shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

Across the “blawgiverse,” law-related weblogs have been closing 2006 with a ten-day Lawyers Appreciate Countdown (find links here).  In addition to writing a piece on what lawyers appreciate, each participant “tags” three other webloggers, and Robert Ambrogi brought me into the appreciation circle with a tag-invitation today. 

Of course, there is no way that I can say what the million-plus practicing lawyers in America personally appreciate.  Instead, my declaration is hortatory and aspirational — stating what I hope lawyers do, or soon will come to, appreciate.

  As “officers of the court”, members of the Bar have a special obligation to help assure that justice is available to all who come within the judicial system.  As holders of special rights and powers within our legal system, lawyers have the additional duty to help assure that every person in our society has meaningful access to justice. 

In this context, lawyers appreciate pro-se-friendly courts.  Lawyers know:

• the courthouse door is effectively blocked for a majority of Americans, if entry can only be accomplished after retaining a lawyer at market-level fees
• the fundamental right to appear pro se cannot itself assure that justice is done fairly and effectively, if the pro se litigant does not understand his or her rights or cannot comply with procedural requirements that are prerequities for being heard, or for presenting facts and equities in a competent manner
• the image (and reality) of pro-se-intolerant or unfriendly courts will keep many individuals from asserting or protecting their rights in court, despite meritorious claims
• justice will not be achieved in individual cases, if opposing counsel takes unfair advantage of an unrepresented party’s ignorance of the law or lack of adversarial skills, so that the court is unable to consider all important facts and factors
• justice will not be effective, efficient, or timely within a court or court system, if the court is swamped with unprepared pro se litigants 
• the attitude of the organized bar toward self-help assistance in courts is crucial to achieving meaningful access to justice — and
• they must, therefore, renounce action that opposes self-help assistance (in a misguided attempt to preserve the financial interests of the legal profession), and instead must use individual and organized efforts to promote and create adequate, integrated self-help resources in every court (see, e.g., resources and strategies discussed here, here, and there)

 p.s.  I am hereby tagging George Wallace, in his Fool in the Forest or Declarations & Exclusions persona; Martin Grace of RiskProf; and “Ed”, the anonymous Editor of Blawg Review, and hope they will be able to tell us their version of What Lawyers Appreciate. My alter egos at f/k/a — Prof. Yabut and dagosan – may also get into the act before the Dec. 31 deadline.

 update (Dec. 30, 2006): To no one’s surprise, our Blawg Review Editor friend Appreciates Link Love, and spreads it around rather liberally.  And, (Jan. 1, 2007): thanks to the miracle of time zone differentiation, our multi-faceted weblogging buddy George Wallace got his appreciation duties posted in time from his California home in the waning hours of 2006.  His piece, Lawyers Appreciate the Widsom of Socrates, is well worth the wait and your time.  George echoes Socrates’ “all I know is that I know nothing”, an approach that (like the zen concept of “beginner’s mind“) offers the optimal method for finding the right facts and the right answers. 

Sorry to have been incommunicado.  Along with the usual holiday chores, I have been writing an article on offshore outsourcing of legal work.  According to some, we may be encountering a lot of U.S. legal work emanating out of India.But that is not the subject of this article. You may have encountered this situation: you are following a case on appeal, either because it’s interesting or it has facts similar to one in which you are involved. Finally, the appellate court renders its opinion…AND it’s unpublished!  You can’t find a copy of it in the reporters or anywhere else.  What the heck is an unpublished opinion?  Find out in “A Librarian’s Guide to Unpublished Judicial Opinions!”

Two months after its opening (covered in our prior post), the Self-Represented Legal Services Project, at the Brooklyn Family Court, is receiving high grades.   A New York Daily News article ”Family Court offers free legal advice” (Dec. 28, 2006) explains that an “unprecedented partnership between private lawyers and state courts” has placed volunteer attorneys from some of the largest NYC law firms on site Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., since November 2nd.   The project is “Led by the Greenberg Traurig law firm, attorneys from Citigroup, Strook & Strook & Lavan; Reed Smith; Dechert and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.”

