July 2008 Archives

Rhode Island law provides for persons subject to physical violence or threats that create a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm to obtain from the court an Order of Protection for that physical violence or threat of imminent physical harm.

This Order is most often sought by women who represent to the court that they are in fear of their husband or significant other based upon some recent conduct he has done.  The Order typically restrains and enjoins the man from harassing, molesting, stalking, cyber-stalking or in any way contacting the complainant at home, at work or on the street.  The  Order may also require the threating party to leave the marital home or the residence where both parties may reside until the matter may be heard within three (3) weeks after the judge grants the initial Order based solely upon the claimant's affidavit.

Perhaps the biggest mistake serious complainants who have been threatened or harmed make is to appear at the hearing three (3) weeks later without a Rhode Island family law lawyer and dismiss the complaint.  This could be for any number of reasons, including a change of heart, a continued hope that the abuser will change, guilt associated with excluding the father from his home or children, or pressure from other family members.

I mention this because most often what occurs is this.  The abuser is allowed to continue the course of conduct he or she has caused or is not taught that this conduct is unacceptable.  Abusers typically will continue to contact the complainant even after they have been served with the Protection from Abuse Order.  Regrettably, the complainant who has obtained the Protection from Abuse Order allows this conduct and does not call the police to have the Order enforced.  Unfortunately, it is often because the "contact" is often apologetic, endearing and pleading by the abuser in an effort to get the complainant to do exactly what I have mentioned here, namely to go to the court hearing in three (3) weeks and drop the Protection from Abuse Order.

What the complainant should be considering are questions such as the ones listed below in order to avoid making a big mistake.

1)  How long have you had a relationship with the abuser?

2)  How extreme was the conduct of the abuser when compared to the length of the relationship

3)  Is this a one time instance of abuse or has the abusive conduct been gradually increasing?

4)  If you have children, will this choice be the best for the child or children or will you be subjecting them to further abuse?

5)  Are you being guilted into this decision?  Or are family members pressuring you to drop this?

6)  Do you honestly believe that the abuser has changed in just a few short weeks

Complainants should seriously question their decision to drop a Protection from Abuse Order.  The law is there to protect you.  If your complaint is genuine, the use of the law is appropriate and you could return to court in the future to ask the court to remove the Protection from Abuse Order.  However, it is unwise to disillusion yourself into thinking that the abusing party has changed in such a short period of time.

To the contrary, if you have used the system simply to teach the "alleged abuser" a lesson, then do the court and everyone else a favor and drop the restraining order.  You are wasting your time, the court's time and resources and misusing the law for your own purposes which the law wasn't intended to address.

Under Rhode Island law, parents are not responsible for paying for college or expenses related to college.  There are a few exceptions that as a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer I've seen Rhode Island Family court judges address.

Generally speaking the statement above is true.  Parents are not held responsible for paying for college expenses.  This is true, provided that normally accepted situations exist. 

For instance, most "children" do not take college courses before their 18th birthday and many, even before their 19th birthday. 

Under Rhode Island Law, child support obligations may be required by parents until a child is 18 and has graduated from high school or until the child has reached the age of 19 at the latest, provided the child is not a special needs child.  Child Support provides for child care expenses which may or may not, in the discretion of the judge include educational expenses.  Consider this example which is not that unusual.

EXAMPLE #1  - Your Child is Advanced

Terri and John have a daughter, Samantha and are divorced.  Samantha is exceptionally bright and finished high school at age 17 and was accepted to college early.  Terri takes John back to court to have him pay for part of Samantha's college expenses.  John hires a Rhode Island general law practitioner who advises him that he is not required to pay for his daughter's college expenses.  In the Final Judgment of Divorce John was ordered to pay for half of Samantha's tuition, books and extra-curricular activities until she was no longer eligible for child support.

At the time of the hearing John expects that he will not be ordered to pay anything toward Samantha's college expenses especially since Samantha's private high school tuition was about 1/5th the cost of Samantha's college tuition and he never anticipated Samantha would go to college early. 

However, after the hearing the judge sees things otherwise.   Since Samantha is still a minor
she is still entitled to child support and the support of her father.  Since the court's order didn't specifically exclude college expenses, then the judge finds that they are still included until Samantha is no longer eligible for child support.

EXAMPLE #2 - You Agreed to It

Claire and Tim get divorced and have a Marital Settlement Agreement.  Both parties had an attorney and both parties wanted to get the divorce done as quickly as possible so the Marital Settlement Agreement was a little rushed though each party had the opportunity to read all the provisions and discuss it with his or her lawyer.

Claire and Tim have a son, James.  James enters college and Claire contributes as much as she can to his college education and approaches Tim about his contribution.  Tim is surprised and tells Claire that he can't afford to contribute to college for James because he is just about to close on a new house.  Claire consults a lawyer who tells Claire that Tim has to contribute whether he likes it or not because he agreed to it in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

Tim consults an attorney who informs him that it doesn't matter what is in the Marital Settlement Agreement because the family court lacks the legal authority to make a father pay for college costs.

At the hearing Claire's attorney argues that Tim agreed to it in a provision of their Marital Settlement Agreement and Tim's attorney argues that the family court lacks the power to force Tim to pay for college costs and therefore the provision of the Marital Settlement Agreement is not binding.

The judge takes a straightforward and common sense position to the argument.  The judge agrees that the family court does not have the power to force a parent to pay for college costs for a child who is not a special needs child and is emancipated.  However, the judge finds that according to the Rhode Island Statutes the family court is empowered to enforce agreements made between the parties as a results of divorce and that the terms of such agreements may reach beyond what the family court may order because parties are free to contract to whatever terms they see fit as long as the court does not find them to be inequitable.

Therefore, the judge finds that the Marital Settlement Agreement is enforceable as a separate and binding contract and Orders Tim to pay half of the expenses as he agreed to do in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

In a Rhode Island Divorce a common practice of family lawyers is to subpoena the person their client alleges is "the other woman" or "the other man" who has broken up the marriage.

EXAMPLE

Todd and Marlene have been married for ten (10) years.  Marlene didn't see the signs that Todd was extremely unhappy in their relationship.  Todd files for the divorce.  Marlene is in shock when Todd files for divorce and instantly forms the belief that there must be "another woman" because she sees no reason why Todd would file for divorce otherwise.  Marlene starts putting together a list in her mind of females that his husband knows from work, little league practice for their son, and friends of hers that have been around her husband.

Marlene hires an attorney and files a counter-claim for divorce.  Eventually Marlene narrows down her list to the one or two people she suspects had an affair with her husband.  She starts following Todd around and finds that Todd is having lunch occasionally with one of those people.  Marlene forms in her mind the belief that this woman must be "the other woman" who broke up her marriage.  Marlene is now angry at both her husband Todd and this woman.  Marlene's attorney subpoena's the woman Todd was having lunch with into court, usually around the time of the trial.

ATTORNEY TACTICS

Unfortunately this is an all too common tactic that attorneys take in a divorce matter that causes divorces, in my humble opinion, to escalate beyond control or to immediately settle a case in an inequitable manner.

Let me explain.  The "other woman" as in the example may have no basis what so ever.  The fact is, people grow apart.  The parties in a marriage are often blind to the signs of the breakdown especially if both parties do not have good communication skills with one another. 

