Missouri Family Law Blog

It has been a long four months at the Corley Law Firm. We tried eight or nine cases in two months, which each required weeks upon weeks of preparation. We are exhausted.

I like what I do; but there comes a time in every divorce lawyer’s life when they ask themselves, Why do I do this? It’s a tremendous opportunity in many ways. We can help people create futures for themselves. When we “win” (a word which used here means ‘get everything our clients want’), we feel as though we can never be as high. When we “lose” (a word which used here means ‘get nothing our clients want’), we feel as though we are, indeed, the scum of the earth.

A man sat in my office today and listened to me try to justify a court’s decision. This is a man who has custody of his 17-year-old, whose wife left him and his daughter and seems to feel she is entitled to a lot more than he is even able to give. The judge did what I can only describe as reaching a compromise — which is classically defined as “the choice no one wants”. I tried to explain how the court thought it was being fair, giving him less than he thought he should get and making him pay her less than she thought he should have to pay. He looked tired, though; and I felt a bit less than successful, even though on several major points, we had actually prevailed.

Another man warmly clasped my hand last week and thanked me for all I had done for him. I had managed to convince his wife and her lawyer that she should return to Kansas City. It is possible that not everything will go his way from here on out, but the children are back in the metro area, and he will be a half-time dad instead of a 1/8-time dad. That’s a victory, in my book.

I tried a case several weeks ago in which a 21-year-old man fought to keep his parental rights. The child’s mother had lost custody to the state because someone in her home had burned the child. My client, a mere 18 years of age at the time to the mother’s 17, had never been given a chance to have the child and desperately wanted to do so. No ruling in that case, yet. I am hopeful.

A month or more ago, I got custody restored for the mother of a seven-year-old after the father abruptly moved the child to the Lake. The mother, who has a drug-abuse history, fought to prove that she had been clean for two years and should be allowed to have custody of her child. The father bad-mouthed and slammed with no real evidence. The court saw through his blustering accusations, and gave the child to the mother full-time. But the real victory was the light in her eyes when she sat on the witness stand and acknowledged her old ways, and firmly testified that she had overcome her problems, with the love of her family and the grace of God.

I’m not sure what my record is now, unless I get credit for effort. I like what I do. I like helping people. Breaking up is hard to do, and I enjoy any chance I have to make it even just a bit easier for my clients.

Corinne Corley

The other day, a salesperson really ticked me off. This was one of those faceless customer service people on the phone. After an hour of not getting what I needed, I escalated the call to the next level, then the next level. Several days passed, without resolution. Finally, a week later, I got the issue resolved.

The entire time that I was dealing with these folks, each one “apologizing” for the inability of the one before to assist me, I thought about my own profession and the requirement that each of us delivers competent service. Yes, yes, I know: you have your own horror story about your divorce lawyer and the failures that you perceive in his or her conduct of you divorce or custody case.

The difference is that in my profession, we have an ethical standard, and if we do not meet that standard, you can complain to an official board that will investigate and levy punishment if we have not fulfilled our ethical mandate. Make no mistake about it: Lawyers are punished. Each month, when the Missouri Bar Journal arrives in the mail, I turn first to the “Disciplinary Actions” section to see who is listed. It’s a bit like reading the obituaries: If my name does not appear, I go ahead and eat breakfast.

No, it doesn’t come as a surprise — you get warning first. A letter, containing a copy of the complaint. You answer. You are obligated to make your file open to the committee. They send your answer to the complainant. They make an initial decision. Sometimes it escalates to the next level, which functions as a prosecutorial body. It’s scary, I assure you. I have had 2 or 3 complaints against me, all resolved in my favor — but each of which I took very seriously.

Divorce lawyers are subject to more complaints than most, I suspect because divorce clients need a lot of attention and don’t always feel as though it is given. Then, too, there are some complicated features of divorce, especially where pensions, investment plans, and business evaluations are concerned.