According to the city’s chief Family Court Justice Joseph Lauria, ”It has been really exciting. It was a good idea conceptually and in reality, it is playing out well.”  Judge Lauria explains that, although the court cannot give legal advice, “What we’re doing is making available those who can give legal advice to court litigants.”

Attorney Bill Silverman, from Greenberg Traurig, told the Daily News that 100 people have taken advantage of the project in the past eight weeks.  “Family Court is truly the people’s court,” he said. “There are life decisions being made in congested courtrooms. People are simply not aware of their rights and don’t understand their rights.”

Nota Bene: Silverman goes on to make an especially important point: “[V]ery few among thousands who can’t afford attorneys actually get a judge to appoint one for free. Most lawyers, he said, are just too busy to take on many pro bono cases.”

   “This provides us with an opportunity to not take on a small handful of cases but to help dozens or hundreds of people,” [Silverman] said. “It’d be better for everyone to have lawyers, but in this half-hour, we can sort of do a triage and help as many people as we can. It does use resources in a very efficient way.”

Are you listening, bar leaders and groups, law firms, and individual lawyers?  We plan to make this obvious but ignored point again and again here at shlep:  Helping pro se litigants is an especially effective way to use the legal profession’s scarce pro bono resources.  Most Family Court litigants do not need a lawyer through every step of the process (in fact, lawyers often complicate, aggravate and prolong the process) — but, they can often use well-focused legal assistance.  

Pro bono projects, like the one at the Brooklyn Family Court, greatly leverage pro bono efforts.  New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye says she’d like to see this pilot project duplicated throughout New York City.  We’d like to see it quickly spread across the state and the country.
 

How many cases are being handled by people without lawyers? The answer varies by state and by type of case. Madelynn Herman, a researcher at the National Center for State Courts, summarized a number of studies in a memorandum, “Pro Se: Self-Represented Litigants, Pro Se Statistics,” Sept. 25, 2006.

A large number of domestic relations cases have at least one party who is not represented by an attorney. Here are some percentages (with the jurisdiction and date of the study in parentheses):

• 49% of petitioners and 81% of respondents (Utah 2006)
• at least one party in almost 70% of cases (New Hampshire 2004)
• 67% of petitioners at time of filing, 80% at time of disposition (California 2004)
• 73% (Florida 2001)
• 70% (Wisconsin 2000)

While people have a right to represent themselves, there are certainly many people who represent themselves only because they don’t have the financial resources to hire someone. A case currently in the Washington Court of Appeals addresses whether a woman should have had court-appointed counsel in a proceeding at which she lost custody of her children. The Washington State Bar Association is considering whether to file an amicus brief in the case, In re Marriage of King. (See Trial Ad Notes post.)

Small claims courts are set up for people to handle their own cases. In fact, in some matters, people may not be represented. So it’s not surprising that a study in Utah (2006) found 99% of the petitioners and 99% of respondents in small claims court were self-represented.

For civil cases overall, a New Hampshire study (2004) found at least one party was self-represented in 85% of cases in district court and 48% of cases in superior court.

A California study (2004) reported 4.3 million self-represented court users.

  Yesterday, Greg Beck asked “Can Everything You Search Be Used Against You?“, in a posting at the Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Dec. 26, 2006).   Worries over the data collected and retained by search engines about their users — Personally Identifiable Information (PII) — made a lot of news in 2006, when the Justice Department obtained data from AOL, Yahoo, and MSN on millions of search queries in support of the government’s defense of the Child Online Protection Act.  At that time, Google resisted the broad data request.

Beck’s posting at CLPB describes a recent criminal case in federal court, where evidence was used about Google Searches made by the defendant on topics related to the crime (which involved breaking into a wireless network service and interfering with other users). The conviction was upheld by the 7th Circuit court of appeals, in United States v. Schuster.  (see Declan McCullagh’s CNET article “Google searches nab wireless hacker,” Dec. 20, 2006, for more details)

We can’t offer you any legal strategies for quashing subpoenas aimed at search engines, or striking the fruits of such discovery in your trial.  We can remind you, nonetheless, as Greg Beck notes: “Google has acknowledged that it can trace searches back to a particular computer or, in some cases, to a particular user.”  The information would allow Google, prosecutors, or opponents in a civil suit to reconstruct your searches and to know which search result links you clicked.   As the World Privacy Forum explains (”Search Engine Privacy Tips,” Aug. 17, 2006):

“People often view search engines as benign blank boxes to which they can pose any question they want and not suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Search engines large and small typically keep logs of users’ search terms, with some search engines going further and matching those terms to your computer address, your name, and other items, depending on how much information you have shared with the search engine.