Denial is often an initial reaction to the recognition that divorce is taking place or is on the immediate horizon.  The person being divorced does not wish to believe that he or she is unattractive, boring, unyeilding or unworthy or being loved as a spouse in the marital relationship.  That denial, if not tempered with reason, often leads to the conclusion that there must be another person in their spouse's life that caused the marriage to break down.  This is because the spouse cannot, or will not, come to terms with the fact that the marriage simply wasn't a good match or that their spouse was looking for something in his or her life and thought it was present in the other spouse only to find that it wasn't.  Some spouses marry with blinders on.  They see the good qualities of the prospective spouse and then simply hope (or even expect) that over time if they marry the person that the remaining characteristics and qualities they do not see in that person will develop  . . . or they believe that the person will change because of their influence.

Whatever the circumstances, divorce lawyers will not hesitate to subpoena one or more persons that the spouse believes is (or could be) the person that caused the breakdown of their marriage.  This person is seen as the alleged "homewrecker". 

The purpose of subpoenaing the alleged homewrecker is two-fold.  First, when an attorney does this at the wishes of the client (especially without any proof that anything has occurred) it seemingly validates the beliefs of the client that there was in fact a "homewrecker" who ruined the marriage.   Regrettably I have found this to be true mostly in the case of women who feel scorned or rejected when the man files for divorce.

Second, whether the person subpoenaed is a love interest or simply a friend and confidant that the husband has chosen to confide in and is part of his support system to get through the divorce, it puts pressure on the man to keep the love interest, friend or even girlfriend out of the "divorce battlefield" to prevent her from experiencing anxiety, humiliation or any other fallout from the scorned wife.  This in turn has a third effect of leveraging the husband (at least in this example) to succumb to the demands of the wife's attorney even if they are unreasonable and inequitable purely to protect a person who may in truth simply be a friend who is supporting the man through the divorce process by being a listener or sounding board.

WHAT CAN THE "ALLEGED HOMEWRECKER" DO?

He or she can make a Motion to Quash before the court.  A Motion to Quash is a motion asking the court to invalidate the subpoena either permanently or temporarily based upon the circumstances.

The Rhode Island Family Court Judges generally have a good grasp on the reasonableness of a subpoena used in these situations.  A judge will not typically allow the unfettered intrusion into the life of person who is only alleged to be a person who has caused the breakdown of the marriage, especially if the subpoena to the third party (ie the alleged homewrecker) demands the production of documents (called a "Subpoena Duces Tecum") that invade the life and personal finances, etc . . . of the third party.  Without corroboration from the spouse who is alleged to have had the affair, or some other corroboration, there is a very good chance that the court will quash or invalidate the subpoena.

Typically the "alleged homewrecker" can orally or in writing, move to quash the subpoena.  It is best that if the person served with the subpoena is going to do this that he or she have more than one basis for doing so. 

REASONS FOR QUASHING A SUBPOENA in these circumstances include:

1)  It is intended merely to harass the person served and/or cause him or her anxiety;

2)  It is believed that it was issued merely to force a party to agree to inequitable terms in order to prevent one parties' friend from being embarrassed and humiliated by even the accusation the he or she was involved in an extramarital affair, thus it is being used to cause undue duress on the party alleged to have been involved in an affair;

3)  That the subpoena demands documents that are invasive of a reasonable person's right to privacy;

4)  That the subpoena was untimely served (requests for documents should provide at least 2 to 3 days for the person served to obtain the documents);

5)  That the subpoena was improperly served (A Rhode Island Subpoena must be served (a) personally, (b) by a person authorized to serve process in Rhode Island, (c) with the State of Rhode Island, (d) with a check for witness fees of  approximately $12 to $14).

6)  That the subpoena should, in the very least be invalidated, subject to the serving party's establishing a foundation for the subpoena and/or the alleged relationship between that party accused before the third party's privacy is violated.  Attorneys call this "quashing the subpoena subject to establishing foundation.";

7)  The subpoena cannot be complied with without undue risk of loss of employment of the subpoenaed individual with explanation as to why there is undue risk (i.e. brand new job and can't take time off);

8)  The subpoena cannot be complied with due to illness with a physician's note, preplanned vacation with proof of same, employment obligations out of state on the time and dates compliance with the subpoena is required.

THE POINT

Persons alleged to be the "other man" or the "other woman" who have been served with a subpoena in a divorce matter do have options of recourse to prevent this attorney's tactic.  Persons served may oppose the subpoena for these reasons and other basis of good cause if they do so timely and do not sit on their rights (i.e. wait til the last minute).  The longer a subpoenaed person waits to oppose a subpoena, the less likely it is that the court may grant the requested relief (i.e. that the subpoena be quashed in whole, in part, or subject to establishment of foundation).

I'm Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall and the focus of my law practice is on Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law.  I would like to preface this article by stating that what follows is my opinion regarding divorce and family law practice within Rhode Island.  There are countless divorce lawyers in our state that would not only disagree with me but would also prefer to see me disbarred rather than sharing my experience with hundreds of lawyers throughout the state simply because my articles inform the consumer and prospective client.  With that said, let me begin.

My philosophy about the practice of law is what I have come to call "Client-centric." 

What is that, right? 

It is a divorce law practice centered on your needs as the "client."   Now, since clients are the life-blood of a lawyer's practice.  A divorce lawyer must abide by all legal and ethical requests made by the lawyer.  Now, you may be thinking. . "Wait a minute, isn't every divorce lawyer's practice "Client-centric".

My answer is a resounding "No".   Yes, Rhode Island Divorce lawyers like myself rely upon clients in order to put  food on the table for their own families, to pay their own bills, and to provide for their own retirement.  However, the question I put to most Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers is this.  What standard of living are you creating for yourself at your clients' expense?   This is partially what I mean by "Client-centric."

Let me give you an example.  I drive a 1998 Chevy Cavalier with 130,000 miles on it.  I have this car because it fits my goal of maintaining a "Client-centric" divorce law practice here in Rhode Island.

The car has working air-conditioning for the summer season.  The heat comes on quickly in the winter.  It is comfortable, looks reasonably professional, and it gets me from here to there.  It gets excellent gas mileage and because it is an older car, the automobile insurance costs significantly less than a BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Hummer, and other status symbol cars driven by many of today's Rhode Island's divorce and family lawyers.

In truth, as a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer I am proud to drive this 1998 Chevy Cavalier because it is one of the best examples of my "Client-centric" divorce law practice.  That is why I drive it and that is why I choose to keep it.  Why?  Because it is better for my clients that I do so.

Could I get a newer car that gets good gas mileage, is comfortable, has air-conditioning and heat and looks professional?  Absolutely, but that comes at a price.  More money would have to be spent to get a newer car.  More money has to be spent on insurance.  More money may have to be spent on gasoline at today's outrageous prices.  That money would have to come from where?   My clients!  If it's not a necessity and doesn't benefit my clients then it doesn't get purchased, plain and simple.

Certainly I wouldn't mind a newer car with new bells and whistles, but NOT at the expense of my clients.   When I have a car that does its intended job there's no need to get a new one.  My standard of living and my ego do not require a fancy car.  After all, whatever car I have comes from income and benefits received through my clients . . . and let's face it. . .  when the chips are down it's not a lawyers's fancy car that gives you legal advice or goes into court to argue on your behalf at a divorce hearing.

In my opinion, most Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers are not even close to being "Client-centric."  In fact, most divorce lawyers in Rhode Island seem to be "Lawyer-centric", a practice concept I have chosen to depart from with great haste.  A "Lawyer-Centric" approach does not fit into the philosophy of my divorce practice because I choose not to achieve a higher standard of living if it means doing so will be at the expense of my clients' hard work and hard earned money.

In my humble opinion, as the title states, I believe that "Clients Deserve Better!"

