"Right" to a divorce attorney?

**1955pirate** · 06-01-07, 02:12 PM

Todays news from Washington State.

A woman asks the Washington State Supreme Court for a taxpayer funded divorce lawyer. Her lawyers say she did not get a fair divorce trial because she could not afford an attorney and are now asking the state Supreme Court for taxpayer funded legal representation for their client. They are handling the appeal for free.

What does this mean to LEO's? You respond to a DV call and give advisement that the party(s) may be entitled to a free attorney for the dissolution?

**Willowdared** · 06-01-07, 02:20 PM

I tell my son that he can ask for anything.

Doesn't mean he's gonna get it though.

**countybear** · 06-01-07, 02:32 PM

If the voters in WA do not speak definitively, we just might.

**phantasm** · 06-01-07, 03:15 PM

divorce = civil = no right to a lawyer

**121Traffic** · 06-01-07, 04:10 PM

Agreed. Pretty sure the founding fathers framed the right to legal counsel with criminal matters in mind. You have the right to an attorney because the bottom line is that the government is bringing you to court, and the Bill of Rights was a document designed to afford citizens protections from a (possibly) overreaching government. The government ain't involved (by its own accord anyway) with your babysmamadrama...PERIOD. YOU couldn't work it out, so now I have to pay? Gimme a break.

**1955pirate** · 06-01-07, 05:03 PM

The argument by the lawyers representing this woman and by the women's groups supporting the appeal is that an appointed attorney should/would be proper under our constitution in cases where the fundamental right of custody of children is an issue.

(Don't jump on me...I'm not advocating, only reporting what I read)

This will be interesting to watch in a liberal state such as WA.

**lewisipso** · 06-01-07, 06:43 PM

**conalabu** · 06-01-07, 06:46 PM

I may be wrong, but I think the kids do have a right to attorney. But the attorney acts strictly for the children.

**1955pirate** · 06-01-07, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by conalabu

I may be wrong, but I think the kids do have a right to attorney. But the attorney acts strictly for the children.

That is correct. A guardian ad litem (appointed to represent the interests of another person such as a child or mentally incapacitated person) or legal counsel can be appointed by the court. This appeal is totally different than that of which you speak. It appears the main issue in this appeal deals with a dissolution involving custody wherein one party is indigent and therefore (it is argued) is being denied represention for the purpose of protecting a fundamental right.

**conalabu** · 06-01-07, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by 1955pirate

That is correct. A guardian ad litem (appointed to represent the interests of another person such as a child or mentally incapacitated person) or legal counsel can be appointed by the court. This appeal is totally different than that of which you speak. It appears the main issue in this appeal deals with a dissolution involving custody wherein one party is indigent and therefore (it is argued) is being denied represention for the purpose of protecting a fundamental right.

Here's my thing then, in the interest of the children, if one party is indigent, they should not have the kids anyway. Get a permanent residence/job/means of support, then come whine to the courts about who gets the kids. This is a ridiculous case. The mother is coniving to obtain a home. If she has custody, the father pays for the support of the children and the state pays for the house. This is commonly referred to in the office as "bullshit". Heck no. As if we need another law to support dumbass lazy people. The spirit of the Constitution was not in support of handouts. The way the law is right now is just fine and fair for people who work for what they get. Hell with the bleeding hearts.

**1955pirate** · 06-02-07, 12:13 AM

I am as adamantly opposed to a finding for the appellant in this matter as anyone. However, I think this appeal is a much the brainchild and effort on the part of the attorney(s) who are representing her free, as it is on the part of the appellant herself. Another paycheck source for lawyers on the backs of the taxpayers. The Washington Supreme Court will probably not rule on this case for months. As new information becomes available I will post.