“Before you type your search terms into a search engine box or register for extra services at a search engine, please be aware of the potential consequences. Searches can come back to haunt you, especially if they are problematic and can be tied directly to you in some way.”

  You can help yourself avoid difficultues by watching what you search for, cleaning up your cookies, and perhaps using an anonymizing tool.  If you click to see the rest of this posting, you will find a list of webpages and articles offering strategies to use in keeping your search engine activities private or anonymous (whether from housemates, government investigators, or litigation opponents):

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Page 13 of this month’s ‘Montana Lawyer’ (pdf, 40 pg.) features the 2006 pro bono report compiled by a VISTA working with the State Bar. His report concludes that the two most effective organized pro bono programs come from court-administered (read: mandated) programs like in Silver Bow County (Butte) and local-firm administered programs like in Billings. What are the most effective ways of galvanizing attorney support in your area?

The court-administered program in Butte simply uses an alphabetical list of attorneys who are members of the local bar organization. Clerks of court and other employees of the judicial system contact the next lawyer on the list when a pro bono need arises, only severely mitigating circumstances (upcoming trial dates or illness) are permitted to excuse an attorney from his/her duty. When local attorneys do not cooperate, the 2nd Judicial District Judges then make the calls which most often results in full cooperation. Essentially, the program is effective due to the top-level support offerred by the Judges and their court staff.

Billings’ successful pro bono program can be attributed to the firm-administered policies by Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, whose attorneys averaged almost 40 hours of legal advice or representation administered without any expectation of fees. Although Rule 6.1 of Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that it is each attorney’s professional responsibility to provide 50 hours of pro bono service, it is neither a requirement nor enforcable by existing State Bar practices. The Crowley firm’s commitment to service is thus highly commendable and should serve as a model for other firms.

What does this report have to do with self-representation? Well, the more attorneys are involved with free legal services, the higher the likelihood that Montana will begin to take the legislative steps necessary to allow for activities like unbundled legal services and lawyer staffed self-help workstations. The more firms and courts are recognized for their commitment to service, the more incentive exists for lawyers to provide pro bono hours any way they can. As of now, only one courthouse workstation (in the state capital of Helena) can be maintained due to a dearth of volunteers. Montana Legal Services Association has made an effort to open a second workstation in the University town of Missoula, where law students can provide the volunteer hours necessary to sustain such an endeavour. But MLSA can only do so much, and because attorneys exist and are encouraged to provide service everywhere in Montana, they are a relatively untapped yet potentially valuable resource for the pro se community.

Because unbundling is yet to take off in Montana, the report also notes that pro bono representation is an effective means of relieving the pro se docket, especially in family law cases for which the Bar offers discounted or free resources in the form of Form Books and a mentoring service through which pro bono lawyers can receive advice from more expereinced attorneys who have dealt with the nuances of specific case types. What kind of resources are offered by your local bar to assist attorneys and how do these relate to the pro se litigant?

If excessive Christmas-related consumption has left you too frazzled to join the shopping mall mob scene on Boxing Day 2006, you should perhaps count your blessings.  (update, 10 PM: And, be thankful you weren’t a sales clerk on “returns day,” like Bob Newhart circa 1957 - “Near death of a salesman,” New York Times, Dec. 26, 2006) Rather than hunt for a parking space, stay parked at your computer a little longer, and take advantage of some free tips we’ve discovered around the internet for the wise consumer, giftee, and/or taxpayer:

 Consumer World’s Annual Return Policy Survey — The CW report says “If you must battle the crowds this week on the return lines, expect stores to continue to enforce complicated and restrictive return policies. In Consumer World’s annual survey of return policies, the secret limits to keep you off the “returners blacklist” are revealed, the extended deadlines for holiday returns are listed, as well as tips for many happy returns.” Remember

Consumer rights vary from state to state with respect to product returns. Generally speaking, a store can set up any return policy it wants, whether it is “all sales final”, “merchandise credit only”, or “all returns in 30 days”. Most states require the policy to be clearly disclosed to the buyer prior to purchase, usually by means of a sign. Some states do not consider a disclosure that only appears on the sales receipt to meet this requirement. It is not unreasonable, however, to require customers to provide a sales slip or gift receipt to establish where and when the item was purchased, and at what price.

