These past two weeks continued to provide challenging
research opportunities at my internship. In court itself, note taking on rapid
cases with very little time to prepare was a skillset I had to get comfortable
with. It felt similar to the type of note taking associated with interviews
I’ve done for historical research before. My experience with research in the
history major continues to help in general research and argument forming at
this internship. Constructing legal arguments uses many of the same skills as
writing in the historical discipline. Where history majors tend to struggle
finding those key sources that can prove your argument perfectly, lawyers can
seek information then commit it for posterity.
Following the first part of my research at Casais &
Prias I began shadowing attorney Prias at dependency court. For this I took
notes on defendants, retrieved documentation, and back at the office performed
necessary research. The hearings provided a challenge of trying to break out
the information for each case in my notes. Following that, I had to collect
information and relevant case law so objections could be filed in time.
Casais & Prias PLLC Law Firm has a contract with the
state to provide representation in dependency court. When children are taken
into protective custody for any multitude of reasons, attorneys Casais or Prias
represent one of the parents as they either work to regain custody or
relinquish parental rights. In this arrangement, the attorney does not normally
meet the parent they are representing until moments before the hearing.
Prosecution, defense (for each parent separately), case managers, and (if
assigned by the court) guardian ad litems are handed packets detailing all the
information for the case. The judge listens to whatever the hearing is for, and
makes a decision if applicable. If need be, a follow up hearing is set. The
decision is usually whether the parent is “compliant” or “non-compliant” with
what they’ve been ordered to do by the court to get their children back.
One hearing of note was a parent whose children were placed
into foster care because of her alleged drug use. According to paperwork that
everyone had received she is completing her court ordered therapy and remaining
clean on drug tests. Despite this, prosecution claimed to have no information
that she was completing therapy. On top of this, prosecution claimed to have seen
a video of her using drugs in the past month. The judge decided to file the
parent as “non-compliant” with a ten-day deadline for objections on the basis
that hearsay is allowed in dependency court.
It was interesting to see how much the law is up to the
judge’s discretion. Judges have a lot of leeway in recording someone’s compliance.
It reminded me of Natalie Zemon Davis’ analysis of early French judge Jean De
Coras in The Return of Martin Guerre. I was under the impression that modern
law maintained a much more black and white style with little room for personal judgements.
Natalie Zemon Davis attributed Jean De Coras’ roman style interpretation of
laws to his overwhelming desire to keep families together. From my experience
these past two weeks in litigation and talking with attorney Prias it’s clear
each judge has their own predilections.
Back at the office I first researched statutes for
introducing evidence or using new information (video of the parent) in
dependency cases. Through my research I found that the court could not use this
information without an evidentiary hearing first. In addition to that rule, the
video in question was a video of the original video playing on a laptop at a
distance. Case law showed that videos whose origin or method of collection are
as questionable as this cannot be used. Following that I got into contact with
the parent’s therapy manager. I managed to get documentation for each of her
therapy sessions and drafted an affidavit for the therapist attesting to the
parent’s work in the program. Attorney Prias then filed the objections with the
court. The strength of which should place the parent into “compliant” status.
This allows her to maintain her visitation and continue her work to regain her
children.
No comments:
Post a Comment