The idea is whether you as a client want to engage or remain with a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer or Family Law Attorney who is  "Lawyer-Centric" or "Client-Centric." 

The difference is relatively straight-forward.  In a "Lawyer-centric" law practice, the focus is upon meeting the needs of the lawyer(s).  For instance, the needs of the lawyer include the lawyer's overhead expenses of having an office, telephones, facsimile, internet access, legal reasearch services, office rent, paper, copiers, office supplies, secretarial support, grounds maintenance, electricity, heat, water and sewerage costs, town/city equipment taxes, long distance charges, bank fees and any other expenses the lawyer must pay for before he or she even receives a dime in income. 

Secondarily, the lawyer must consider how much he or she has to pay for his or her own personal expenses for their own family, including a home mortgage, car payment, equity line, credit cards, gasoline expenses, home heating costs, central air-conditioning costs, electricity, telephone costs, high-speed internet costs, cel phone costs, home insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, business clothing, student loan payments from law school, possible daycare/childcare expenses, possible health insurance payments and monthly co-pays for medications, etc... to say little of entertainment, vacation costs, summer homes, boats, even airplanes for those lawywers with a higher standard of living.

If you take all of these financial expenses together (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph), it's fairly easy to see how many divorce lawyers in Rhode Island would focus on themselves as lawyers and their financial burden rather than on their clients.  After all, that's quite a heavy load a lawyer might have riding on their shoulders and they want to make sure they make enough money to cover all the office expenses and home bills from their client fees. 

Where does that money come from?  Where else?  You . . .  their clients!

Now you might be saying, that my analysis is a bit unfair because all divorce lawyers aren't (or can't be) like that.  Certainly I must say that my opinion holds true for most divorce lawyers in Rhode Island who have a practice focused on divorce and family law on a full-time basis.

Ultimately, if you see your attorney driving a Jaguar, a BMW or Mercedes it might be a good exercise to remember that you as the client are paying for that car.

It is certainly not a stretch for me to say that when you sit in a fancy law office waiting room reviewing a magazine until the secretary brings you to your Rhode Island divorce lawyer's office for your appointment that you consider a few things. 

If you are a client of that lawyer, consider that you are paying for that secretary, you are paying for the central air conditioning that keeps your lawyer and his or her other clients and staff cool during the summer.  You are paying for the heat in the winter that keeps your divorce lawyer and her or her other clients and the lawyer's staff warm in the winter.  You are paying for the lighting in each room that you pass by as you are led to your divorce attorney's office. 

There may even be a direct correlation here.  The fancier the office, the bigger the building, the larger the parking lot, the larger the grounds that need to be maintained, the nicer the car your lawyer drives, the more your lawyers the law firm has intheir office, the more you pay as a client to cover those expenses.

There may even be a correlation between your Rhode Island divorce lawyer's hourly rate and retainer and his or her desired standard of living.  In either event, you . . . the client . . . pay for all that!

People often complain that lawyers "charge too much."  Well this might explain it.  If you add all of this together for any lawyer, it's a fairly huge financial burden to bear.  Yet this is what people have come to expect.  Clients expect that it will cost "too much" to retain a good divorce lawyer.  Client's want to have an attorney with a fancy office, free parking, nicely kept grounds and a sharp looking outfit when you meet the lawyer in their office.  Ultimately, clients cringe as their initial meeting comes to a close and they wait for the financial bombshell to drop as the Rhode Island divorce lawyer states how much it will cost you for his or her services and what the initial retainer will be.

There you go.  The amount you pay a lawyer is not necessarily determined by your divorce lawyer's time, skill, competence or experience.  What you are really paying is dependent upon the lawyer's building, car, lifestyle, summer home, boat, airplane, vacations for weeks to the Bahamas, Hawaii or some other exotic place, private schools for their children, etc... 

What does it cost you to retain the lawyer?  It depends upon the lawyer and everything the lawyer has to bear financially.  That's what I refer to as a "Lawyer-Centric" approach to Rhode Island Divorce practice.  Everything revolves around the lawyer in the "Lawyer-Centric" approach.

Now let's change gears for a moment and consider a more modern approach.  We're in a recession and most divorce lawyers continue to do the same thing they've always done for decades, with few exceptions.  Yes, you guessed it . . . the Lawyer-Centric approach to divorce practice.  Why?  Because that's what they are used to.  Noone likes to sacrifice or compromise anything from their law office or from their lifestyle.  Everyone wants to move ahead and make more money, including lawyers.  Everyone wants to do everything without reinventing the wheel.

Yet here is the rub.  Times have changed.  Just about everyone has affordable access to the internet, servers, computer programs and technology that now allows us to take projects that once took two and a half hours and compress them into one hour or less.  Though we are in a recession, we also have access to newer, more advanced technologies that enable us to do things faster and more easily, the rates of lawyers not only in Rhode Island divorce proceedings but in many other areas of law have not budged.

The theory behind this is that many lawyers believe that simply because they have taken advantage of these new technologies to speed up their work, that they should not be deprived of the income that they would have received if the lawyer had chosen not to use the new technologies.  So what happens?  Lawyers end up billing the client for 2 1/2 hours of work when, in fact, the lawyers time may have been reduced to 1 hour due to new advances in technology and new software run on highly advanced computer systems.

Now certainly there is a cost to the lawyer for purchasing the technology, perhaps maintaining the technology equipment and such, and that needs to be paid for as well, yet at some point that should be considered "paid for" and the client should reap a benefit from that in the form of a reduced hourly rate, doesn't that make sense?

It reminds me of a toll bridge that pays for itself in its first two years of use but goes on collecting revenues for the state for another 20 years without any reduction for taxpayers.  Why?  Because now the monies are used to pay for other things in the state that the "powers that be" see as essential to the Rhode Island lifestyle.  Just as the monies collected from clients that have more than paid for the technologies used by the lawyers will go to pay for higher incomes, better cars, longer vacations in Arruba, etc...  Yet it's rare that the client gets the financial benefit of these advances in technology even if they are talked up as a selling point by the lawyer to get your business.

Here's where I come in.  You see, I don't like the "Lawyer-Centric" approach.  The reason I don't like it is simply because it continues to promote the notion that lawyers are all money hungry, greedy, overpaid, scam artists who are only out for themselves and everything they can get from you. 

The fact is, there are good attorneys out there who give their clients the benefit of everything financially possible.  Some lawyers are generous to a fault with their time and have harnessed every economical technology, software, product, and service for your benefit as a divorce client. The ultimate result that you get is either a lower rate or faster service reflected in the lawyer's billing.  That's the "Client-Centric" approach. 

The Client-Centric approach to the practice of divorce law (or any specialized area of law for that matter) is focused on the needs of the client.  The lawyer's focus then shifts to serving more clients for less income and less rewards in order to reach his or her own financial needs.  Yes, it means the lawyer may have to work harder and longer hours to achieve his or her personal financial goals.  However, with the Client-Centric law practice you end up paying for your divorce lawyer's time, skill, and experience and the maximized resources he or she uses.

I heard the term "Client-Centric" used by attorneys in a large firm as far back as two decades ago.  Unfortunately, the term was used in a different context.  As used at that time and by that firm, it meant to network further into a client's existing ties in the community to bring in more clients.  In otherwords it was a networking technique which continued to benefit the law firm by wining and dining the client and by using financial resources of the firm to essentially "schmooze" the client to build trust and get more client referrals, etc... 