When I hear a “lawyer joke”, I cringe. Only blondes have a worse reputation than lawyers, I think; and with just as little rational basis. Most lawyers are good, honest, hard-working people who care about their clients. Many of us, myself included, awaken in the night worrying about our cases and whether we have done what needed to be done that day. Solo practitioners such as myself rarely get a vacation, and those of us who do custody cases really stress out about the outcomes. Believe me — I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I still worry about cases that I did years ago.

Lawyers are held to a very high ethical standard. If you feel your divorce or custody lawyer has not done what he or she is supposed to do, by all means, file a complaint with the Missouri Bar. Bear in mind that successful outcome is not necessarily the determinant. In every contested divorce or custody case, there will be a winner or loser. Your lawyer can do a very conscientious job, perform admirably, and honor his or her ethical mandate, but still lose.

Lawyers’ ethics are important. I, for one, strive at all times to return calls or answer e-mails, treat each client as though they are the most important client that I have, and treat the client, the opposing side and the court with respect, dignity and honor. I hope each of your lawyers does the same.

Inspiration comes from strange places. As I read a novel recently, by one of my favorite authors, Ruth Rendell, I reflected on a passage in which the main character, the unparalleled Inspector Wexford, notices that his sergeant has made an unusually insightful comment. Musing over the sergeant’s recently accelerated virtues, following his remarriage after widowhood, Wexford notes that happiness does not “just make you more happy”, it makes you smarter, better, more adept at your job.

Hence, my inspiration. Happiness makes us better parents, too. How could it not? Once the strain of your failed marriage is lifted from your backs, and you let go of your resentment, suddenly, you can be better at that which is left to do. Of course, if your unhappiness is not really caused by your quarrels with your spouse, his/her absence will not be enough to make you happier and thus better at parenting the kids. Additionally, you have to let go of your anger and resentment — these won’t automatically disappear when your spouse moves out. In general, however, the old saw “staying together for the children” leads to unhappy parents, which leads to poor parents.

If you can’t repair your marriage, move on: Your kids will thank you for it, in the final analysis.

Hear this: A lawyer is not a mental health professional. I had a discussion recently with a psychiatrist about divorce and that is the one thing we both agreed had to be remembered. A lawyer has limits, just like everyone — he or she cannot listen to your emotional problems, brainstorm about how to adjust to being suddenly single, or give you ideas about how to handle your grief. Now, that said, lawyers are compassionate, most of them, and they will spend some time letting you vent. But they are not trained to help you cope with your separation and divorce, or with the fact that your child’s other parent does not want you in the child’s life or does not want to be in the child’s life.

I have a friend who calls himself a “love’s aftermath” lawyer, and he refers people to Kubler-Ross’ “On Death and Dying”. That is a good book to read. I often recommend “How to Survive the Loss of a Love”, which you can find on Amazon.com. You might seek and use a referral to a mental health professional, and your lawyer can assist you with that.

Divorce is hard; adoption is exciting but challenging; paternity cases are sometimes very gut-wrenching. But know your lawyer’s limits: If you need a professional to assist you in the personal adjustments that this life change is visiting upon you, get one, and keep that effort separate from your lawyer’s handling of the legal aspect of your litigation. You will ultimately be better served and come through this time of change with a better outcome and a healthier outlook.

Years ago, when Alan [White, my legal assistant and trusted friend] and I first started the Corley Law Firm, we had a client who was arguing with his soon-to-be-ex-wife over her wedding ring, which she had left behind one evening when she went out about town posing as a single person. He did not want to return it; she wanted it back. After several phone calls between lawyers, I said to him, “Give me the damn ring.” I looked at it: A slender gold band with no stone. I asked where he had gotten it and how much he had paid for it. “Fifty dollars, at Service merchandise,” came the reply. I told him he had a choice: He could return the ring to her and I would take $50 off his bill; or I would resign and he could do whatever he chose to do with the damn ring. He took the former.

Thus was born the benchmark by which Alan and I judge our prospective clients. Do we suspect they will be “damn ring” clients? If so, we do not take the case. We do not have time or energy to waste over $50 rings. We understand the sentiment: People associate the feelings they have for the person with an object. But divorcing people need to let go of the objects, and probably need to let go of the feelings, too. We aren’t therapists — we can’t show them the way — but we can and do tell them that we don’t want to spend any of our time fighting over things that don’t amount to much of anything in the grand scheme of things.

