I have been on a bit of a holiday break, and as part of that break, I have been watching far too much TV. "The Good Wife" has really captured my interest this year, even though I have been so slow to start watching.
I did this with Dexter, and Breaking Bad, and Parenthood. It's almost like I ENJOY being wrong about shows, if only because then when I do try them, I get to binge.
So, binging on Good Wife and also Chance. Back in a week or two!
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Right to protest versus right to riot
I will preface this post by saying I am trying to take the Trump win in the Presidential race with grace; I must admit that I am having a hard time with the reality that many of my neighbors, family and friends voted for a mysoginist, hate-filled, race-baiting, big mouth who at best has a terrible view of women and bases his judgment on looks, and at worse is a straight up sex offender. I'm trying so hard not to be angry, not to make this a negative four years by my own attitude.
Some of our fellow citizens are also unhappy. This I understand, obviously. And many are waging quiet protests, gathering to share their unhappiness, gathering to lobby the Electoral College to revolution, speaking their concerns online and in other ways. These kinds of protest are entirely reasonable and they can be useful because they keep the focus on change and respect.
However, other protests that are happening, such as those in Chicago and Portland, are not accurately even described as protests. Any action that involves burning, destroying or violence is not a protected speech protest, it is a riot. Riots are criminal action, and frankly, they degrade all of us with legitimate protest concerns.
If you are one of those participating in a riot or even viewing riots as necessary - you are a part of the problem, and not the solution. By delegitimizing the long time argument of Democrats for peace and respect even in disagreement. Look back at Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement for examples of how this must be done. The current rioting makes it hard to distinguish between "us" and the Trump crowd!
Some of our fellow citizens are also unhappy. This I understand, obviously. And many are waging quiet protests, gathering to share their unhappiness, gathering to lobby the Electoral College to revolution, speaking their concerns online and in other ways. These kinds of protest are entirely reasonable and they can be useful because they keep the focus on change and respect.
However, other protests that are happening, such as those in Chicago and Portland, are not accurately even described as protests. Any action that involves burning, destroying or violence is not a protected speech protest, it is a riot. Riots are criminal action, and frankly, they degrade all of us with legitimate protest concerns.
If you are one of those participating in a riot or even viewing riots as necessary - you are a part of the problem, and not the solution. By delegitimizing the long time argument of Democrats for peace and respect even in disagreement. Look back at Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement for examples of how this must be done. The current rioting makes it hard to distinguish between "us" and the Trump crowd!
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Get out the vote!
Short and sweet: If you are a US citizen eligible to vote, walk away from this screen and get your hiney to the polls!
If you already voted, please feel free to share your experience. I don't mean you have to reveal who you voted for (but you can). Just let me know how your poll was. For instance, my poll had medium turnout when I went, but that was at ten a.m. when I expected light turnout. There was a beehive of activity and excitement, which rubbed off on me and now I just want to watch election coverage.
I'm working, but as soon as I am done you can bet I will be cozy and comfy, watching our nation make its choice.
If you already voted, please feel free to share your experience. I don't mean you have to reveal who you voted for (but you can). Just let me know how your poll was. For instance, my poll had medium turnout when I went, but that was at ten a.m. when I expected light turnout. There was a beehive of activity and excitement, which rubbed off on me and now I just want to watch election coverage.
I'm working, but as soon as I am done you can bet I will be cozy and comfy, watching our nation make its choice.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Moment of Silence
Today I got a reminder of something that has bothered me more and more over the past decade: the difficulty hard of hearing or deaf in our society have such great difficulty getting access to many things. Within the last four months I have been the broker for a client who could not hear in court, a friend who could not get heat because she is deaf, and then today my encounter was with a phone service who did not provide accommodation for users.
Why is this even an issue in 2016?
Shouldn't courts have an easy to use system in place to accommodate our hard of hearing or deaf citizens? It took my court several weeks of me nagging to even get ear sets for my hard of hearing client. The accommodation was available in my county, but in many it isn't. I have been party to a court case that went on two years where a deaf mom, deaf dad and profoundly deaf child all had to appear, which meant the court had to hire four separate interpreters. It truly delayed the process for everyone, but especially for the parents who lost custody of their four kids and needed expert help in getting the kids back. Finding attorneys who could schedule around interpreters that the court was reluctant to pay for was not easy, and overall I was left with the feeling that there should be a better, more efficient way for the deaf and hard of hearing to receive equal treatment under the law.
In the instance of the gas company, just signing up to have an account to get a gas line run was more like an obstacle course than an easily utilized service - especially shocking since in most counties, like this one, there is only one gas or electricity company which services the area, and therefore the deaf and hard of hearing have no choice but to follow the procedures set out by the monopoly holding company. For my friend, I will call her Tammy, the procedures were impossible since you could only set up services by calling the gas company. They had a TDD line, but Tammy doesn't subscribe to that service as it is slow and often error filled in matters like this; they also keep records of all the transcripts, which means Tammy's social security number, birthdate, and driver's license would be in the possession of the TDD company and therefore more open to identity theft. Tammy could easily have provided this information in a chat or an email, but the gas company refused those methods. She tried sending in a paper application, but a month with no heat and no contact from the gas company convinced her to ask for my help, after an afternoon of work lost in trying to go to the gas company's physical offices, where no one could help her since you can only start service - you got it, over the phone. I called the company and within twenty minutes Tammy had a case number, an engineer's name - and his email. Why would it have been so hard to just allow her to communicate via email in the first place? My blood was beginning to boil by the end of my call as the chirpy voice on the other end easily gave me the engineer's email.