  Click to find state and local consumer protection offices.  A lot of civil servants are taking annual leave this week, but I’m sure they’ll be able to help with unsolved consumer issues when they return in 2007.  Of course, self-helpers can often find information on their rights, and answers to problems, directly at the government websites.

afterthought (Dec. 27, 2006):  “If a retailer didn’t deliver as promised or if you feel you’ve been ripped off, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has some tips for you,” on a page called Problems with Holiday Purchases?.  If you suspect the business may have broken the law, you can file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, by calling the FTC toll-free at 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357) or file a complaint online at www.ftc.gov.  Of course, you shouldn’t “make a federal case” out of every consumer disappointment.  The FTC advises:

Get Satisfaction
If you have an unsatisfactory shopping experience, the best course of action is to contact the retailer. Look for an address to write to or a phone number to call. If you’ve never heard of the seller, check on its location and reputation with the Better Business Bureau or the state attorney general’s office.

If you’re dissatisfied with the way the matter is handled, take your business elsewhere in the future. However, it is important to recognize that while some business practices - such as notifying the consumer that the order will be delayed in a less-timely manner than the consumer may like - may be poor customer service - they’re not necessarily against the law.

  If our links on Gift Cards don’t answer all your related questions, you might want to see the Wall Street Journal article “Sell or swap gift cards,” Dec. 24, 2006.  Don’t contribute to the expected total of $3.5 billion in unused gift cards.  The WSJ article links to sites that let you sell or swap or purchase gift cards that just didn’t fit the recipient.

  Thinking of buying an automobile at those much-advertised year-end sales?  Stop first at the Consumer Reports list of best and worst year-end auto deals.

  If last-minute donations are part of your year-end tax reduction plans, don’t forget to asceratin whether your target is a tax-qualified charity, using the iRS Charity Search. Also, remember that “Recent Tax Law Changes May Affect People Giving to Charity: IRS Offers Tips for Year-End Donations” (Dec. 14, 2006). For example:

• Rules for Clothing and Household Items (IR-2006-192, Dec. 14, 2006) “To be deductible, clothing and household items donated to charity after Aug. 17, 2006, must be in good used condition or better.”
• Also, the Illinois CPA Society offers tips to consider doing before December 31 to help save money and minimize your 2006 tax bill, in their Top 10 Year-End Tax Tips sheet

 Finally, if your brother-in-law tried to impress you over turkey yesterday, with a long list of ways for you to totally avoid taxes, you may want to read (or send him) the IRS Tax Scams/Consumer Alert webpage.   Better yet, download the 64-page “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (Nov. 30, 2006).

 Blawg Review’s Anonymous Editor and Christmas Angel: For two years, I’ve had the pleasure of frequent typo alerts, pointers to items of interest, and words of encouragement, from Ed, the anonymous person who created and edits Blawg Review, the original carnival of law-related weblogs.  I’ve been amazed over how thoroughly and consistently he covers the world of lawyer weblogging (and beyond).   I’ve called Ed my “guardian angel” at times, but never knew his angel duties were global, and in partnership with that other all-seeing and omni-present creature of myth, Santa Claus. 

Their unique joint venture became apparent for all to see this morning, when Angelonymous Ed and his alter ego Santa Claus presented the Blawg Review Awards 2006.  Awards are given for the best law weblogs in numerous categories. “The list isn’t exhaustive, . . . .  But those law blogs that have been given awards this year are certainly worth your attention. In many cases, they’re obvious choices. But there are a few surprises.”