I’ll caution you — don’t let your life get wrapped up in small, insignificant things, and certainly, don’t let your divorce go down that path. You don’t need the damn ring. Give it back.

Millions of Americans facing divorce, and few of them really understand the process. Where there are children involved, the adults need to put aside their own confusion and deal with the uncertainty that the children are experiencing. But guess what? they never do, and that is the sad ugly truth of divorce, American style.

Mama does not want Daddy to come home; Daddy thinks Mama is a bad parent; who is right, who is wrong? Often, unless there is abuse, neglect, alcohol use, drug use or gambling, with quantifiable triggers for the emotional quagmire, neither of them is right and both of them are right. Mama cannot live with what Daddy has done; Daddy cannot live with what Mama has done; but many times, the behavior that ’causes’ the divorce has nothing to do with the children or the parties’ abilities to parent.

We need to ask ourselves: What do we do about this mess? How do we diffuse the conflict? If Mom and Dad are both reasonably fit parents, we start by making the language neutral. It is not “my home” and “Dad’s house” — it is “my home” at both parents’ houses. And everyone involved must cultivate this view. Yes, they are just “words”, but they are words that can sting and stain and leave a stench. So choose words that don’t hurt — “time” or “parenting time” instead of “visitation”, for one thing. Don’t set your child up to think of his other parent as a stranger.

Short rant–but one that I want to have stick in your head.

Recently, a client called to say that when the client’s spouse got served with papers I had filed for the client, the spouse turned violent and the client was injured. This is one of the scariest things for a party: Wondering what will happen when the other person finds out about the lawsuit.

I cannot over-emphasize how horrible I feel knowing that this happened to my client. At the same time, I cannot avoid thinking — “How does this happen?” How does someone who professes to love you — or did at one time — turn his or her hands against you?

These are the moments when I wonder if I am the right person for this job. These are the moments when I wonder how I could have prevented the violence. The answer is that I could not have, of course; a violent person will choose violence as a recourse. But my client is suffering, and my client’s children will suffer, and I stand by, helpless, and worried.

The family is supposed to be a safe-haven. When that safe-haven is violated, the fabric of our society is torn, and even mended, will never be the same.

There currently is a movement among a small segment of attorneys and judges in Missouri who serve on the Pro Se Commission, to provide particular assistance to pro se litigants in family law cases. I have a problem with the mechanics of what is being attempted.

My problem with this effort is two-fold. First, It must be said that I view aspects of it as tantamount to the American Medical Association handing patients a knife and suggesting that they go ahead and take their kidneys out. One has an absolute right to represent oneself in litigation; and, I suppose, one has an absolute right to perform surgery on oneself. However, providing an anatomical diagram does not give one all the information necessary to take out one’s kidney, nor does it arm the would-be-self-surgeon with the information to know whether the kidney should be taken out and what might happen if one takes it out.

The same thing is true of providing “forms” for the pro se litigant to file their own divorce. The mere provision of those forms does not give the self-represented litigant adequate knowledge to pursue the case, nor adequate knowledge to know what needs to be done and when. What it does do is open up the potential that the self-represented will feel they are protected because they are using court forms. I think it is folly to give people a false sense of security.

I have represented many people whose lives were complicated by things that happened on account of self-representaiton. Deeds were not properly drafted, executed or recorded. QDROs were no done or were done incorrectly. Parenting plans did not contain all of the necessary elements. Or, along the way during a lawsuit, rights were lost because the self-represented did not know they were “supposed” to take certain actions.

I am against providing these forms for the simple reason that I am against giving people weapons of self-devastation. If the forms are not available, then the self-represented will either do their own research to figure out what has to be done, which might increase but not guarantee the potential that it will be done right; or they will keep looking until they find an attorney whom they can afford to retain.

