March 25, 2025 • 43 mins
A powerful government agency with minimal oversight. Children separated from parents based on personal conflicts. Social workers who lie in court reports with no consequences. This isn't dystopian fiction—it's the reality of child welfare systems across America.
Sean McMillan, a pioneering civil rights attorney, pulls back the curtain on one of the most devastating abuses of power affecting families today: judicial deception in child protective services. After stumbling into this specialized practice through a case referred by his father, McMillan discovered a pattern of constitutional violations that permanently alter lives yet receive little public attention.
"The only method of escalation they have is take your kid," McMillan explains, highlighting the dangerous power imbalance when undertrained, unlicensed social workers develop personal conflicts with parents. Unlike police officers with extensive training and oversight, these government employees can separate families based on subjective impressions rather than genuine safety concerns. Even more troubling, those who fabricate evidence rarely face consequences—many receive promotions or simply transfer to different departments.
Through landmark cases that have changed policies across California, McMillan fights for parents caught in a system designed to justify its own actions rather than protect children appropriately. His $4.9 million verdict for a mother who lost her children for six and a half years after a minor disagreement with a social worker exemplifies the life-altering consequences of unchecked government power.
For anyone navigating the family court system, concerned about civil rights, or simply interested in how justice functions when the playing field is dramatically uneven, this episode offers crucial insights from someone devoting his career to holding powerful institutions accountable. McMillan's work reminds us that true justice requires not just legal expertise but the courage to challenge systems that harm those they claim to protect.
Want more glamor during your grind? New episodes every Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
Download the full podcast here:
Follow @glamorousgrindpodcast on Social Media:
https://www.instagram.com/glamorousgrindpodcast/
https://www.tiktok.com/@glamorousgrindpodcast
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mila (00:00):
God forbid.
There's a person in a situationwhere their children are taken
from them by Child ProtectiveServices, what do you do?
Shawn (00:09):
As attorneys, our clients .
They really put all of theirtrust.
Ilona (00:14):
People don't listen to children.
Sometimes the child isexplaining what's happening and
then, because court didn't likemy client, the child wasn't
believed.
How do you prove?
Mila (00:23):
someone is lying.
Shawn (00:25):
Something is needed.
There are kids out there thatneed help.
Ilona (00:29):
Welcome to the Glamorous Grind where grit meets glamour
and law is always in style.
I'm Alona Antonian, a trialattorney and a certified family
law specialist.
Mila (00:39):
And I'm Mila Aratunian, a trial attorney who specializes
in employment and personalinjury law.
We are lawyers friends and yourgo-to guides for real-life
legal drama.
Ilona (00:51):
Every week, we're diving into unforgettable cases,
sharing inspiring personalstories and keeping you in the
loop on what drives us,motivates us.
Mila (00:59):
So, whether you're chasing your dreams or just here for a
captivating story, grab yourfavorite drink, because we are
serving up insight, wit and atouch of style, it's law, it's
life, it's a glamorous grind.
Ilona (01:21):
Hey everyone, welcome back.
We're so excited about today'sepisode.
We have a truly inspiring guestjoining us, someone who's not
only made a name for himself inthe legal world, but is also a
passionate advocate for civilrights.
My good friend.
Mila (01:35):
Sean McMillan is here.
His career is such a testamentto hard work and dedication.
He's worked on high-profilecases, fought for children and
families in the child protectionsystem and has earned countless
accolades for his trial work.
Ilona (01:50):
He has taken his skills from business litigation and
translated them into a powerfulforce for change in civil rights
law.
It's not just about winningcases.
It's about using the law totruly impact lives.
Mila (02:03):
So if you're looking for some real inspiration about
following your passions, makingan impact and doing the hard
work it takes to succeed, thisepisode is definitely for you.
Get ready and join us inwelcoming Sean.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
It's an absolute privilege tohave you here today.
Why don't you tell us a littlebit about yourself?
Shawn (02:23):
Sure Well, first, thanks for having me.
I don't know about privilege,but you specialize in suing CWS.
Ilona (02:29):
Can you tell us more about that?
Shawn (02:31):
What I specialize in.
I refer to it more asconstitutional laws.
Fourth and Fourteenth AmendmentPeople who aren't attorneys, I
think, are more familiar withChild Protective Services or
Child Protective Agencies, andthat's who I sue.
Generally we sue them when acaseworker has a conflict of
some sort with a parent.
They'll do things like lieabout them in their reports to
(02:54):
justify whatever escalationhappened, and usually the
escalation is they took yourkids and so we do a lot of that.
We call that judicial deceptionand that's where they'll either
lie or suppress materialexculpatory evidence in their
reports from the court.
I've seen that happen in myfamily law cases.
Ilona (03:11):
And one specifically.
I'm going to have that clientas a guest in our show in the
near future.
But you know it was a battlefor over nine years.
She finally got her daughterback.
It was through family courtmostly, but child welfare
services.
They didn't like her too muchand I attended several of their
meetings and interviews.
I mean to the point where I hadto poke my client with a pen,
(03:35):
like, okay, just behave Like.
I know you're passionate andyour truth is.
Her truth was the truth.