Maybe if some time had passed I would have forgotten that experience, or at least simmered down, but today Tammy had yet another issue that would have been made so much easier if her cell phone company had any kind of accommodating procedure for the deaf and hard of hearing. Instead, I called for her when her iPhone was rendered useless after an iOS upgrade, and after half an hour on various holds, I finally got through to a human being in the accessibility department of Apple Support. He was a very kind fellow but he was very upfront about the fact that Apple has no solutions for Tammy.
How can this be a thing that our society just accepts?
Why is this even an issue in 2016?
Shouldn't courts have an easy to use system in place to accommodate our hard of hearing or deaf citizens? It took my court several weeks of me nagging to even get ear sets for my hard of hearing client. The accommodation was available in my county, but in many it isn't. I have been party to a court case that went on two years where a deaf mom, deaf dad and profoundly deaf child all had to appear, which meant the court had to hire four separate interpreters. It truly delayed the process for everyone, but especially for the parents who lost custody of their four kids and needed expert help in getting the kids back. Finding attorneys who could schedule around interpreters that the court was reluctant to pay for was not easy, and overall I was left with the feeling that there should be a better, more efficient way for the deaf and hard of hearing to receive equal treatment under the law.
In the instance of the gas company, just signing up to have an account to get a gas line run was more like an obstacle course than an easily utilized service - especially shocking since in most counties, like this one, there is only one gas or electricity company which services the area, and therefore the deaf and hard of hearing have no choice but to follow the procedures set out by the monopoly holding company. For my friend, I will call her Tammy, the procedures were impossible since you could only set up services by calling the gas company. They had a TDD line, but Tammy doesn't subscribe to that service as it is slow and often error filled in matters like this; they also keep records of all the transcripts, which means Tammy's social security number, birthdate, and driver's license would be in the possession of the TDD company and therefore more open to identity theft. Tammy could easily have provided this information in a chat or an email, but the gas company refused those methods. She tried sending in a paper application, but a month with no heat and no contact from the gas company convinced her to ask for my help, after an afternoon of work lost in trying to go to the gas company's physical offices, where no one could help her since you can only start service - you got it, over the phone. I called the company and within twenty minutes Tammy had a case number, an engineer's name - and his email. Why would it have been so hard to just allow her to communicate via email in the first place? My blood was beginning to boil by the end of my call as the chirpy voice on the other end easily gave me the engineer's email.
Maybe if some time had passed I would have forgotten that experience, or at least simmered down, but today Tammy had yet another issue that would have been made so much easier if her cell phone company had any kind of accommodating procedure for the deaf and hard of hearing. Instead, I called for her when her iPhone was rendered useless after an iOS upgrade, and after half an hour on various holds, I finally got through to a human being in the accessibility department of Apple Support. He was a very kind fellow but he was very upfront about the fact that Apple has no solutions for Tammy.
How can this be a thing that our society just accepts?
Sunday, November 6, 2016
After the fallout
Today I read an essay about this election season and the damage already done, no matter the outcome. It really touched something in me; our country is in a battle that encompasses so much more than politicians. For so long, the nation has been arguing and fussing and fighting and it's been getting worse and worse, with lots of "if you vote for person x, unfriend me" drama. I admit, I have felt and potentially said similar things.
But lately my mind has been on the after. What happens when the votes are cast and the winner is declared? How do we go back to being neighbors, friends, family in the aftermath?
This is such a direct analogy to the court process that I can't help but make the comparisons. When a court case ends, there is the same fallout. Parents may or may not be "elected" to have their kids returned to them. On all sides - mother, father, foster families, children- there have been people rooting for a specific outcome, and some of those people are going to "lose."
At the end of the case, the lawyers, the judge, the GAL, the social workers and therapists step out of the family's life, just as the commentators, campaign managers and the pollsters go away. The real people are left trying to rebuild the family, with or without their children. If the children have returned, it might seem like things could go back to the way they were before the court was involved, but over and over parents and children have told me that is not the case. Relationships are altered, and some of them broken, and our hope is that has happened as a direct result of parents and families mending the root cause that brought them to court in abuse and neglect cases.
The extended family is also changed, and often this is because of who they supported, and who they did not, in the court case. So often the court case stirs up the extended family, the church, the neighborhood in ways that can't easily be undone or forgotten, just like the election talk and its inevitable polarizing. It's hard to imagine the way forward, and yet families all over America do it every day, every month of every year.
On the other hand, if the kids are not reunited with one or both parents, the whole family structure is forever altered in a way that cannot be completely mended. A child returned to one parent but forever separated from the other adds a lot of questions into the child's future, and there is no denying the fact that loss is involved, for the child of course but also for other family members. A child removed from both parents is removed from the greater family in many cases, and if the child is placed with a family member at the conclusion and parents' rights are terminated, then the family "loses" the parents. Any solution where the child doesn't return to both parents is fraught with lots of difficulty in the future, even though that decision may be in the best interests of the child involved.
This feels like a long way around a really important point, one that a dear friend of mine faces every day, regardless of who is president: when the court gavel bangs its last tired note, the real people in child abuse and neglect cases, the ones whose lives are being scrutinized and taken apart and families disrupted, those people live the aftermath of the decision. My dear friend has four children, all affected profoundly by a case that happened a decade ago. The family structures of the adults and the children were altered forever.
And our nation is about to experience a similar rift. I wonder how many decades it will take for our families and friends and neighbors to right themselves, or to take on the new normal?
But lately my mind has been on the after. What happens when the votes are cast and the winner is declared? How do we go back to being neighbors, friends, family in the aftermath?
This is such a direct analogy to the court process that I can't help but make the comparisons. When a court case ends, there is the same fallout. Parents may or may not be "elected" to have their kids returned to them. On all sides - mother, father, foster families, children- there have been people rooting for a specific outcome, and some of those people are going to "lose."
