Maybe he assisted because he is a lawyer and he needed a job!
Maybe he assisted because they threatened him with X or Y. After all their behavior could explain that (they sued their mother)
Maybe he assisted because he new the mother had made real abuses
etc... etc... etc...

I'm not defending them at all.

I'm revolting against allegations based on not much.

Ok, maybe. But maybe he's just evil. He IS a lawyer after all.


(LOL. Don't take it so seriously.)

You see if you justify why you said he is evil, it works better.

That's possible explanation of calling him "evil". Works for me.

Phew! I'm so glad we could reach agreement.

I should be have been a lawyer. I've practiced my evil laugh. ]:-> (<---- devil smiley, why don't we have one??)

The you are taking it out on the wrong ones, revolt against the people who wrote the article. Since pretty mush it only got repeated here.

It's all pretty weird. If he needed the job, then he would be paid by his own kids. Loads of cash went lost into the system, not to either his kids or his pocket, by this. Why would a reasonable parent go into this crap?

Anyways.

Next.

Hm it's clearly said "he tried to talk his kids out the lawsuit before representing them" and it's never said in the article "the guy is evil"...

I do agree that it's all pretty weird. But I don't agree to call him evil based on nothing.

So you don't. Others do. That's how personal opinions differ. And that's the biatch about sharing them, too. Other people will differ from you. Just breathe...

I think, personally, it is hard to make an opinion, but even if innitially he wanted a pay back, and then, he realized, and tried to talk the kids out of it, lil late, innit. They all sound like a bunch of...can't say it.

That's called "allegations".
That's when it starts to be wrong.

Biatch share those things in the private space, not in public spaces.

Petty bitches.

HTH

I wouldn't be so dramatic over sharing opinions of a few readers here on some dumb article. It's more about what is allowed to be brought into a court room, which is pretty shocking.

Most of the banter here is sharing some kind of personal input. People will always take the liberty to form an opinion before being informed about it in detail. They might refuse to be better informed, and in this case, how can we? Should we ask for a detail report to US court? Who is gonna pay for it? If we communicate only after we get a full picture, then we won't communicate. And stereotypes and exagerrations will always be part of quick opinions. Makes me laugh. If some poster wants to say, the dad is evil, so be it. If somebody else wants to say, the kids are nuts, so be it. Most of the stuff here is linked to some kind of bias. That's what communication is about. Light hearted chitchat. I know the immediate dad judgment probably hits a nerve, but, since he did represent the kids...he layed his own bed.

You have a choice of 2 soups to lick. The red one has some weird coloring in it, so I wouldn't lick that one

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Indeed. ...............

what you need to take away from the article is this:

1. father tried to pursuade them not to file the suit, but failed and took the case anyways - wtf if he really didnt want them to sue then he would not have taken the case.

2. the reason they needed their father to represent them is that no lawyer in their right mind would bother to take on a case like this since it is a waste of their time and money.

before we eventually get comments about how crazy the US legal system is and how americans are sue-happy, keep in mind that:
1. it's better to give people access to courts rather than filter out claims and block access based on somebody's arbitrary judgment on what is considered meritorious or frivolous
2. as you see, the justice system is sane and the correct outcome was reached.
3. lawyers are the first line of defense against stupid lawsuits because they won't take on dumb cases.

Sadly no. There were 3 lawyers on this case!

mmmmm 1995.... that was 16 years ago
....both siblings are now in their 20s, so when they moved in with their dad they were between the ages of 4 to max. 13 years old.

My question is: why did the mom give up custody of her little children ?

Perhaps poor choices 16 years ago, simply back-fired and there's more pain than just bad birthday cards ?

Maybe they sued her for not caring ?

quite sad really....

Soups, or SOAPS?

Tom

Dude it is my opinion WTF? He did represent his children if he was opposed he should have stepped aside...

I would not know, I am not Mexican...

I completely agree. However courts after hearing the case must penalize suits deemed to be frivolous. That is something which is not being done.

Ahem....really now?
edit...Read the comments section too

I respectfully disagree for the following reason. A Lawsuit (stupid or valid) is an opportunity to change the customer. Lawyers are rarely paid based on the result of the verdict hence it makes sense to file as many cases as possible

Corsebou, I can only assume from your posts here and on other threads in the forum that you (or someone close to you) has been, what you feel to be, unfairly treated in the family courts.

The trouble is, jumping down everyone's throat who mentions a court case involving kids or access rights to children, and accusing them of always siding with the mum is a little unfair.

Some of us here are seperated from their child's father and work hard to make sure a relationship is maintained despite wanting in all the world never to have to see them again. There are decent mum's out there too and not all of us are lying, evil bitches that just want to punish the father and make their life difficult.

Shared custody, no matter if it's 50/50 or the father or mother only sees their child once a week, is difficult for all parties.

It is not often you will see members of the EF come on here and post about how they can stop access to their children UNLESS there is some cause for concern for the welfare of the kids. I can promise you if someone were just trying to stop access for their sake and not for the kiddie's they would be put in place by mother's and father's alike on here.

I thought about it too, but we do not know, do we, if she gave up custody..It looks like we don't know anything, apart from the snippets of a pointless court and dad who represented his kids in a court against their mom. Insane.

Lemi think....the soaps! I should really learn how to work the damn spellcheck, but I function in 3 lingos, ugh. So, gotta install all three.