It is always advised that you ask for a free consultation to discuss whether your case is one that the attorney believes they have sufficient confidence of success given the information (facts) you are able to present. Remember, no matter how good your attorney is and how iron clad your case seems to be, there is no guarantee that the judge will act according to the facts or sound judgment.

Accusations from women as custodial parents are difficult problems, they need no substantiation. The argument has to be framed that she is being retaliatory given certain preceding events. Was there a specific event or wrong doing on her part that she needs to deflect attention away from by making an accusation?

Discuss this event with your attorney and plan a defense around that strategy. The Court makes it's decisions on what is the most probable story. The Court doesn't concern itself with "Truth" since it wasn't there to observe the actions of all concerned, it presumes that both parties to the dispute are exaggerating and have ulterior motives not to settle out of court. Typically, when someone is accused of doing something wrong or not being suitable as a parent, the standard tactic is to make accusations in order to confuse the issues and cancel out the accusations of the other side.

Whether you need a lawyer or not will probably be determined by how aggressive you believe the opposing lawyer is. If they are willing to negotiate, you should reach some kind of out of court settlement, it would be best for

everyone involved. If you are confronted with an aggressive lawyer who only

sets unreasonable terms, you will need to have legal representation to prevent

anything worse being put forward. Generally, when you are willing to show

cooperation in settling the issues, you can get the opposing lawyer to do all

the paperwork at the ex's cost because of the huge monetary savings of making

the process into just a paper shuffle. Anytime a lawyer has to argue his

position in court, he is costing his client big money. Cooperation is a Win/

Win scenario, the issue for each person involved is whether they can get past

the idea they didn't "win" by making the other person "lose". If you come with

the attitude of "we are just hurting our child and each other by continuing the

legal battles", you can move on with your lives. However, this is all based on

the assumption that the other party would like to settle as well and is not on

a vendetta for past perceived grievances or believes they will get a better

deal in court no matter what the cost. Have your lawyer contact his lawyer to

negotiate a reasonable end to the whole mess, if they refuse, you have a right

to bring up the refusal to negotiate in court and the judge will not be happy

with the opposing lawyer for wasting his time in a court session.

As far as running out of money for legal fees, depending on whether you make

more than you ex in wages and how many counter motions that have been filed,

may determine in the judge's mind whether 1. you will end up paying all or some

of his legal fees, 2. he pays all or some of your legal fees or 3. you each pay

your own legal fees. If you settle out of court, the money issue usually

resolved by each party paying their own. The lawyers will always get paid

unless the judge decides if the amount of total cost exceeds a reasonable

amount. Some judges cap that off around $50,000 per litigant. The judge can

order your lawyer to represent you at no further cost. Some very unethical

lawyers deliberately run up the billable hours as evidenced by no detailed

billing showing how the hours were spent. Whether they win or lose, they still

get paid.

Welcome to the forefront of breaking new ground in the legal area. Judges don't like to set precedent because they rather follow it and so goes the vicious cycle of not dealing with the issues. Your lawyer has to construct an argument giving the judge solid cover to set precedent or go with existing precedent in Maryland. There is precedent to change custody on a "change in life situation". Typically, these are if she gets married, new man moves into her residence, child abuse, moving out of the jurisdiction, convicted of a felony, i.e. drug abuse, that type of thing. Your lawyer essentially is going to have to argue that there is a change in situation to the extent that the kids are better off with you. He needs to pull up West Law and do his homework for those past case precedents to give the judge cover he needs. We all recognize the judges are not going to do what's best for the kids, that's a given, it is what's safest for the judge and what is politically correct. That's the mistake most men and lawyers make on change of custody hearings, the brutal truth of what really drives the process.

The Court does lean heavily on the evaluation/opinion of the Court Investigator

and that of the Guardian ad litem. It is a very convenient and self serving

system to maintain the stereotypes in which the judge, the investigator and the

guardian all point the finger to the next person to claim an unbiased decision

and therefore in the Best Interests of the Child. What most non-custodial

parents don't realize is that the decision for custody was already decided at

the beginning of the process based on the stereotype and as a result they

unwittingly participate in the validation of the process by futilely litigating

why settling out of court will get more tangible results since the other

litigant is wishing not to spend more legal fees and is willing give you more

than the Court would.

You ask why didn't anyone tell me this before? Welcome to the legal system

that takes advantage of our often naive school kid preconceived ideas of

justice to validate their process! Sounds a little cynical but once you have

gone through the process, only then do you realize the whole decision making

process is determined by an very overly simplistic formula, i.e. the stereotype.

As far as constitutionality, the expense for one person to change the system is

too great, what is needed is a lawyer like Thourgood Marshall who is willing to

expend their own time at their expense without concern for judicial retaliation

on their other cases based on their belief of a fairer system. Those kind of

lawyers are rare. Thourgood Marshall, was the lawyer who litigated Brown v.

Board of Education, Topeka and many other cases. Ironically, his statue stands

in Lawyers Square outside the State House in Annapolis. Remember, segregation was enforced by the courts and the politicians of his time using the same decision making process, i.e. stereotypes.

As usual the Courts missed the forest from the trees choosing instead to focus

on narrow decisions splitting hairs and learned nothing from the Civil Rights

movement. One can not arrive at Justice without the Truth, one can not have

the truth without all the facts when we insist on expediency to review only

some of the facts to the exclusion of others. As you will see by the Court's

refusal to give an expert witness the time to confirm or deny the opinion of the

court investigator, the Court is not interested in learning any other facts

than what confirms the stereotype and the justification of the decision that

was already made.

The information contained on this website is provided free of charge. It is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a substitution for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state. The transmission of information in this website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. For personal legal advice, please consult your attorney.