At the end of the case, the lawyers, the judge, the GAL, the social workers and therapists step out of the family's life, just as the commentators, campaign managers and the pollsters go away. The real people are left trying to rebuild the family, with or without their children. If the children have returned, it might seem like things could go back to the way they were before the court was involved, but over and over parents and children have told me that is not the case. Relationships are altered, and some of them broken, and our hope is that has happened as a direct result of parents and families mending the root cause that brought them to court in abuse and neglect cases.
The extended family is also changed, and often this is because of who they supported, and who they did not, in the court case. So often the court case stirs up the extended family, the church, the neighborhood in ways that can't easily be undone or forgotten, just like the election talk and its inevitable polarizing. It's hard to imagine the way forward, and yet families all over America do it every day, every month of every year.
On the other hand, if the kids are not reunited with one or both parents, the whole family structure is forever altered in a way that cannot be completely mended. A child returned to one parent but forever separated from the other adds a lot of questions into the child's future, and there is no denying the fact that loss is involved, for the child of course but also for other family members. A child removed from both parents is removed from the greater family in many cases, and if the child is placed with a family member at the conclusion and parents' rights are terminated, then the family "loses" the parents. Any solution where the child doesn't return to both parents is fraught with lots of difficulty in the future, even though that decision may be in the best interests of the child involved.
This feels like a long way around a really important point, one that a dear friend of mine faces every day, regardless of who is president: when the court gavel bangs its last tired note, the real people in child abuse and neglect cases, the ones whose lives are being scrutinized and taken apart and families disrupted, those people live the aftermath of the decision. My dear friend has four children, all affected profoundly by a case that happened a decade ago. The family structures of the adults and the children were altered forever.
And our nation is about to experience a similar rift. I wonder how many decades it will take for our families and friends and neighbors to right themselves, or to take on the new normal?
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Time for What Do You Think Wednesday!
I'm starting a new practice here at TGFJ - "What Do You Think?" Wednesday will be a !hopefully weekly staple where I share news stories serious, practical and fluff. I may or may not share my own thoughts, but I would love to hear yours, or get you talking in your offices and homes. Each week I will add a story or two suggested by one or more of my kids and another by one or more of my clients.
Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich Talk Sex - Predators That Is
(If it had been a male interviewer, would Gingrich have maintained the same exact language?)
Fashionista Rebel Says She Would Hate This
(And I just think it should be a criminal act to name all your kids with the same first letter if you have more than two or three kids.)
November is National Adoption Month
Justin Timberlake, This is For You
Supreme Court Takes on.....Bathroom Use?
(Pssst - I'll Go With You)
Is There an Expiration on When You Can Wear Jeans?
(Who knew I was ahead of my time?)
Get the Vote Out
Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich Talk Sex - Predators That Is
(If it had been a male interviewer, would Gingrich have maintained the same exact language?)
Fashionista Rebel Says She Would Hate This
(And I just think it should be a criminal act to name all your kids with the same first letter if you have more than two or three kids.)
November is National Adoption Month
Justin Timberlake, This is For You
Supreme Court Takes on.....Bathroom Use?
(Pssst - I'll Go With You)
Is There an Expiration on When You Can Wear Jeans?
(Who knew I was ahead of my time?)
Get the Vote Out
More on meditation and mindfulness for lawyers
As I was trying to articulate yesterday, the practice of law is uniquely stressful. The latest statistics indicate that as many as forty percent of us suffer from depression. Years of study suggest that lawyers also have higher rates of suicide, anxiety, and substance addiction issues than the general population.
If these numbers are to be believed, why is this not seen as a crisis, central to education starting in law school and continuing in CLEs? Is there a really obvious reason? I think there might be.
Lawyers are expected, in most cases, to work long and serious hours in order to make billable hour requirements annually. Back when I was a new lawyer, working for a county as their only GAL in abuse and neglect cases, I was often in court from eight a.m. till eight p.m., many times with only half an hour for lunch and no bathroom breaks at all. The rest of the week was spent in a flurry of emails and calls that I look back on with true sorrow. It was necessary at the time, because of my state's GAL rules, and yet it could not have served my clients. Why?
There were many hours each day when I would be on two or even three calls at once, switching back and forth between them to be sure I heard at least part of each meeting. As a GAL, I am obliged not to just be dead wood in a meeting or a court hearing, but to fully participate, so I did try hard to provide useful information, comment or suggestion. But looking back - how did I think that would even work?
If that sounds crazy, it's because it was. Yet I did it for almost four years, and I even maintained that through pregnancy bedrest. Were those practices mindful? Not even close. Did they feel necessary? Yes. I was working a sixty hour week on a part-time job pay, and even that much time was not truly mindful of my clients or of my own health.
At that time I was raising all four of my daughters, and Smarter than Me Survivor suffered the worst loss of her young life. Right around that time I started to take an accounting of my own life, partially in response to how exhausted and out of step I felt with my kids, and in part because my own mental health was starting to suffer.
It is incumbent upon lawyers to protect themselves, so that they can also protect their families and their clients from a lawyer who is too depressed, anxious or exhausted to function. I've been forthcoming about my own difficulties in this area, but it was really dang hard to find another attorney to talk to, be authentic with, about my struggles. And that just should not be the case.
Even just taking five minutes to assess where you are in life and your career, and where you truly feel you belong, is a start. I've been working on The Five Minute Journal after reading here and here about the value in writing out what you are grateful for each morning, as well as an affirmation, and then revisiting the journal each evening.
It may sound like I am spending a lot of time in 'self care' between a walk each day, the journal, and the meditation, but in fact the three add up to less than an hour. I take a kid along on my walk from time to time, which adds not multitasking but single focus on one child, and also teaches kids to value the quiet and exercise and nature.