Blawg Review Awards 2006

Forget the false shows of modesty, the Shlep Team is far too pleased to downplay our bright new Blawg Review Award 2006 — “Best Law Blog In the Public Interest.”  It is a great honor to receive this particular award, which goes to the heart of our mission: presenting consistently useful information that will allow the public to be both better aware of its rights and better able to assert them and achieve meaningful and affordable access to justice (with or without lawyers). 

More important, the award is a big nudge for the shlep Team to build on our four-month foundation, by consistently providing materials of high-quality, that are of practical use for consumers and practitioners, interesting enough to keep readers coming back often, and helpful resources for those seeking answers through search engines.  [It it also a great opportunity to point out once again that the Editor continues to seek a co-Editor — or two – who will contribute a significant amount of time, knowledge and enthusiasm to making shlep fresh and timely every day.]

Many worthy law weblogs were honored in Blawg Rewiew Awards 2006, and deserve your attention.   Of the more substantive awards, I’d like to call you attention to, and congratulate those that you will find below “under the fold.”   Long-time weblogger buddies Carolyn Elefant, Robert Ambrogi, Evan Schaeffer, Denise Howell, Walter Olson, and J. Craig Williams get a special personal Hat Tip.  

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Our Self-Help Santa dropped off a bundle of issues yesterday that we’ve seen before here at shlep.  Rather than further interrupt our last-minute wrapping and packing, we’re going to quickly say “Have a great, self-actualized, Merry Christmas,” and pass these chestnuts on to you while they’re still warm.

   In a post Friday morning at Overlawyered.com, titled “Teri Smith Tyler v. Carter, pro se” (Dec. 22, 2006), Walter Olson outdid his website teammate Ted Frank’s recent recycling of stale pro se case.  As we noted four days ago, Ted spotlighted the “whacky,” two-year-old, Ward v. Arm & Hammer case last week (as did ATL’s David Lat).  Walter took his time machine back yet another decade, after a reader reminded him of the Tyler case (opinion, 151 F.R.D. 537), which was decided in the Southern District of New York in 1993. 

According to Judge Charles S. Haight,  Ms. Tyler filed a complaint “alleging a bizarre conspiracy involving the defendants to enslave and oppress certain segments of our society. Plaintiff contends she is a cyborg, and that she received most of the information which forms the basis for her complaint, through ‘proteus’, which I read to be some silent, telepathic form of communication.”  It’s another amusing pro se suit, alright, but — as I wrote in a Comment at Overlawyered — Walter left out two very important points:

• The need to drag up such an old decision helps demonstrates just how rare these “whacky” pro se cases are in reality; and
• Judge Haight handled this case appropriately, creating a very good precedent.  Explaining why he chose to dismiss the case sua sponte [on his own, rather than at the request of the parties] as frivolous, Judge Haight’s opinion states:  “A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense. . . . The author of claims as irrational as these cannot be regarded as subject to the economic incentive to refrain from frivolous actions imposed by filing fees and court costs upon rational paying litigants. Similarly, a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint such as this cannot reasonably be said to deprive such a plaintiff of the opportunity of “clarifying his factual allegations so as to conform with the requirements of a valid legal cause of action.” Neitzke [v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319] at 329-30.  If this Court cannot order sua sponte dismissal of this complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), no district court can ever dismiss sua sponte any complaint under the Rule.  I do not think that is the law.”

The right to file your case without a lawyer is no different than all the other rights we have as Americans: it can and will be abused on occasion, but it is far too important and central to our liberties to be unreasonably curtailed in general in an attempt to prevent the rare abuses.  When everyone can be his or her own lawyer, some folk might think we are indeed “way overlawyered,” but we shleppers believe it means that we’re marvelously un-lawyered when we choose to be.

    Meanwhile, over at Volokh Conspiracy (the well-deserved winner as the Best Law Blog in The 2006 Weblog Awards), Todd Zywicki wonders “Why Such a Large Drop in Bankruptcy Filings?” (Dec. 20, 2006; via Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch)  Prof. Zywicki posits a few possible reasons and asks readers for their ideas and Comments.  As we stated in our “bankruptcy law self-help” posting on Oct. 16, much of the reduction in filing since the new bankruptcy law went into affect in 2004 can surely be explained by the public’s misunderstanding of the bankruptcy new Act (BAPCPA) — a situation welcomed by many proponents of the so-called reform.  Far too many people do not understand that Sec. 7 is still available to anyone making less than the median income in their state. In addition, potential bankruptcy petitioners are often deterred these days by the new, higher fees charged by lawyers since the more-complicated BAPCPA procedures went into effect. (also see the Comment to the VC post by Scott B. Riddle, of the Georgia Bankruptcy Law Blog)

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

I just came across a site with resources about dog law and less than a week ago I adopted a dog, so this seems like a good time to highlight a few dog-related sites.