I will not say that this was a bad business move.  After all, businesses (particularly law firms) are out there to make money and to continue to network and therefore survive.  Yet at what point does the client get a true financial benefit from today's technologies?  The use of a "Client-Centric" approach as I initially heard it used was merely a means of manipulated marketing.  It is not a wonder why lawyers do not have a good name today if this is a marketing method being circulated nearly two decades ago?

Well, it is a new millenium and perhaps I am a new pioneer and advocate for the client.  Money is not the "end all" and "be all" of things.  Personally I would rather make considerably less money and reap the rewards of a child properly returned to his mother being falsely accused of being a drug addict and of abusing the child.  A reasonable payment for my skills and hard work, a thank you card from the mother and the hug from that child were payment enough.

Yet here is the problem?  These Rhode Island divorce and family law lawyers are hard to find.  I will not say that I am a dying breed.  I will say that I am a growing breed and I hope that I can convince more divorce attorneys to go the way of the true "Client-Centric" practitioner, especially in divorce and family law.

Families here in Rhode Island are in need of help and healing.  In my humble opinion, most of the damage done today to our Rhode Island families is within the divorce and family law practice.  It can be helped financially by taking a Client-Centric approach in a divorce law practice and focusing on the needs of the client and the family unit.

I urge my fellow Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers and Family Law Practitioners to adopt a practice philosophy focused on the needs of their clients and not upon their bank accounts.  Material possessions are not the measure of a person's worth or the success of a person's life.  Though material possessions may provide enjoyment for a time, they do not provide the happiness and fulfillment of living a good life and helping our fellow men and women.

Turning around the idea of the stereotypical divorce lawyer will not happen overnight.  It will take time and the diligence of more than just myself and a few other practitioners.  In time I am hopeful that the black eye that lawyers have with the public will dissipate and people will see us for what we truly are and who we were truly meant to be  . . . servants of the people.

In my opinion, family lawyers in Rhode Island need to do two things for the benefit of their clients. 

First, a good family lawyer needs to distinguish between technical contempt and willful contempt.  The two are fairly easy to distinguish.

Willful contempt occurs when admissible evidence can be proven before the family court judge demonstrating that a party knew of a court order and despite the ability to comply with that order chose not to do so or opted to do something that the party felt was in his or her own best interests or the best interests of his or her family despite an order to the contrary.

Technical contempt occurs when the evidence presented to the court proves that a party subject to an order of the court does not comply with that order because he or she does not have the means or the power to comply with the courts order. 

It is the nature of the non-compliance that designates what type of contempt it is.  Does  the person have the ability to comply with the Order or not?  If the person has the ability to comply with the Family Court Order but does not do so then the contempt is likely to be found to be willful.  If the person accused of the contempt did not have the ability to comply with the order as a result of circumstances outside his or her control then the Order should normally be one of technical contempt.

The distinction is more than nominal.  The distinction is often very significant as is the manner in which your Rhode Island Attorney deals with it.  In most cases, clients will not know, understand or appreciate the distinction between these types of contempt and how they may be viewed by the court.;

In cases of willful contempt, the court is more likely to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if in the court's discretion such an award is warranted.  In cases of technical contempt, awards of attorneys' fees are rare.  In some instances if it appears clear to the judge that the party pressing the contempt motion was aware it was a technical contempt, the judge may be upset with counsel for wasting the court's time or may be upset with the attorney's client if it becomes clear from the evidence presented that the party pressed this motion knowing it was merely a technical violation and did not create a risk of harm that the Order was designed to protect.

In most cases I believe it appropriate to identify for the client the pros and the cons of proceeding with a motion for contempt when it may be seen by the court as purely technical.  Insistent clients who try to force their counsel to proceed on a matter that may damage the client's credibility with the court and perhaps damage their attorney's reputation for the remainder of the case are best read the riot act and the consequences clearly explained to them.  An outright refusal of an attorney to proceed under such circumstances is understandable and justified, though many attorneys will not do so for risk of losing the client's business.

In the end, despite the good judgment of counsel, sometimes clients need to give direction to their counsel, have their day in court, and take their lumps before they catch on to the fact that their attorney may know best what to do in a particular situation as a result of his or her experience and expertise.

Engagement rings in Rhode Island Divorce proceedings are not typically a source of contention between the spouses.   Typically an engagement ring is not considered a marital asset. Therefore it is not subject to the Rhode Island family court's power of equitable distribution (i.e. power to divide the marital portion of assets between the divorcing parties).  In fact, the vast majority of cases where the wife's engagement ring is seriously debated occurs usually when the engagement ring has a substantial value and something changed about to the ring after the marriage.

The theory is understandable.  A marriage is a contract though it is seldom seen in that light by the parties.  For instance, when a man asks a woman to marry him and offers an engagement ring, the ring is the consideration for one contract.  In that case, the man is asks the woman to marry him and offers the ring to essentially "seal the deal" so to speak.  However, it then falls to the woman to decide if she will say "yes" and accept the offered ring.  If the woman says "yes" and accepts the offered ring, then a contract has been formed.  The man has made and offer and in return for that offer has asked for a promise that she will marry him and an acceptance of the ring.

Let's assume that the man no longer wants to marry the woman and changes his mind.  The man has now broken the engagement contract.  If he demands the ring back, the woman has no obligation to return the ring so long as she has still been prepared to marry the man and hold up her end of the "bargain."

However, if the woman no longer wants to marry the man and changes her mind, she is obligated to return the ring because she has broken their engagement contract and she is generally not allowed to profit from her own breach of the engagement contract which is exactly what would occur if she were to break the engagement contract AND keep the man's offered ring as well.  If it were otherwise, this would lead to women accepting men's proposals just to get the ring and not because they even intended to marry the man and simply tell the man she has changed her mind shortly thereafter and keep the ring.

When a marriage occurs, it is a separate and distinct contract made at the time of the ceremony where both parties perform as they promised rather than simply exchanging an offer for a promise.  In that case the wedding rings themselves seal that contract of marriage as well as the promises they make to each other for the duration of the marriage. 

Therefore, if nothing happens to the engagement ring during the marriage, it should be considered pre-marital or at least non-marital in nature because it existed and belonged to the woman before the marriage contract was formed.  Thus, it should not be within the power of the Rhode Island Divorce and Family Court to distribute it.  It was the woman's property before the marriage and simply wearing the ring during the marriage does not make it marital in nature.

The issue arises when something happens to the ring during the marriage.  Consider for example that a stone in the ring becomes chipped and as a result it loses value.  Let's say that marital income from either the husband, wife or both is used to purchase homeowner's insurance.  Now, if an insurance claim is made for the damage to the ring and funds received from that claim are used to replace that stone (i.e. diamond, etc. . ) now, marital funds have been used to repair or replace a part of the ring.  Once marital funds are used in any way on the ring, the previously pre-marital ring now is commingled with marital income (which is a marital asset) and they now convert the character of the ring from pre-marital to marital.

Other arguable examples that would change the ring to a marital character are:

1)  Adding new stones using marital income.
2)  Fixing the setting using marital income.
3)  Pledging the ring as collateral for something marital being purchased as a couple.

Today I diverge from my normal Rhode Island divorce tips after discovering a rather unique writing that I felt strongly about responding too.

Please read the publication at

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/therapeutic-jurisprudence-in-Rhode-Island.pdf

It is easiest to copy and paste this link into your browser.  It is a PDF download.

** Response **

As a Rhode Island Divorce and Family Lawyer I make it my business to remain informed and to inform the public regarding Divorce and Family Law fundamentals.

As a quick exercise I Googled a colleague's name, Attorney Norbara Octeau.  Imagine my surprise to find an alleged Press Release by the "Parenting Project" by the Retired Methodist Reverend Anne Grant. 