None of these things are set in stone, and I don't want anyone to think I have cornered the market on how this works. There is no one perfect way to work in mindfulness and a bit of meditation into a day. For some lawyers, a short walk while purposing to clear the mind of all thought could happen at lunch; for another lawyer the practice of yoga and prayer might be the right answer. I don't think there is a "bright line law" on this - but I do think each lawyer should do a bit of research and experiment with things that will work for him or her. Your clients, your family and your own mental health will thank you.
If these numbers are to be believed, why is this not seen as a crisis, central to education starting in law school and continuing in CLEs? Is there a really obvious reason? I think there might be.
Lawyers are expected, in most cases, to work long and serious hours in order to make billable hour requirements annually. Back when I was a new lawyer, working for a county as their only GAL in abuse and neglect cases, I was often in court from eight a.m. till eight p.m., many times with only half an hour for lunch and no bathroom breaks at all. The rest of the week was spent in a flurry of emails and calls that I look back on with true sorrow. It was necessary at the time, because of my state's GAL rules, and yet it could not have served my clients. Why?
There were many hours each day when I would be on two or even three calls at once, switching back and forth between them to be sure I heard at least part of each meeting. As a GAL, I am obliged not to just be dead wood in a meeting or a court hearing, but to fully participate, so I did try hard to provide useful information, comment or suggestion. But looking back - how did I think that would even work?
If that sounds crazy, it's because it was. Yet I did it for almost four years, and I even maintained that through pregnancy bedrest. Were those practices mindful? Not even close. Did they feel necessary? Yes. I was working a sixty hour week on a part-time job pay, and even that much time was not truly mindful of my clients or of my own health.
At that time I was raising all four of my daughters, and Smarter than Me Survivor suffered the worst loss of her young life. Right around that time I started to take an accounting of my own life, partially in response to how exhausted and out of step I felt with my kids, and in part because my own mental health was starting to suffer.
It is incumbent upon lawyers to protect themselves, so that they can also protect their families and their clients from a lawyer who is too depressed, anxious or exhausted to function. I've been forthcoming about my own difficulties in this area, but it was really dang hard to find another attorney to talk to, be authentic with, about my struggles. And that just should not be the case.
Even just taking five minutes to assess where you are in life and your career, and where you truly feel you belong, is a start. I've been working on The Five Minute Journal after reading here and here about the value in writing out what you are grateful for each morning, as well as an affirmation, and then revisiting the journal each evening.
It may sound like I am spending a lot of time in 'self care' between a walk each day, the journal, and the meditation, but in fact the three add up to less than an hour. I take a kid along on my walk from time to time, which adds not multitasking but single focus on one child, and also teaches kids to value the quiet and exercise and nature.
None of these things are set in stone, and I don't want anyone to think I have cornered the market on how this works. There is no one perfect way to work in mindfulness and a bit of meditation into a day. For some lawyers, a short walk while purposing to clear the mind of all thought could happen at lunch; for another lawyer the practice of yoga and prayer might be the right answer. I don't think there is a "bright line law" on this - but I do think each lawyer should do a bit of research and experiment with things that will work for him or her. Your clients, your family and your own mental health will thank you.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Meditation
Yesterday's post made me think about the ways a lawyer, and specifically a GAL, can avoid secondary trauma, or at least cope with it. One of the very best things I have discovered is meditation, or mindfulness. I think this is something that can benefit anyone, although I realize there are lots of very common arguments people might make (to themselves or to others) against meditation.
One of those is that Christians, especially, cannot meditate because it is a sneaky way of falling into Eastern religion practices. Ignoring the obvious historical and biblical facts that Christianity was actually started in the Middle East, there are some other confusions about meditation as opposing Christian beliefs.
"Instead of meditating, just pray." OK, prayer is important for many people, and often it is done in silence, when one is alone. But prayer really does not replace meditation; prayer is a discussion or at least an entreaty to another. Meditation is silencing all thought, allowing your mind to experience true calm. So if this is an argument you hear or you make to yourself, do both!
"As a Christian, you should not follow any Eastern religion rituals or you are risking dishonoring God." But that argument already has a fallacy, right, since Christianity began in the Middle East? In addition, how is God dishonored by the fact that human beings help each other learn better ways to manage stress? I consider this one to be much like the "you shouldn't do yoga because it means you are worshipping other gods" comments that were popular before yoga got so prevalent in our fitness arenas.
The other most common idea that keeps people from meditating is the idea that a restless or ADHD or anxiety prone mind cannot possibly meditate because of those very issues. But the funny thing is, meditating is probably best for those who have chemical or behavioral (or both) difficulty concentrating. Meditation is famously known among those who have given it a fair shake for helping focus and concentration.
More on this tomorrow, but I would truly advise a peruse through The Anxious Lawyer's podcasts, or Chel Hamilton's Meditation Minis. Both are short, to the point, and so helpful for beginning to take your anxiety, worries, focus and mindfulness into your own hands.
One of those is that Christians, especially, cannot meditate because it is a sneaky way of falling into Eastern religion practices. Ignoring the obvious historical and biblical facts that Christianity was actually started in the Middle East, there are some other confusions about meditation as opposing Christian beliefs.
"Instead of meditating, just pray." OK, prayer is important for many people, and often it is done in silence, when one is alone. But prayer really does not replace meditation; prayer is a discussion or at least an entreaty to another. Meditation is silencing all thought, allowing your mind to experience true calm. So if this is an argument you hear or you make to yourself, do both!
