• @YoBuckStopsHere
    link
    English
    -41 year ago

    Yet that is the argument these lawyers are forcing a judge to make. Safe vs Safer.

      • @YoBuckStopsHere
        link
        English
        -11 year ago

        No, that is actually the argument the lawyers are making.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          I’ve BEEN IN COURTROOMS. WITH THESE LAWYERS. IVE HEARD THEIR ARGUMENTS AS A PART OF MY WORK. You do not know what you are talking about. At all. Full stop.

          • @Bernie_Sandals
            link
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I believe what he is mentioning is the specific type of case brought up in the article called an “intervenor” where a foster family can still get rights at least in Colorado after the biological family has already been declared safe.

            The “lawyers” I believe he’s mentioning is the lawyer Einrich and specialist Baird mentioned in the article as being pro-intervenor.

            I am not in this field, like at all, so if I’m mistaken please correct me.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, I understand the article, but he’s trying to conflate it to being more than one lawyer, and one shitty social worker and pushing it as fact. That’s what is foolish.

              In the grand majority of states this isn’t a thing, and family reunification is always the number 1 goal.

              What bothers me about the article is where is the parents lawyer? Or the lawyer for the child? Often every party gets representation in family court for reasons like these two clowns in this article.