Previously I was aware that Attorney Octeau was a DCYF hearing officer though this was an aspect of her legal career that I chose to remain separate from, I co-authored an article with Attorney Octeau regarding the family court, fathers and aspects of motherhood.

I searched the PDF file I asked you to read for the name "Octeau" just to see how many times my colleague was noted to see whether it might be worth reading.  Imagine my surprise to find my own name in a footnote by Anne Grant in this "Press Release".  Finding my own name in the footnote prompted my curiosity as to its context so I read the document.

I am not familiar with the specific case that Anne Grant refers to simply because it is not precedent for future cases to be argued on and I was not counsel nor was I involved in any way shape or form in that case.  Therefore, it would be improper for me to comment upon that case and its specifics. 

However, it is clear that to some extent Reverend Anne Grant has engaged in mere personal speculation and commentary on this subject without knowledge of all the facts, all the procedures, the rules of law, the standards of evidence, notice requirements, and all the information not simply available in a case but information that may be considered credible and/or admissible.

Having represented both men and women, and in every instance I strived to protect the minor children of the relationship, I am well aware that attorneys represent a party and that they have a duty to represent that party.  We are, in fact, ethically bound to do so zealously, to the best of our ability within the bounds of our professional ethical mandates. 

Yet in this Press Release it is clear that it is neither an attorney, nor a guardian ad litem, nor a judge or a court, nor a parent but rather a third party . . . Anne Grant who presents in a biased fashion her own agenda and opinions.

We all have beliefs as to the truth or falsity of information we receive.  Each of us gauges the information we receive not in a vacuum but in the context of our own experience, what we have observed on a social level, what we have learned on an educational level, and our lifetime exposure to people, events and so on.

Anne Grant's press release presupposes that our experience and our beliefs must mirror hers.  Whether she or anyone else wishes to admit it, there is a conclusion underlying her allegedly official report/press release. 

First, there is the characterization that this is "a Press Release", thereby giving it more veracity than if it were merely an opinion based article released by Anne Grant under her own name without a fancy letterhead. 

In truth, anyone can create a letterhead or impressive looking graphic and can entitle anything a "Press Release" to express their views. 

It should be considered when reading such a publication that Anne Grant seemingly cloaks herself in what is on its face a cause worth championing.  Yet she does so using an organizational name and graphic that consume nearly 1/3rd of the first page of the document and are designed to entice others to her way of thinking. 

It is no less notable that Anne Grant chooses to call this a "Press Release" and refer to it as an Official Report in an effort to bolster credibility for her own personal views and opinions when it is nothing more than a writing that anyone could pay money to publish in numerous locations on the internet simply by titling it a "Press Release".

In essence, this Press Release of Anne Grant may amount to nothing more than two words printed with a little extra ink or toner to create a bold font.  Otherwise, it is merely opinion which the writer seeks to substantiate with quotes and documentation which may well be taken out of context.

As for the "Official" nature of the publication, it appears even less "official" than the Official Special Anniversary Edition Superman Comic Book Released by DC Comics simply because DC Comics is the owner and publisher of the information. 

Except in the case of DC Comics, there is actually a legally copyrighted figure and trademarked symbol that has a presence, substantial value and intellectual property rights owned by DC Comics that actually lends more credence to its "official" nature than Anne Grant's Press Release and Official Report.

What I found offensive in Anne Grant's Press Release as it relates to me is the implication that the article Co-Authored by myself and Attorney Norbara Octeau somehow gives an indication that the article was either improper, revised or an attempt to cover-up some sort of impropriety.   We each have our own thoughts and opinions.  Anne Grant seems to imply that Attorney Norbara Octeau was not impartial, objective nor neutral when acting in her capacity as a hearing officer for the Division of Children, Youth and Families. 

Articles, especially blog articles are written to inform and sometimes intentionally to challenge the public.  At times controversy is good to provoke thought, education, and to uncover different points of view by responses from the public.  Clearly Anne Grant does not consider this factor when reading the article.  She certainly didn't deem it worth commenting on because she didn't bother to use the comment feature to respond to the article.  Nor does she consider that even if opinions of the writers were truly reflected in their writings, this does not mean that these thoughts and opinions are carried over to official duties which may be bound by rules of procedure and evidentiary guidelines.  Professionals often extricate themselves and their personal views and keep them separate from the work that they do.  Lawyers, Judges, Psychologists and even those within religious callings often suppress their desire to judge, criticize and chastise when persons come before them that are not acting in line with their own moral convictions.  Instead, they let their professional judgment, their training and their intellect lead them along a path that encourages and helps and promotes the human person, the human spirit and the human condition.

Anne Grant seemingly takes pot shots at everyone in the mix involved in this particular case.  She wants to blame the DCYF for lax policies and poor policing of hearing officers.  She wants to blame hearing officers for lack of neutrality in decision-making.  Yet there is not a shred of evidence that Attorney Octeau was not objective and neutral when hearing this matter.  Anne Grant merely uses implication drawn together by her own conclusions, none of which are substantiated by anything other than conjecture, speculation and implication. 

Of note is the picture she paints of herself as the only just and righteous person coming before the court to face the devil's advocates "so to speak" of the Defendant's Family Law Attorney, Deborah Tate, his criminal Attorney Lise Geshite (no mention is made that this is not unusual when serious accusations are made as to a man or a woman).  The guardian ad litem, Attorney Lise Iwon is depicted as part of the judicial machinery appointed by the court and only out for her own monetary gain and without consideration for her obligations as an attorney and merely yielding a rubber stamp for the hearing officer's decision.

It is no surprise that Anne Grant uses a 3 year old child's picture of the alleged "sausage games" and a detailed rendition that sounds more like an adult's leading concoction than a true factual accounting to boister her conviction that this father is a molester.  The defendant father may have been indicated for sexual abuse or molestation by DCYF, yet there is a reason for rights to challenge findings and  indication, and even a family court's decision.  The reason?  Mistakes can be made and review processes are necessary at times to correct those mistakes if found to be so.

Anne Grant justifies her article, her attack on DCYF, Attorney Octeau, the Defendant's Attorneys, the Guardian Ad Litem, and the Rhode Island Family Court by attacking Dr. Gardner, the presumed founder and proponent of PAS "Parent Alienation Syndrome", a syndrome which is not recognized in the mental health community as a valid syndrome with identifiable symptoms subject to proper diagnosis.  Anne Grant presumes that every reference to "parental alienation" by anyone and by any document is synonymous with Dr. Gardner's Parental Alienation Syndrome.  This is a critical mistake.  It is one thing to say that PAS is not a mental health condition or syndrome recognized by the medical community.  It is totally another thing to say that "parental alienation" itself does not exist.

In fact, whether Anne Grant wishes to acknowledge it or not, parental alienation (note the lack of the word "syndrome") occurs frequently.  Perhaps if Anne Grant were on the other side of the coin she might understand better what may often occur in these situations rather than what she thinks occurs based only upon her own experience and views.

Some years ago my office represented a man accused by DCYF and the State Police of sexually penetrating his 4 year old daughter.  He had two daughters at the time.  The second daughter was 8 years old and made one brief statement which seemingly backed up her younger sister's story.  The father had just filed for divorce thirty (30) days before and the mother of the children had been served with the divorce complaint ten (10) days before the allegations were made by the mother.  Neither the DCYF nor the State Police took the matter lightly.  The man was immediately arrested, incarcerated and held without bail despite the lack of any criminal past, no history of sexual abuse in his family or to himself and without anything other than a 4 year old child's statement. 

