary men and women would be afraid to challenge it.  Like transubstantiation or homeland security--these are ideas you wouldn't want to get too close to for fear of causing offense. 

 

Like the earlier concept of "intangibles" that we touched upon in another blog, how could I possibly dare to challenge the idea that people should be treated like individuals and that their cases should be treated individually. 

 

But you see, I have to challenge these ideas because they are so darned stupid. 

 

The bottom line is I haven't noticed anyone treating anyone individually since I was in family court. 

 

I have already spoken about the fact that repeatedly the attorneys and GALs I have seen operating in family court repeatedly disregard and ignore the fact that children have special needs or other special medical requirements.  They aren't treating these children individually or considering their individual requirements. 

 

The Court is not treating litigants as individuals either; in fact, it is directly ignoring people as individuals, particularly when it randomly labels people as having a mental illness when there is no direct evidence to confirm such a label.  When the Court refuses to listen to what a litigant has to say or review a document about his or her case because of some rule invented in the medieval age, or out of pure and simple spite as happens frequently, I wouldn't call that particularly individualized. 

 

Of course, I certainly can't say I absolutely oppose individualized attention.  Look, if I could, I would give everyone individualized attention. 

 

As a teacher, if I could just go to school every day and work one on one with students instead of in groups, I would definitely do that.  How much more individualized can you get than one on one teaching?  However, to be honest with you, the fact is that I don't have the opportunity. 

 

Most of my classes have at least 25 to 30 students per class and I have no doubt that there are some students who are not getting a teaching style adequate to their needs.  When I teach night classes at the local college, I will sometimes have students as old as 75 and as young as 15, and classes with 30 students or more.  As a result, sorry guys, students in my classroom are not getting the kind of individualized education that they might receive under the kind of ideal circumstances where I could give that one on one individualized education. 

 

Since I am teaching a large classroom full of students with a broad range of learning styles, ages, and needs, even though I'd like every one of my students to have a learning program individually tailored to each of their needs, instead I have to streamline my approach and ask the students to live up to certain objective standards required by the group learning experience. 

 

If some students can't keep up, that's too bad, because I am not a babysitter.  I am a teacher. 

 

Likewise with family court, it would be great if we could have individual judges, mental health professionals, attorneys, family relations officers, and clerks, etc. spend entire days, weeks, years working with a particular couple.  However,  just like the local school and university where I work, the Court is unable to do this. 

 

Why? 

 

Let me speak slowly so that people on this task force understand, because I know that this concept is often as hard for them to understand as it is for GALs and AMCs and family court attorney's in general. 

 

We do not have such endless resources in our legal system. 

 

Individual families do not have such endless financial resources either to carry on individualized lawsuits in family court. 

 

As a consequence, it is foolish and misguided to state as a minimum goal for litigants in family court and family court itself that everyone must be treated as an individual. 

 

First of all, it makes no sense because family court personnel have a lengthy history of disregarding litigants as individuals and the many comments sent to the task force reflect the truth of that assertion. 

 

Second of all, it makes no sense because family court does not have the money, particularly in these difficult economic times. 

 

Third of all, it is criminal to make demands that litigants who have simply come to the family court to get divorced pay hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars so that they can meet the expectations of some GALs and AMCs that litigants should be treated individually. 

 

If GALs, AMCs, and family attorneys could stop inventing ways to treat litigants as individuals, perhaps we would no longer see the decimation of an entire family's life savings.  I am sure that many children represented by GALs and AMCs would be willing to forego the individualized care and treatment just so they could still obtain a college education down the road! 

 

You see, what is going on here is that these rogue GALs and AMCs, who consider the need for individualized attention preeminent, have been allowed to eclipse parents who have simply made reasonable requests that the Court allow them to safeguard their children's future education. 

 

Such parents don't want "individualized attention"!  They want their children to have a future! 

 

The bottom line is that GALs and AMCs use concepts like "litigants are individuals who need to be treated individually" as a means to extort money from families who can little afford it. 

 

We all live in the real world.  I would like to be treated individually and take a trip to London this year.  But guess what!  I can't afford it.  I'd like to buy a new $40,000 car because, as an individual, that would be really, really cool.  But guess what!  I can't afford it. 

 

Take a look at the indigent clients at Family Court.  Are they having unlimited access to State GALs and AMCs ready to treat them as individuals?  No.  Why not?  Because the State cannot afford it.  Why?  Because Family Court has a budget and they cannot overrun their budget! 

 

There are many other litigants of modest means who manage to make their way through the court system with financial and parental agreements, all without the assistance of GALs and AMCs.  Are their cases any different than cases in which the Court appoints highly expensive, private GALs and AMCs? 

 

No, not at all. 

 

So why don't they get GALs and AMCs anyway since they need the individualized attention? 

 

Because there is no money and they cannot afford it. 

 

It's amazing how that goes. 

 

If you cannot afford to pay your rent, you will be thrown out on the street, even if it is not in your individualized best interest. 

 

When I went to pharmacy yesterday and my medical insurance refused to pay for my prescription, I was unable to purchase it. 

 

Why? 

 

Because even though it is in my individualized best interest to have that medication, if I cannot afford it, no one is going to be giving me any. 

 

This is life.  This is the way it is in the real world.  Why should it be any different in the legal field. 

 

I'm always amazed by the way in which attorneys talk as though they live in outer space somewhere with stars flying by trickling money at their wake. 

 

No.  Just no. 

 

These attorneys need to get a grip and start facing facts like the rest of us have to. 

 

You might say, well some people have the money to waste, so it's no big deal if they spend it on individual care.  That may be true, but if that is the case litigants should have informed consent and the right to choice.  Up until this point, family court judges and manipulative attorneys have denied the majority of litigants that right. 

 

Furthermore, college money is not extra money.  It is money every dime of which will eventually go to a college education.  Retirement money, which GALs and AMCs frequently take, is not extra money.  Litigants will desperately need that money eventually in order to have a decent standard of living upon retirement.

 

We need to put specific limits on how much GALs and AMCs can charge in particular cases, we need to develop specific job descriptions for these roles, and establish more stringent levels of accountability. 

 

We need to send the message to these people that the party is over!