Last Sunday's News Script

[POC]

Soc,

This link - http://www.nbc-2.com/NewsScripts/061001_nbc11pm.HTM#FATHER'S

is to the script of a story that I appeared in last Sunday night. Not disclosed to the reporter prior to the airing of the story was that the attorney was none other than that of my ex-wife. That is why the ex was not available for comment. Not in the script but said on air, the attorney stated that because every situation is different, you can't have a law that is the same for all parents. Needless to say, my attorney is able to reference several laws that do just that.

1) Was anything improper committed by my ex's attorney for not disclosing her representation of my ex, and if so do you have any suggestions that I might want to discuss with my attorney?

2) In your opinion, would a presumptive substantial parenting time law preclude judges from taking into account the factors cited by Ms. Rawson? Is it not possible to consider those factors in all cases, yet still order that both parents be allowed substantial parenting time when it is in the child's best interests?

3) Wouldn't the effect of the presumption be that the substantial parenting time of both parents is in the child's best interests?

Finally, the reporter wants to do another interview when the Florida website is up and running. The goal is to get candidates on record as to whether they would support legislation to assure that fit parents and their children be allowed substantial parenting time with each other, or not. So far, and as the story indicates Skip Campbell, candidate for Florida's Atty Gen has said that he would publicly support such legislation.  

[socrateaser]

>1) Was anything improper committed by my ex's attorney for not
>disclosing her representation of my ex, and if so do you have
>any suggestions that I might want to discuss with my attorney?

If FL's Professional Rules of Conduct are reflective of the ABA model rules, then an attorney is subject to discipline for not revealing his/her representative capacity in an administrative or legislative proceeding. Also, attorneys must not make statements to the press that are substantially likely to prejudice a pending action.

However, simply stating a general opinion about to a news audience would not subject a lawyer to discipline. Stating derogatory things about the other party, such as a statement that the party's motives are to avoid responsibility for his/her child by casting dispersions on the current legal process, would probably rise to the sort of level that the "rules" are concerned with.

From your facts, I don't see any problems.

>2) In your opinion, would a presumptive substantial parenting
>time law preclude judges from taking into account the factors
>cited by Ms. Rawson? Is it not possible to consider those
>factors in all cases, yet still order that both parents be
>allowed substantial parenting time when it is in the child's
>best interests?

In my opinion, parents substantially equal custody should be a presumption which cannot be overcome absent proof of parental unfitness. But, no one cares what I think, and that ain't the law in any jurisdiction -- nor is it ever likely to be, because "professionals" in the business of understanding the needs of children are absolutely certain that children must be coddled by a paternal government.

>3) Wouldn't the effect of the presumption be that the
>substantial parenting time of both parents is in the child's
>best interests?

If you're asking me what's generally in a child's best interests, my opinion is that no one really knows. Children are incredibly adaptive and trying to ascertain what's best a priori to raising a child only serves to create cookie cutter adults with no independent thinking capabilities.

However, this is what government generally wants -- the world is a safer place when everyone thinks alike -- or at least no different than the average democrat or republican.

>
>Finally, the reporter wants to do another interview when the
>Florida website is up and running. The goal is to get
>candidates on record as to whether they would support
>legislation to assure that fit parents and their children be
>allowed substantial parenting time with each other, or not. So
>far, and as the story indicates Skip Campbell, candidate for
>Florida's Atty Gen has said that he would publicly support
>such legislation.

This isn't a question, so I have no comment. However, politicians do what gets them votes. I've never met a politician who was willing to put his/her chances for victory on the line for a radical change in family law, because it violates one of the axioms of politics -- never do anything that might possibly be perceived as "anti-children."

[POC]

Thanks Soc