The prosecutor was incensed by the allegations and dragged out the man's incarceration while discovery requests were made.  The prosecutor made disclosures, none of which were helpful.  During the man's incarceration he was beaten repeatedly by custodial officers and forcibly imasculated with batons.  He lost his job of 20 years.  His wife quickly exhausted their savings and before he knew it the home that had been in his family for three (3) generations was foreclosed upon and lost.   He was ordered to undergo psychological testing and analysis by the prosecution's psychologist who assumed that he had violated his daughter in the manner alleged. 

This father was prohibited from talking to or seeing either of his daughters.  His own family disowned him and wanted nothing to do with him for fear that local activists would take action against them due to the publicity given the case and his assumption of guilt by the media.

Suddenly a discovery was made.  On the date of the first allegation, the prosecutor immediately took the minor child to the local hospital and had the child examined for any invasion of the child's private parts of any sort including a rape profile.  Nothing was left out.  This was not disclosed by the prosecutor.  It was only disclosed by accident when the hospital released the report on a direct request from our office.  The report was conclusive by two physicians that the little girl's account could not be correct as she described it.  This little girl had not been penetrated in any way (by anyone) and two doctors concurred as to that fact within hours that the alleged penetration occurred.  Based upon this report, an order was obtained for the father's attorneys to speak with the 8 year old daughter in the presence of an agreed upon psychologist to protect the child's well-being.

To make a long story short, the 8 year old spoke with me.  I told her that the doctors said that her dad had not done anything to her sister.  The 8 year old began to cry.  She kept saying "I know.  I'm so sorry."  I let her cry for a while and the psychologist sat on the edge of his seat telling her it was okay and to take time to calm down.  When the 8 year old little girl calmed down I asked her how she knew.  She said, "Because mommy told her what to say."  I asked the little girl, your mommy told who to say what.  She started to well up with tears again.  She told ***** (her 4 year old little sister) over and over that she had to tell everyone that daddy had wanted to play a game with her and put his pee-pee in her because mommy wouldn't play that game.  The older sister said that mommy told her sister to say this over and over for days and days.  I asked the girl what mommy did then.  She said that mommy told her that if she was asked anything that she didn't see daddy play the game but she heard her sister talk about it.  She said that mommy drew pictures of the game for her sister and told her sister to draw the pictures just like mommy did when she was asked too.  The older sister was very upset.  I asked what happened next.  The 8 year old said that when her little sister got the pictures right her mommy called the police and said her daughter told her that daddy had played a game with her.  I asked if mommy had been saying anything else.  She said that mommy was very upset and that daddy was divorcing them.  I asked if the little girl knew what divorce meant.  She told me that mommy said that it meant that daddy doesn't love us anymore and he wants us to go away forever.  I asked if mommy said anything else.  The little girl said that mommy said it was important to do what she was asking otherwise strangers would come and take them from her and they wouldn't have a mommy or a daddy.

Based on this information a Motion to Dismiss was filed with the court and it was granted.

The father was thankful as he cried upon his release.  He was incarcerated and beaten intermittently for five (5) months.  He didn't get to see his daughters who he loved dearly.  He lost his job, his savings, his retirement benefits and his family home.  He had nowhere to go.  Even family kept their distance because the media was lax in reporting his innocence.

No matter Anne Grant may think, this is "parental alienation" of the worst kind and it is not just this man.  It is many fathers, victimized by spiteful mothers.  This mother in the case I mention lied to the police, lied to physicians, lied to DCYF and nothing happened to her.  Nothing!  She destroyed this man's life because she felt scorned by a divorce proceeding.  She brainwashed their two poor little children and created the worst kind of "parental alienation" possible by portraying their father as an evil man who cared nothing about them and wanted to divorce them.  These children didn't want to lose both parents, so they believed their mother.   They trusted her.  That's what children do.  Children also take the path of least resistance.  They were too young to realize and understand the consequences of doing what their mother asked them to do.  Could it be that they thought they had already lost their father and thought the only way to keep their mother and not end up taken away by strangers was to say these things about their father in order to keep their mother in their life.  These kids didn't want to be alone.

Is this right?  I wonder what Anne Grant thinks about this?  Guards even beat our client and immasculated him before he was proven guilty.  This good father was devastated because his scorned wife brainwashed his daughters into lying about events that didn't occur.  Did the father get an apology from anyone for the destruction of his life?  No!  Did his wife suffer any consequences from all of this?  No!  They chalked it up to her state of mind and said that this family has been through enough.  In the end the mother got placement of these children because she still had family to stay with.  This man had nothing.   Unfortunately, the daughters were now scared to see their father because their mother ingrained in them the fact that daddy would be upset that they had lied.  How do I know?  I heard her say it to her daughters just outside the courtroom.  Now this good father has  barely seen his daughters in years even though he was a very active and loving father.

It may not be a syndrome, but it happens every day. Parents manipulate children daily against the other parent all over our small state . . . for the uninformed its called "parental alienation".  I've had children who are in their late teens who have been allowed to speak to judges. In the past 3 years I could recite 5 obvious cases where the mother or father "got to the kids" before the hearing.  The parent promised the child a car or a trip to florida or something else they want and reinforced it by saying it was a reward for  understanding what mommy or daddy had put them through.  Sometimes the parent threatens to beat the crap out of the child for not realizing whose side they should be on.  I've had teens admit this to me afterward.   The kids are told that all they have to do is not talk about mom's beating or mom's throwing a knife at daddy after she was served with divorce papers.  Call it what you want, but it happens and it's hard to uncover in every case, many times until it's too late.  It may not be a "syndrome" for medical purposes but it certainly is "parental alienation."  It's manipulation of the worst sort.  Manipulation of children by their parents for their own personal gain or to hide their own disreputable conduct is reprehensible.  That's my personal opinion.

Perhaps Anne Grant, doesn't know everything about the case she is referring to.  Is it possible?  Perhaps she is accusing an innocent man.  Could she be overlooking a scorned, manipulative woman?  Perhaps she is trying to blame people and a system because she has personal beliefs and opinions about the way things should go or who the person is who is guilty but reliable evidence simply wasn't there when she believes it was.  Everyone has opinions about OJ Simpson and his guilt and it's easy to second guess or blame others in a system and those that operate within its confines, but perhaps...just perhaps... there's more here than Anne Grant is seeing.

All Anne Grant has done in this alleged Press Release is to vent her own personal views on a situation that perhaps she doesn't know as much about as she claims to.  It's easy to attack procedures without facing budgetary concerns, political pressures, a rising state deficit, lack of manpower, etc.  It's easy to paint yourself as a martyr against a bunch of bad guys when you're writing an article that may even exacerbate the controversy by your own writings.

Is she advocating for herself and her own self-esteem?  Or is she truly caring about the process and the children involved in it?   Her article is about finding fault and placing blame based upon her own perspectives and her own assessments not about what is right and wrong but rather by substituting her own judgment by those who are truly immersed in this process.  Are we then to trade-in Rhode Island's System for addressing these cases and leave it to her independent judgment?  Is Anne Grant skilled enough to consider herself to be infallible in all such cases?  Or might we be better with numerous people looking at the situation with different viewpoints, consideration of civil rights, following the laws that bind us and, questioning and and considering all aspects of what may have occurred so that one person is not the end all and be all of things.  Consider the result of an omnipotent unilateral decision maker.

As human beings we are all fallible.  Anne Grant is no less so.  Has her religious counsel always led to the salvation of every youth or adult she has counseled?  Have she ever been misled by a congregation member or been subject to a situation that is not what it seems?  Has she always been right in her assessment of every person she has met? 