"As a Christian, you should not follow any Eastern religion rituals or you are risking dishonoring God." But that argument already has a fallacy, right, since Christianity began in the Middle East? In addition, how is God dishonored by the fact that human beings help each other learn better ways to manage stress? I consider this one to be much like the "you shouldn't do yoga because it means you are worshipping other gods" comments that were popular before yoga got so prevalent in our fitness arenas.
The other most common idea that keeps people from meditating is the idea that a restless or ADHD or anxiety prone mind cannot possibly meditate because of those very issues. But the funny thing is, meditating is probably best for those who have chemical or behavioral (or both) difficulty concentrating. Meditation is famously known among those who have given it a fair shake for helping focus and concentration.
More on this tomorrow, but I would truly advise a peruse through The Anxious Lawyer's podcasts, or Chel Hamilton's Meditation Minis. Both are short, to the point, and so helpful for beginning to take your anxiety, worries, focus and mindfulness into your own hands.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Scandal and Reputation
It's a thorny topic. The lawyers I know who have dealt with it are not eager to talk about it, but it's an open secret among us. Scandals. They happen. They happen frequently. I don't know about other areas of practice; it seems somehow less likely that say, tax or corporate lawyers end up in the scandal position as often as family law and juvenile law practitioners.
And juvenile and family lawyers might have a different kind of stress. Secondary trauma is very real, and though lawyers wouldn't seem to be as close to most clients as say, social workers or therapists, in some cases we are. And it is certainly true that hearing about so much first hand trauma (abuse, addiction, neglect, sexual wrongs, and so many unbelievable traumas that humans endure) can grow into a mental health issue for anyone, lawyers included.
Secondary trauma is its own mental conundrum, and one that is often ignored until an attorney loses his or her ability to make good decisions. At that point, there is often a scandal, sadly - an attorney might act in ways that worry others, drink too much or take illegal substances, become anxious or depressed, or even consider, attempt or commit suicide. In any other career, these issues might be the subject of gossip, but in a legal career it becomes a scandal (and possibly a bar standing offense) which almost always affects the attorney's reputation. Usually forever.
I don't want to be one of those "my friend heard of" people so let me just admit that I myself suffered some pretty awful depression and anxiety which caused me to lose friends that I once considered close at least in the legal community. Now, most of the real friends remain, and most of my legal community friends are still here. I left a job that was causing me a huge amount of stress, and allowed my health a chance to catch up, since in three years I had e coli, c diff, MRSA, prolonged high risk pregnancy bedrest, a hysterectomy, a broken foot, many blood transfusions and infusions, and numerous other infections and health problems. They seemed too much to bear with a job where things were very - sketchy- and a marriage and new family with its own stresses, and my mind really took a beating.
So, I had something of a mini-scandal in leaving a job within a year of starting, with so many hospitalizations and some trusted people who had their own agendas (not to bag on them too much - some of the agenda was to dump the friend who was sure seeming off with so many hospital and doctor visits). My reputation did suffer, and it has taken and is still taking some time to totally recover. I made some enemies through my erratic absences and others in my tough legal stances (those I don't regret at all!). Every legal community is small, and lawyers with problems, any problems, get known really quickly.
Now, I didn't face bar discipline at all, but I did come to know a few lawyers over the years who did end up somewhere down that road. A friend I graduated with was disbarred, for conduct before she was even a bar member. She's out of the legal community (by force), but she isn't out of the $100K student loans and she has not escaped the endless attacks on her personal reputation, even though she is not anywhere near the legal field. She was disbarred several years ago and yet she is still talked about negatively, her reputation sullied so that she could never reapply for the bar in this state.
Another person I knew, not as well, simply went a bit over the edge, knew she was in need of help, tried to get it from her (county) employer and could not do so without resigning her job. She was not disciplined, but just like me, she was still gossiped about, her reputation bandied about as if she had actually done some disciplinable offense. In fact, she had been in a position of secondary trauma for fifteen years - with no in house or encouraged or provided therapy or other methods of coping. She experienced mental health issues which were not outside of the norm for the kind of delicate and stressful work she did with no breaks in career path. She was an ace lead attorney in a highly contested abuse and neglect court, and now she lives from disability and a few here and there jobs. She got meds and therapy and has a totally healthy life now, but she couldn't get a job anywhere near kids in need ever again - not because of her, but because of her now completely in tatters reputation.
I could go on and on, but it's time for my meditation and my medication, the two ways I am working to stay out of that kind of reputation assault. My health got better after I left the job that felt weird and wired and worrying - a job where other lawyers also agreed all was not ok, lawyers who could not afford to walk away and whom I am still friends with. I am still happily working contract jobs and looking out for kids. My reputation damage was limited in part by my true friends who stopped a couple of rumors from spreading about my health, but in the end, what if I had truly had mental health issues? Why is it so scandlous to need, ask for, and receive mental health treatmnt when we think nothing of getting help for c diff, MRSA, appendicitis, and the like?
And even if the "scandal" is something potentially discplined, why do we have to make it worse with gossip and scandal and reputation besmirching? How does that help the legal profession to be more honorable, how does it help individuals in the system to be better, happier, anything really but just gossips? Thoughts for the day, but not for meditation.
Please leave your comments - I would love a discussion on this topic!
And juvenile and family lawyers might have a different kind of stress. Secondary trauma is very real, and though lawyers wouldn't seem to be as close to most clients as say, social workers or therapists, in some cases we are. And it is certainly true that hearing about so much first hand trauma (abuse, addiction, neglect, sexual wrongs, and so many unbelievable traumas that humans endure) can grow into a mental health issue for anyone, lawyers included.