And, I am not in favor of increasingly high legal fees. I try to scale my fees down. I am not rich. But neither am I alone in being reasonable in my fees. Moreover, I think the Bar’s obligation is in promoting projects that increase the availability of free or no-cost services for those who cannot afford to hire lawyers. That would truly help.

The other movement is to require judges to undertake to help pro se litigants during court proceedings. That movement is tantamount to giving trial judges license to be prejudiced. Trial judges are not supposed to favor one class of litigants over another. If we give license to trial courts to favor one class of litigants over another, however well intended, we destroy our system of impartial tribunals. We open the door to allowing favoritism for any one group over another. That is not how our courts are supposed to be.

I realize that our courts often seem to favor one group of litigants over another. For example, I represent a lot of fathers, and it is without question true that the law used to, and in many cases still tacitly does, favor mothers over fathers. Why would we want to institutionalize favoritism?

I take my moral and ethical duties very seriously, which is one reason I answer posts on this board. Yes, representing others is how I make my modest living. So perhaps one could say it is in my own interests to discourage self-representation. But I have plenty of business. There are always people wanting to hire divorce lawyers. I do not need to discourage self-representation in order to thrive.

If you want to represent yourself, you have the right to do so. But I do not want to give you ammunition that could ultimately lead to your legal downfall because you represent yourself and don’t do what you should do or what you would have done had you had counsel. Moreover, there is no way it is fair to encourage judges to favor one class of people over the other. For these reasons, I oppose the movement in Missouri, and for no other. I want everyone to have good representation, and I try to charge very reasonable rates and to encourage my colleagues to do so. I volunteer my time. I take pro bono cases. I try to give general guidance in this and other forums. In short, I want people to be protected. If that is bad, then, so be it.

This is my opinion and mine alone. I speak for no other person or group.

Feel free to post comments — I am also a First Amendment advocate!!!

Today in the post, came a package from a client whose case recently ended with a relatively favorable agreed outcome — more time with his son, a lowered child support due to improper calculation in the past, a credit for over-paid child support. The “more time with his son” was the number one goal, and I’m glad I was able to get it for him.

Inside the package was a tea cup, a tea pot and a selection of lovely teas including my personal favorite, Earl Grey. The client and his wife remembered that I am a tea drinker, and sent the package as a “thank you”.

In an often thankless profession — a divorce lawyer, for goodness sake, society’s whipping dog second only to personal injury lawyers — it is nice to be recognized as having done some good for a family. My clients usually thank me, but to tell you the truth, this package made my heart sing.

Times past, lawyers and doctors were considered good and honorable members of society. I try to honor that, and I myself am humbled by this client’s kind recognition.

I’m smiling!

You’ve heard the expression, “Shut up and sing!” and the newer version, “Hang up and drive!” This week, I’m touting a newer still version: “Hang up and Parent!”

I thought I had seen everything when I saw several parents walking into my son’s school talking on cell phones, and returning, child in tow or toddling ahead — these were elementary kids, at my son’s K - 12 school — while the parent still yakked on that little square of technology held hand-to-ear or wrapped around ear Borg-like. While I have been guilty of talking on the cell phone while driving, even I found it disturbing that these parents couldn’t stop talking long enough to chat with their child on the way to the car.

But now I’ve seen worse.

Yesterday, I saw a man walking down our street, talking on his cell phone. He was carrying a pink scooter with streamers dangling from the handles. Ahead of him, a girl about age 4, wearing a helmet, struggled down the crooked squares of the sidewalk. She appeared to have worn out trying to “scoot” uphill and they were now on the home, Dad (presumably) providing assist by carrying her wheels.

And talking on the phone. I watched as one little grubby fist raised to one little tired eye visible under the helmet pushed back on her sweet little head. Oh, sure; he might have just answered the phone and it was his boss, his wife, his mother, calling for a quick update on the last project of the day, their whereabouts, whether he was going to come fix her toilet. And maybe he never, ever, under any circumstances, talks on the cell phone instead of helping his child. But that image haunts me.

Hang up the phone. Put down the Bluetooth. Close the laptop. And parent your children.

Me, first.