Things are not always as they seem.  If she believes she has always been right and that she is infallible then you have elevated yourself to the status of God and his or her level of perfection.  If that is truly the case, it is regrettable that she remains as naive as those who do not realize that that parental alienation is actually a nationwide epidemic with children as the victims and parents and guardians as the perpetrators, both father and mothers.

Readers may wish to consider whether her document a "Press Release" or a "Prejudice Release" of Anne Grants own personal views on a case that she has strong beliefs and feelings about.  And is it possible that rather than an "Official Report" that it is a "Personal Retort" shifting blame at systems and persons to justify an end result that she believes should have been reached rather than the one that was reached.

I've had the unfortunate opportunity to see cases in which both men and women have participated in "parental alienation."  In some cases parents go to extremes to brainwash their own children in shameful ways and damage the lives of the children because the brainwashing parent has regard only for his or her emotional state and complete disregard for the child's well-being.

Anne Grants press release

(1) faults DCYF by stating that the unit fails to track credible molestation.  Yet these are credible in whose eyes and ears?  Seemingly only those of Anne Grant.  Even her description of her appearance at court seemingly places her on a pedestal of righteous moral judgment, discernment and decision-making power that is seemingly infallible when compared to DCYF investigators, hearing officers, guardian ad litems charged with protecting the interests of the minor child(ren), and the family court which was not only established for the protection of the family but which holds as its highest priority the best interests of the minor child(ren) as is evidenced by the Pettinato decision.

(2) faults DCYF for failing to assure that its hearing officers perform their tasks in an objective and neutral manner when she offers little to nothing to support this conclusion nor any suggestion as how DCYF would do such a thing.  Individual views often clash with professional responsibilities and there is nothing offered by Anne Grant which shows that any actions taken by anyone at DCYF, or that Attorney Octeau in her capacity as a hearing officer took any action that was in any way tainted, biased or subjectively based on personal prejudices.  Yet Anne Grant fails to point out or consider that DCYF has countless hearings each year.  She fails to note that DCYF endeavored for the benefit of the child and the parties to conduct hearings in an expeditious manner for the benefit of all concerned.  No comment is made that burdens must be met and standards must be achieved to substantiate indications against a parent.  If they are not met, then the indication cannot stand and rightfully so.  Just in the same way that a criminal charge cannot stand if it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the action he or she is accused of.  Anne Grant presumes to make it the responsibility of the judge and/or the hearing officer to abandon his or her position and become an advocate for either party (or both) in order to make the case for either party or gather the information either party may or may not have obtained regardless of its authenticity, veracity or any reasonable assurance that it is a reliable source of information. 

Does Anne Grant realize that this would be tantamount to expecting the hearing officer as the arbiter of fact and law to violate his or her own ethical obligations and become an advocate for one or both parties.  The hearing officer would then have to substitute his or her own judgments and moral standards for those set forth by law or by promulgated administrative regulations. 

This is what Anne Grant seemingly advocates because she is not bound by such strictures.  She collects what information or data supports the conclusion she wishes to support and and then makes the puzzle pieces try to fit into the puzzle.  Yet they don't fit.  They don't follow a coherent and cohesive pattern without speculation, conjecture and make tremendous claims of conspiracy to implicate the fault of those within a process who are bound by ethical considerations, laws, rules and regulations.

She addresses these only on a superficial level and makes references to documents obtained under the Access to Public Records Act only in passing because they do not fit well into her puzzle's formulation.

(3) Faults DCYF and the Courts for advocating Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)  an unrecognized mental health diagnosis promulgated by Dr. Gardner who she discredits and connects with the court and the court system and DCYF over and over again.  However, Anne Grant takes a tremendous leap, and incorrectly so, by equating the concept of "parental alienation" with the unrecognized medical diagnosis of PAS.  They are not one in the same.   Yet she creates this equation to support her underlying conclusions and focus blame on the DCYF Unit, the Family Court and those within it because they do not reach the conclusion and result she believes should have been reached. 

Is it necessary for DCYF, Hearing Officers, Attorneys, Clinicians and the Family Court and its judges to consult with Anne Grant and subjugate their judgment to hers in order to perform their duties?  Would this help them avoid such scathing articles and rebukes from a woman clearly placing herself on a moral pedestal of indignation above all of them.

(4) Seemingly accuses all the lawyers in one particular case of acting with clinicians as a team to win cases for their clients using secrecy, misinformation and delay to win cases for their clients in ways that hurt children.

What is Anne Grant referring to?  I know that I am perplexed.  She offers a blanket accusatory statement as to all the lawyers and clinicians presumably involved in this singular case to create some sort of conspiracy supposedly to help this defendant father and hurt two little children. 

Do she honestly believe that with all the people involved in this matter (many of whom not only have an obligation to protect these children) that ALL of them are involved to just help this singular defendant, father, and hurt the children in the process?  Is it really Anne Grant's conclusion that this is a conspiracy or collusion among all these people involved?

Does Anne Grant truly believe a parent who has children of their own and loves those children either as a mother or as a father would participate in a conspiracy with the countenanced belief that it was wrong and these children would be damaged or further molested? 

Would it make a difference if it were known that some of the people involved in this case had daughters?  Would that change Anne Grant's conclusion?  I suspect not.  However, it might come to a reader's mind that it makes little sense that a person would not imagine their own daughter in the same circumstances and wonder about the outcome if they don't do right by these girls.

While I do not hold them in high regard, nor do consider any of them to be anything more than acquaintances or colleagues, I must say that the Press Release lacks foundation purely on its own.  Clearly Anne Grant doesn't know these people that she attacks.  To her they are just cogs in a tragic play that reaches a conclusion that she does not approve of and that she believes is wrong. 

Yet Anne Grants conspiracy theory must be true if she is to reach her conclusion and actually be right.  Thus, it is not a wonder that she relies upon conclusory statements, implications and innuendo to support her press release and its allegations.

What is this "secrecy" that she refers to?  Perhaps that is the attorney/client privilege which has long been held in this country to be a lynch pin of open and protected communication between attorneys and clients to promote the free flow of information and protected speech necessary for that relationship to exist. 

Or, could the secrecy be the doctor/patient privilege which again relates to the confidentiality of health care information to protect privacy and prevent dissemination to third parties who might make such information public and demean and injure a person's reputation or for their own subverted purposes such as to support a non-existent conspiracy?  Or perhaps the secrecy is based upon the fact that she could not get her hands on every piece of information she wanted in this case to support her theory, such as the Guardian Ad Litem's report which is typically only viewed by counsel for the parties and the Court for the protection not only of the parents involved but for the children's safety and well-being.

Secondarily, what is the misinformation?  Is it a finding made by Attorney Octeau based upon the information presented to her at the time of the hearing?  Is it misinformation if the picture drawn by a three (3) year old child might not have been included or might not have been given substantial weight (if presented) because the child is of young age and is, in fact, easily subject to parental alienation by a mother or a father?  Is Anne Grant aware that judges and hearing officers must weigh the reliability of testimony and documents even in an informal setting, if it is presented and to be considered as evidence?  Is Anne Grant aware that typically if evidence is presented by documents or testimony that are demonstrated and believed to be credible by the judge or hearing officer and remain unrebutted at the end of a proceeding that they may be considered as fact by the judge or hearing officer and are sometimes subject to a presumption of truth?

Anne Grant mentions the censure of a judge.  Did it have anything to do with this matter at issue?  If not, why does she bring it up?  What was the conduct?  Does it have anything to do with the end result in this particular case?