Secondary trauma is its own mental conundrum, and one that is often ignored until an attorney loses his or her ability to make good decisions. At that point, there is often a scandal, sadly - an attorney might act in ways that worry others, drink too much or take illegal substances, become anxious or depressed, or even consider, attempt or commit suicide. In any other career, these issues might be the subject of gossip, but in a legal career it becomes a scandal (and possibly a bar standing offense) which almost always affects the attorney's reputation. Usually forever.
I don't want to be one of those "my friend heard of" people so let me just admit that I myself suffered some pretty awful depression and anxiety which caused me to lose friends that I once considered close at least in the legal community. Now, most of the real friends remain, and most of my legal community friends are still here. I left a job that was causing me a huge amount of stress, and allowed my health a chance to catch up, since in three years I had e coli, c diff, MRSA, prolonged high risk pregnancy bedrest, a hysterectomy, a broken foot, many blood transfusions and infusions, and numerous other infections and health problems. They seemed too much to bear with a job where things were very - sketchy- and a marriage and new family with its own stresses, and my mind really took a beating.
So, I had something of a mini-scandal in leaving a job within a year of starting, with so many hospitalizations and some trusted people who had their own agendas (not to bag on them too much - some of the agenda was to dump the friend who was sure seeming off with so many hospital and doctor visits). My reputation did suffer, and it has taken and is still taking some time to totally recover. I made some enemies through my erratic absences and others in my tough legal stances (those I don't regret at all!). Every legal community is small, and lawyers with problems, any problems, get known really quickly.
Now, I didn't face bar discipline at all, but I did come to know a few lawyers over the years who did end up somewhere down that road. A friend I graduated with was disbarred, for conduct before she was even a bar member. She's out of the legal community (by force), but she isn't out of the $100K student loans and she has not escaped the endless attacks on her personal reputation, even though she is not anywhere near the legal field. She was disbarred several years ago and yet she is still talked about negatively, her reputation sullied so that she could never reapply for the bar in this state.
Another person I knew, not as well, simply went a bit over the edge, knew she was in need of help, tried to get it from her (county) employer and could not do so without resigning her job. She was not disciplined, but just like me, she was still gossiped about, her reputation bandied about as if she had actually done some disciplinable offense. In fact, she had been in a position of secondary trauma for fifteen years - with no in house or encouraged or provided therapy or other methods of coping. She experienced mental health issues which were not outside of the norm for the kind of delicate and stressful work she did with no breaks in career path. She was an ace lead attorney in a highly contested abuse and neglect court, and now she lives from disability and a few here and there jobs. She got meds and therapy and has a totally healthy life now, but she couldn't get a job anywhere near kids in need ever again - not because of her, but because of her now completely in tatters reputation.
I could go on and on, but it's time for my meditation and my medication, the two ways I am working to stay out of that kind of reputation assault. My health got better after I left the job that felt weird and wired and worrying - a job where other lawyers also agreed all was not ok, lawyers who could not afford to walk away and whom I am still friends with. I am still happily working contract jobs and looking out for kids. My reputation damage was limited in part by my true friends who stopped a couple of rumors from spreading about my health, but in the end, what if I had truly had mental health issues? Why is it so scandlous to need, ask for, and receive mental health treatmnt when we think nothing of getting help for c diff, MRSA, appendicitis, and the like?
And even if the "scandal" is something potentially discplined, why do we have to make it worse with gossip and scandal and reputation besmirching? How does that help the legal profession to be more honorable, how does it help individuals in the system to be better, happier, anything really but just gossips? Thoughts for the day, but not for meditation.
Please leave your comments - I would love a discussion on this topic!
Things that happen in real court proceedings
1) People cry, or yell (at their lawyer, at other parties, at the judge - you name it!), or stare into space like they don't know they are in court.
2) Parties come to court drunk or high. Yes, this happens, and yes, if I suspect it, I will ask for an immediate, same day, urine drop. And yes, the judge will order it, because believe it or not, we have seen it many times and you aren't fooling us. Those pupils, your breath, your tweaking, the slow response time, and many other involuntary clues give you away.
3) Hearts break - and even though you might not think your judge or the social worker or the GAL or your attorney have emotions, some of us will cry all the way home to release the emotions of participating in your case. We know your heart, or your child's heart, or other parties in your family or close friends are hurting, so we will hold our own emotions until you are gone.
4) You are right that most of the court employees and attorneys know each other. We have lots of cases together, in most cases, and we have relationships outside of the proceedings - sometimes good ones, and sometimes not so good. Sometimes those relationships do affect how cases end up. It should not be that way, but it does happen.
5) The attorneys and sometimes the judges have "gallows humor" privately. It's our way of sloughing off some of the stress that comes with being involved with dozens or hundreds of sad, horrifying, angering or tragic cases. If you happen to see attorneys and judges laughing together, it is not at you - it is at ourselves, really. We are very aware of the heavy role we play in the lives of real people.
6) Many parents or guardians don't have attorneys, and fall into a grey area where they might technically have difficulty getting a court appointed attorney due to owning a house and having a job. Ask the judge or the juvenile officer for a detailed form that also considers your debt, if you want an attorney appointed by the court.
7) On that note, there is a trend I am noticing of people not wanting a court appointed attorney because of the idea that if the attorneys know other attorneys on the case, they won't zealously represent a party they are appointed to. While this might be true occasionally, far more often the attorney having good relationships with other attorneys and court personnel is extremely helpful to the parent or guardian they are representing. If I were a parent involved in an abuse or neglect case, I know who I would want as an attorney and as a guardian ad litem for my kids - and all of those attorneys practice exclusively in the CAN courts, and they know each other and the regular faces quite well. I would never hire an attorney who didn't practice regularly in the CAN courts.