Dog Law is a product of Nolo (we can’t stop saying great things about that publisher!), Justia (a site with legal information by a company that does web design and legal marketing), and Little Sheba the Hug Pug (a dog associated with Justia). So far, it appears that Little Sheba hasn’t provided much content but — good news for readers! — Mary Randolph, the author of Nolo’s Every Dog’s Legal Guide, has. (You might have heard of the book as Dog Law, the title title of its first four editions.) The site addresses:

State and Local Regulation - covers information you need to know to own your dog within the law of your locality. This includes information about dog licenses, getting your dog vaccinated, leash laws, pooper-sooper laws and more…

Landlords and Dogs - covers what you need to know to have dog in your apartment, including negotiating a fair lease, dogs and elderly or disabled tenants, the enforceability of no pet clauses, landlord liability for illegal evictions, landlord liability for their tenants’ dogs and more…

Traveling With Your Dog covers dog travel, including airline travel, international travel, travel in the car, travel on public transportation (buses and trains) and more…

Barking Dogs covers dealing with neighbors, animal control and the police, as well as covering local and state laws and more…

Providing for Pets includes strategies for taking care of pets, why you can’t leave money to dogs (and what happens if you try) and more…

Dog Bites - includes information about dog bite prevention, dog owner liability, other potential liable parties, bringing a lawsuit, Dog-Bite Statutes and more…

Dangerous Dogs - includes information about - dangerous dog laws, criminal penalties for owners of dangerous dogs, and breed-specific restrictions.

One thing the site doesn’t appear to have much on (yet) is service animals (a topic someone asked me about yesterday). See Commonly Asked Questions about Service Animals in Places of Business (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section). Check to see if your own state has something similar. For instance, in my state the Washington State Human Rights Commission has Service Animal Questions. (By the way, the prosecutor’s office here has two service dogs who help with vulnerable witnesses, often children who have been the victims of sexual or physical abuse. See my post at Trial Ad Notes.)
Other resources:

• Animal advocacy groups often include information about legal developments. For instance, the Humane Society of the United States has sections on federal legislation, state legislation, and its litigation.
• Animallaw.com, from the Internation Institute for Animal Law “provides access to legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of animals. AnimalLaw.com supports information concerning animal cruelty, animal control, laboratory animal welfare, the use of animals in education, product testing and in the laboratory, animal control issues, and general animal welfare.”
• The Animal Legal Defense Fund has a page of Do-It-Yourself Resources.

Since it’s that time of year, it doesn’t hurt to pass along the Humane Society’s cautions that puppies don’t always make good gifts. See How Much Is that Doggy in the Window?, Dec. 4, 2006. (Our new dog is our gift to ourselves — but we’ve adopted from the same rescue organization before and knew just what we were committing to.)

Happy holidays, and many tail wags to all!

For most of us, this holiday season revolves around visiting grandparents or remembering such visits from our youth.  For a small percentage of children, however, whether they get to see grandparents is a decision being made by family court judges, with grandparent rights being pitted against those of parents who want to deny or restrict such visitation. Just yesterday (Dec. 20, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review a recent Pennsylvania case, Hiller v. Fausey, involving grandparent visitation. (see How Appealing, whose editor represents Fausey, the parent who lost below)

The Fausey v. Hiller Petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify an issue left unresolved in its landmark grandparent visitation case Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated when a court orders grandparent visitation over a fit parent’s objection, where the grandparent has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that such an order is necessary to prevent harm or potential harm to the child.

Like any good petition for a writ of certiorari, the Fausey Petition has a useful summary of the split among the state courts and legislatures over whether and when the decision of a fit parent can be overridden by a court “in the best interests of the child.”  