Is Anne Grant aware that neither a judge nor the family court as a whole want bad press?  Wouldn't the judge take extra care thereafter to make sure the case was closely looked at if the censure related in any way to this case?  Better yet, doesn't it make sense that the Chief Judge of the Rhode Island Family Court would have his finger on the pulse of the case and be insuring that the case was done "by the book" or rather "by the law" to prevent any future bad press or any censure that would lead to bad press? 

Or was Anne Grant's mention of a censured judge simply used as a random attack on the judge's character aiding her to reach the conclusion that she seeks to reach, namely that the system doesn't work and that it is all a conspiracy. 

Why?  Well, perhaps because the result that she believes should have been reached was not reached.

As to the use of private contractors by DCYF, it is a smart move.  It is maximized use of taxpayer dollars within budgetary constraints to engage high quality individuals who could not otherwise be engaged by DCYF because they would expect a salary for full-time duties consummate with their experience and the legal market.  The use of independent contractors also provides a layer of insulation between the contractors and DCYF which fosters greater independence for the private/independent contractors not only in conducting their duties but also from DCYF but also by their requirements under Federal Tax law to maintain that independence.  This lends itself to decisions that are more neutral and unbiased than you might get if the private/independent contractors were considered direct employees paid by DCYF.

My last comment is upon Anne Grant's mention of "alleged" molestation.  Let's focus on this for a moment.  Anne Grant says "alleged" but what she really means is "this guy molests children."  Anne Grant comes from a background of battered women seeking assistance where she has seen the children of these situations and she clearly finds it intolerable.  This is understandable.  Yet this is only one side of the coin.  There are women who molest their sons.  Seemingly Anne Grant leaves them out because they are not part of her cause.  There are children who are damaged because women make false claims of domestic violence against their spouse or significant other and intentionally use their position as a parent to alienate the father of the child and remove him from the child's life by getting him removed from the house.  Why?  Many times it is because the woman knows it will hurt the father to be separated from his child.  Sometimes the reason is simply to get back at the father for having a new love in his life even if the parents were never married. 

There are children who are injured by women who actually self-inflict their own wounds and then demand that the child call the police on their own father under fear that they will be beaten or thrown out in the street or that they will not be fed.  On once occasion I know of a young daughter who was tricked into believing the mother's wounds were in fact inflicted by the father so the child called the police fearing for her mother's safety.  Yet the woman self-inflicted the wounds out of view of the minor child and neighbors and then began striking and scratching the father so that he would become angry. At that moment the mother screamed help and fell to the ground quickly scratching and clawing at herself on the way down.   

There are children who are lied to by mothers who know that young children are susceptible to their influence and that the child will believe them if they are the placement parent because they live with that parent the greater percentage of the time.

In the example I used from my experience, and I can assure you there are many more, a man was destroyed because he was "alleged" to have molested his child, when all the time it was a ruse created by a calculating mother who felt justified and scorned by a husband who simply wasn't happy being married to her anymore.  In that case, the mother had a picture too.  In that case a child re-enacted as best she could for her age what she drew in crayon on a picture and what her mother rehearsed for her.  In the end, all of it was fabricated by the mother through repetition and brainwashing of her own child.  Here too, the mother insisted this was something that could not have been made up by a child of such tender years because it was too detailed and it was consistent with the picture that was drawn by the little girl.

It has been said in a common phrase, there is nothing worse than a woman's scorn.  So, though I agree that battered women and the damage done to children in that regard is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed and dealt with seriously, the alienation by mothers of children from their fathers is no less a problem, is no less hurtful, and is no less in need of a serious response.

In closing, I find it remarkable that without knowing this case at all, other than what is contained in her press release and the child's picture which she included purely to inflame the reader against the "alleged" molester, that I am able to make such comments and ask such questions as are necessary to get a better picture of what has occurred here.  Rather than simply attacking anyone and everyone who participated in the process involving this father, this mother and these children, perhaps more questioning is needed on the writers part.  Perhaps there is something Anne Grant doesn't know about the mother or the proceedings she focuses on that makes the placement of the child(ren) with the father logical, reasonable and the right thing to do.  Perhaps something unknown to Anne Grant shows that the mother either did or had a propensity to or a reason to brainwash this minor child.  Was this during the time frame of a divorce?  Did the father decide he could no longer live with the mother?

Too many questions remain unanswered by Anne Grant in her conclusory report and press release to justify her flagrant allegations about this "alleged" molester, the attorneys, DCYF, the judge, the court, and the mental health professionals involved.  Perhaps the people truly involved in this process had more information about this matter than Anne Grant did.  Or, perhaps she simply started with a conclusion, such as "a father accused of improper conduct by a child is a molester", then took everything that was helpful to her to reach that conclusion.

Was this truly a Press Release?   Or was it a retired methodist reverend simply releasing her own prejudices against men and fathers because that is where her experience is based and it is her cause to champion for women despite evidence that may exist to the contrary.

As a Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law Lawyer I've seen it before and I'm sure I'll see it again.  What is it?  Simply this.

A Rhode Island Divorce can turn your spouse into a monster.

Laugh if you like but it's true.  Whether it's a man filing for divorce in Rhode Island as to his wife or a woman filing for divorce against her husband, it is usually the mental state of the partner who is the defendant in the case and is being served that incurs the change.

The tiniest thing can set off the spouse who is not the one filing the divorce.  It can be a call from the other spouse's lawyer leaving a message on the home answering machine asking for a call back.  It can be the unhappy  spouse simply telling his or her husband or wife that enough is enough and that divorce is going to be filed.  The spouse receiving service of divorce papers from the sheriff or constable can set in motion a rage, depression or desperation that causes the spouse to turn into someone you no longer recognize.

There's no rhyme or reason and no road map to tell whether your spouse is the one that will proverbially "lose it" when divorce is mentioned, contemplated or filed.  The newspapers over the years have been saturated with the results of the more tragic events that have occurred.

Some spouses refuse to believe they can go on with their lives and rather than seeking counseling or realizing that they are in need of help they can and do (1) kill themselves, (2) kill, beat or stalk their spouses, (3) kill, beat or stalk their children, (4) kill, beat or stalk a person that they think has caused the breakdown of their marriage such as their spouse's presumed lover.

Stalking and terrorizing a spouse rather than coping with the situation rather than getting the help of a mental health professional is common.  Many spouses are surprised when their spouse suddenly turns into someone they don't know... someone who they thought loved them but now only wishes to harm them because of the hurt or anger or loss of control that they feel inside.

Whatever the circumstances, the spouse who becomes the victim of this Mr. Hyde or Mrs. Hyde should remain calm.  This does not mean that the spouse should not act.  The spouse should certainly seek a protective order from the family court if appropriate and call law enforcement as necessary for their own protection. 

No matter how adversarial the spouse that you no longer seem to know gets, you should remain as calm as you can, especially in front of the adversarial spouse.  It is unwise, especially if you are alone with the spouse who has seemingly become another person to expect that he or she will act within reason.  Never hurl verbal insults, mention past events that will cause arguments or allow your spouse to  cause you to become angry or enraged such that you instinctively lash out or try to defend yourself. 

The best thing you can do is remain calm no matter what your spouse does or says, avoid your instinct to defend yourself or continue into a confrontation.   As quickly as you reasonably can, without making it appear too obvious, remove yourself from the situation calmly.

Remain calm in all circumstances no matter how insulting or adversarial.  Think of it this way . . . the idea of divorce can turn your spouse into a monster and monsters are unpredictable.

Don't become a statistic of divorce violence.  Remain calm.