8) Child abuse and neglect cases are a very specialized kind of court proceeding. If a party hasn't been to court before, then it might not be shocking, but for those who have been to court on DUIs, divorces, traffic tickets, and the like, a CAN court can be quite offputting. The rules of evidence are often different, and the cases are often very prolonged, with many hearings through the life of a case. More people talk in our cases, and the judge often directly questions kids and parents about how things are going. As noted above, a party can be ordered to drug and alcohol testing directly from a hearing; some courts have testing available right at court so that it will happen immediatly.
9) Children often attend the hearings. If yours do, please be calm and don't approach them if the court order doesn't allow for it. It will only upset them-and make trouble for you also. Please don't curse or be disruptive, and please remember that your child is stressed and traumatized by this whole ordeal also. Please?
10) Parties come to court dressed in inappropriate clothes, makeup, shoes, hair. This is my last point but it's a crucial one. When you appear in court, you should wear clothing that covers you. No shorts, no sleeveless, no wife beater tanks, no super short skirts, no crazy weird hair or makeup, no slits or cleavage, and no drooping pants. Think church clothing, or something you would go see your grandmother in - anything that helps you choose clothes that won't get you thrown out of court. I have seen people (even my child clients) be removed from court or be taken to the jail to put on jail clothes temporarily so the hearing can go on. If you attend court in a super short skirt and a midriff baring shirt with a spackle of makeup and high high heels, you are sending a message. It may not seem fair, but if you look like that, or you wear a wife beater and droop your pants - it's hard to take you seriously. It's on you to project the image you want us to receive.
2) Parties come to court drunk or high. Yes, this happens, and yes, if I suspect it, I will ask for an immediate, same day, urine drop. And yes, the judge will order it, because believe it or not, we have seen it many times and you aren't fooling us. Those pupils, your breath, your tweaking, the slow response time, and many other involuntary clues give you away.
3) Hearts break - and even though you might not think your judge or the social worker or the GAL or your attorney have emotions, some of us will cry all the way home to release the emotions of participating in your case. We know your heart, or your child's heart, or other parties in your family or close friends are hurting, so we will hold our own emotions until you are gone.
4) You are right that most of the court employees and attorneys know each other. We have lots of cases together, in most cases, and we have relationships outside of the proceedings - sometimes good ones, and sometimes not so good. Sometimes those relationships do affect how cases end up. It should not be that way, but it does happen.
5) The attorneys and sometimes the judges have "gallows humor" privately. It's our way of sloughing off some of the stress that comes with being involved with dozens or hundreds of sad, horrifying, angering or tragic cases. If you happen to see attorneys and judges laughing together, it is not at you - it is at ourselves, really. We are very aware of the heavy role we play in the lives of real people.
6) Many parents or guardians don't have attorneys, and fall into a grey area where they might technically have difficulty getting a court appointed attorney due to owning a house and having a job. Ask the judge or the juvenile officer for a detailed form that also considers your debt, if you want an attorney appointed by the court.
7) On that note, there is a trend I am noticing of people not wanting a court appointed attorney because of the idea that if the attorneys know other attorneys on the case, they won't zealously represent a party they are appointed to. While this might be true occasionally, far more often the attorney having good relationships with other attorneys and court personnel is extremely helpful to the parent or guardian they are representing. If I were a parent involved in an abuse or neglect case, I know who I would want as an attorney and as a guardian ad litem for my kids - and all of those attorneys practice exclusively in the CAN courts, and they know each other and the regular faces quite well. I would never hire an attorney who didn't practice regularly in the CAN courts.
8) Child abuse and neglect cases are a very specialized kind of court proceeding. If a party hasn't been to court before, then it might not be shocking, but for those who have been to court on DUIs, divorces, traffic tickets, and the like, a CAN court can be quite offputting. The rules of evidence are often different, and the cases are often very prolonged, with many hearings through the life of a case. More people talk in our cases, and the judge often directly questions kids and parents about how things are going. As noted above, a party can be ordered to drug and alcohol testing directly from a hearing; some courts have testing available right at court so that it will happen immediatly.
9) Children often attend the hearings. If yours do, please be calm and don't approach them if the court order doesn't allow for it. It will only upset them-and make trouble for you also. Please don't curse or be disruptive, and please remember that your child is stressed and traumatized by this whole ordeal also. Please?
10) Parties come to court dressed in inappropriate clothes, makeup, shoes, hair. This is my last point but it's a crucial one. When you appear in court, you should wear clothing that covers you. No shorts, no sleeveless, no wife beater tanks, no super short skirts, no crazy weird hair or makeup, no slits or cleavage, and no drooping pants. Think church clothing, or something you would go see your grandmother in - anything that helps you choose clothes that won't get you thrown out of court. I have seen people (even my child clients) be removed from court or be taken to the jail to put on jail clothes temporarily so the hearing can go on. If you attend court in a super short skirt and a midriff baring shirt with a spackle of makeup and high high heels, you are sending a message. It may not seem fair, but if you look like that, or you wear a wife beater and droop your pants - it's hard to take you seriously. It's on you to project the image you want us to receive.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Files and files and files
This week begins my attempt to clean out all my files - I have ten years of client files which have all been saved in the cloud, but which I also have all the paper copies of. It's been quite a reminder, a memory jog that burned no calories, going through each file to store the physical copy more efficiently.
One of my first cases was a sexual abuse victim and siblings, and when I read through the paperwork I recall being so horrified, so sure that this was a unique and almost singular situation - a young girl abused by her mother's paramour, with the result a pregnancy which ended in the death of the fetus in a sketchy way. The young girl was a hero - and still is to me - but the situation of the mother's paramour being abusive (and perhaps a pedophile, if the suppositions I had as the case progressed were correct) and getting away with it is all too common.