  AARP’s Grandparenting webpage

If you would like more information on this topic, you should check out:  a) AARP’s Grandparent Visitation page, which includes suggestions for avoiding these issues down the road or resolving them out of court; b) the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Hiller v. Fausey, linked at the FamilyLawProfs weblog, which give a summary of the issues and policies involved — looking at the rights of parents, grandparents and children; c) a recent summary at the California Family Law Blog; and d) the Sept. 12, 2006 USA Today article, “Recent rulings favor grandparents.”

 Some court self-help websites may also help you to understand the law as it exists in a particular state.  And, as always, your law or public librarian should be able to help you find relevant materials on grandparent visitation.

A $15,000 grant by the Foundation of the State Bar of California will help to expand a program that helps grandparents who want to be named guardians for their grandchildren.  The grant is going to the Superior Court of California’s Self Help Assistance and Referral Program (SHARP).

According to an article in the Oroville [CA] Mercury-Register, “Grant funds grandparent guardianship program” (Dec. 20, 2006), court staff have observed ”a recent dramatic increase in grandparents seeking completion of the legal guardianship process. The 2000 California Census showed that 6.8 percent of all children under 18 years of age in California lived in grandparent-headed households.” 

“The approved grant allows the [s]elf-help program to provide informational seminars and presentations by local practitioners (judges/attorneys) to grandparents seeking guardianship. Additionally, SHARP will frequently offer a slower-paced three-hour workshop given by a local attorney geared specifically towards grandparents. The award funds production of a video and written material on grandparent guardianship to be shared with other community organizations, self-help centers, and governmental agencies. 

You can learn more about SHARP programs (including Kinship Care assistance and guardianship clinic) at the website of the Glenn County Superior Court.  As we noted in a prior post, SHARP serves self-represented litigants in three rural Calirfornia counties via videoconferencing workshops. “The centers offer procedural help with certain legal issues, as well as self-help resources and computers.  SHARP’s managing attorney conducts topical workshops by videoconference so that clients at all of the centers can participate simultaneously.” 

• update (2 PM): You can find information on the kinship foster care policies (concerning grandparents or other relatives) of each state, and other issues affecting grandparents, through this Grandparenting Fact Sheet page from AARP.

Our Teammate Mary Whisner is hoping to create a shlep relay event, by tagging the rest of us with the “5 Things You Didn’t Know about Me Meme.”  Taggees are expected to “list 5 things about yourself that your blog’s readers are unlikely to know, and then tag 5 other people to do the same.” You will learn a lot about the multi-talented Mary Whisner in her ”5 things about me, ” (Trial Ad Notes, Dec. 19, 2006.  (For another About Me example, see Legal Andrew, “I’m It!“)

  Earlier this year, I was cursed honored by a similar tagging at my dagosan’s haiku diary, where I was infected burdened blessed with the Weird-Tag – which requires a list of 5 of your weird habits your readers might not know about.  Because the dagosan weblog features only haiku poetry, I transferred that tag obligation to my multi-faceted site, f/k/a, where I wrote “i’m just not that weird (honest),” in an attempt to postpone making that list.

Prof. Yabut, Self-Help-Tag Facilitator

Four days later, when I hadn’t fulflled the Weird Tag requirements, Prof. Yabut, one of my f/k/a alter egos, stuck his nose in facilitated my reply, by writing the prolix (not pro se) posting “yes, prof. yabut can be quite weird” (Feb. 12, 2006).  It includes such nuggets as Aging Up, Backseat Desire, and Dangerous Pizza. 

 To be honest, that’s all the confessing I’m willing to do for one year, so the curious should head over to that posting at f/k/a, where my weird-soul is bared. (Please excuse the formatting problems over there, caused by migrating to a new webserver and weblog software.)

• Like Mary, I’m not fond of Chain Letters, so I’m not going to do any further About-Me-tagging.  The poor response rate, last February, to my Weird-Tagging also suggests that passing along this project to involuntary taggees is not a win-win situation.  Of course, the rest of the shlep team is expected to show appropriate team spirit, by spilling their guts out for the edification of the Team and of our readers.  I encourage any one else who wants to participate to do so, and to let us know when you do.