In that instance, there was not enough criminal evidence to have this man charged; it was mostly shoddy police work in preserving DNA from the fetus remains. The work of the police, while probably standard at the time, was so poor that the man not only went free, but also the woman who had chosen him as a psuedo father to her several young children never quite believed he had done this despicable act.
In the balance, several young children were removed from their only known parent, and placed with another relative of questionable ability to parent. Their biological mother waffled back and forth and didn't quite know whom to "believe" in the case of her eldest child and her paramour. Finally she chose the children, although none of us working with the family was quite convinced her choice was about the children so much as it was about the lack of financial help (food stamps, housing allowance, SSI, etc) she received without them in her household.
All of this was very dramatic and dire, just as it sounds. But it was not nearly so rare as I thought at the time. I can't even count the number of households where I have seen a very close parallel to this story - a mother, her kids, and a man who is not the father of all (and often, indeed, not the biological father of any) of the children, and an act of abuse. Often, it is a sexual abuse, and many times it is on multiple children. And in my estimation, about half of the time, perhaps slightly more, the mother chooses to remain with her paramour, even up to and beyond the point of her children being removed from her.
Now let me pause here to say that I was horrified - and I am still horrified - that a mother could choose a man over her child or children. But in the next breath I will say that my judgment of such women is much more clouded than it once was, both legally and personally. I would like to say that this situation never happens, and that when it does, the woman is a horrible, evil person with no real love for her children.
That isn't the case. Just for a moment, as hard as it is, put yourself and your spouse in this situation: One of your children's friend's parents has called social services with grave concerns that one of your children is being abused sexually. This other adult doesn't know for sure, but she overheard a conversation your child and her child had which pointed towards an adult in your child's life behaving inappropriately.
Your child told her child about a "game" that the man in her household played with her. He would tickle her whole body, and told her not to tell anyone. Immediately, many of us have ears that prick up at the "not to tell anyone" portion, and maybe even at the "tickle her whole body" comment. Some of us are mandated reporters, and if your child's friend had a parent who was mandated to report suspected abuse, the right thing for her to do would be to call the abuse hotline. She might or might not also speak to you, the parent, about what she had overheard.
The next thing you know, social services is at the door, wanting to speak to your child personally, without you present. What would you think? What would you do? Are you sure?
In the next hour, if you allowed it, your child would be questioned, and if the worker feared the allegations were true, your child might very likely be removed from your home to be questioned more and to be placed in temporary care of a foster home. Your paramour or spouse would come home to find you shattered and confused. Would you believe he had done something wrong at that point?
More on this in the next post - but just for a moment, think about your home, your kids, your partner. Are you very sure you jump to believe that your partner had done something horrific?
One of my first cases was a sexual abuse victim and siblings, and when I read through the paperwork I recall being so horrified, so sure that this was a unique and almost singular situation - a young girl abused by her mother's paramour, with the result a pregnancy which ended in the death of the fetus in a sketchy way. The young girl was a hero - and still is to me - but the situation of the mother's paramour being abusive (and perhaps a pedophile, if the suppositions I had as the case progressed were correct) and getting away with it is all too common.
In that instance, there was not enough criminal evidence to have this man charged; it was mostly shoddy police work in preserving DNA from the fetus remains. The work of the police, while probably standard at the time, was so poor that the man not only went free, but also the woman who had chosen him as a psuedo father to her several young children never quite believed he had done this despicable act.
In the balance, several young children were removed from their only known parent, and placed with another relative of questionable ability to parent. Their biological mother waffled back and forth and didn't quite know whom to "believe" in the case of her eldest child and her paramour. Finally she chose the children, although none of us working with the family was quite convinced her choice was about the children so much as it was about the lack of financial help (food stamps, housing allowance, SSI, etc) she received without them in her household.
All of this was very dramatic and dire, just as it sounds. But it was not nearly so rare as I thought at the time. I can't even count the number of households where I have seen a very close parallel to this story - a mother, her kids, and a man who is not the father of all (and often, indeed, not the biological father of any) of the children, and an act of abuse. Often, it is a sexual abuse, and many times it is on multiple children. And in my estimation, about half of the time, perhaps slightly more, the mother chooses to remain with her paramour, even up to and beyond the point of her children being removed from her.
Now let me pause here to say that I was horrified - and I am still horrified - that a mother could choose a man over her child or children. But in the next breath I will say that my judgment of such women is much more clouded than it once was, both legally and personally. I would like to say that this situation never happens, and that when it does, the woman is a horrible, evil person with no real love for her children.
That isn't the case. Just for a moment, as hard as it is, put yourself and your spouse in this situation: One of your children's friend's parents has called social services with grave concerns that one of your children is being abused sexually. This other adult doesn't know for sure, but she overheard a conversation your child and her child had which pointed towards an adult in your child's life behaving inappropriately.
Your child told her child about a "game" that the man in her household played with her. He would tickle her whole body, and told her not to tell anyone. Immediately, many of us have ears that prick up at the "not to tell anyone" portion, and maybe even at the "tickle her whole body" comment. Some of us are mandated reporters, and if your child's friend had a parent who was mandated to report suspected abuse, the right thing for her to do would be to call the abuse hotline. She might or might not also speak to you, the parent, about what she had overheard.
The next thing you know, social services is at the door, wanting to speak to your child personally, without you present. What would you think? What would you do? Are you sure?
In the next hour, if you allowed it, your child would be questioned, and if the worker feared the allegations were true, your child might very likely be removed from your home to be questioned more and to be placed in temporary care of a foster home. Your paramour or spouse would come home to find you shattered and confused. Would you believe he had done something wrong at that point?
More on this in the next post - but just for a moment, think about your home, your kids, your partner. Are you very sure you jump to believe that your partner had done something horrific?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)