But you got to carry yourself acertain way because it's so
easy to make enemies.
If they don't like you for somereason, they can side with the
other parent who can be a totalass and bad to their children,
(03:55):
but present absolutelydifferently in front of third
parties and be manipulative withCWS and they'll write reports
in their favor.
Shawn (04:03):
It's not even necessarily that it's.
This is the problem with thesocial workers.
Number one they're not cops,right?
So they don't get the sametraining, they don't have the
same level of professionalism.
And I'm not saying all policeare great.
I mean, we have our examplesout there that you see on the
news, stuff like that.
But generally speaking, I thinkthat police do a pretty good
(04:25):
job.
They're highly trained, they'revery well supervised, all eyes
are on them.
But you can't equate socialworkers with cops.
They don't get that level oftraining, they don't get that
level of supervision and they'renot licensed.
They're not like licensedclinical social workers.
They don't have that same levelof professionalism and they are
human.
So you have to recognize that.
(04:46):
And I would say the vastmajority of my judicial
deception cases came out offamily law custody battles where
one parent calls socialservices.
It doesn't matter which parent,it's the same issue Social
services will come out and thesocial worker, being human
that's not as professional as wemight like and not as well
(05:07):
trained as we might like willinteract with those parents.
And if the parents don't givethem sufficient respect or
aren't sufficiently deferential,they'll immediately develop a
bad impression.
Maybe If one of the parents ismaybe highly educated, knows
what their rights are, andstarts sort of throwing that
kind of language around thesocial worker.
(05:28):
The only method of escalationthey have is take your kid.
Really, that's all.
They have Police, they have allkinds of things they can do.
Social workers don't have that.
The only thing they have istaking your kid.
And once they make thatdecision to take your kid, if
they don't justify it, they knowthey're in trouble.
Ilona (05:48):
And often, when I looked at CWS reports, they'll have
summaries of conversationsrather than specific quotes, and
sometimes, if a client insists,they'll let you record the
meeting, although they may notlike it.
And most of the meetings are notrecorded right.
And then if you're in familycourt and you obtain CWS records
(06:11):
, first of all it's really hardbecause they're confidential and
they're protected.
So by the time you get them, bythe time you get the judge to
look at them, then you read themand you have to bring those
social workers to court and thensome of them may work at that
point for the government, somemay not.
They don't have their notes,they don't bring the notes, and
(06:31):
then they always support thestatements they've put in,
although they may not haverecollection.
But there's no specific quote,just their summaries.
Shawn (06:38):
And if they formed a negative impression against one
of the parties, not based onfacts but on personal feelings,
yeah, they'll sort of tailortheir summary to fit whatever
narrative it is they want toadvance to the court to support
whatever their earlier decisionwas.
That's generally what we see.
Ilona (07:00):
You know that movie that was on Netflix.
Shawn (07:03):
Oh, is that the Gabriel Fernandez?
Yes, Gabriel.
Ilona (07:06):
Fernandez, have you seen it?
Shawn (07:08):
I haven't seen it.
I know about it, I've heardabout it.
I was following that when itwas all happening.
A lot of the cases I generallyknow about them or see them or
sometimes consult on them, justbecause there are so few people
nationwide actually that do thiswork that eventually I know
this sounds kind of cocky orwhatever, but all roads in this
(07:30):
area eventually lead to me.
Ilona (07:32):
Now, not all social workers are bad, but there are a
few that kind of go there, dotheir job and leave and they
don't really care as much, andthat's why these low-.
Shawn (07:40):
Yeah they're not all bad.
Ilona (07:41):
Yeah.
Mila (07:42):
Well, and I think that probably sometimes it's not that
they're bad per se, it's justlike you said, they're not
well-trained or they're human.
They can be biased and I thinkbias training-.
Shawn (07:54):
Bias is huge.
It's huge, it's huge in childwelfare services and that is
what we see mostly in thejudicial deception or
retaliation type cases.
I had one up in Orange Countyit's actually the first one I
ever did Basically what hadhappened.
There's this lady, former MissCalifornia, beautiful woman,
(08:15):
very intelligent, highlyeducated, and she is in a
custody battle with her husbandand I don't remember exactly how
social services got involved,but they did, and there was a
conflict between the line-levelworker not even the supervisor,
the line-level worker and themom, and it wasn't, from the
mom's perspective, even really aconflict.
(08:37):
She was just explaining thesituation and the social worker
took an attitude with her andthey kind of got into a not even
a yelling match.
It was just sort of a strongconversation.
The social worker got upset,ran into court and said that mom
had attacked her or somethinglike that to the judge, and the
judge issued a forthwith removalorder right there on the spot,
(09:01):
said go get the kids right now.
This is, we're done with this.
And she lost her kids for sixand a half years.
And so she called me up andsaid will you do this case?
And I said no, I won't do that.
That's dumb.
I mean, of course the ladyprobably did something bad.
That's why they took her kidand so I rejected it.
I'd never done a civil rightscase.
(09:21):
I had no idea constitutionallaw was something you study in
law school.
So I get this call like threedays later from my dad and I'm
in the shower, I'm like allsoapy and my wife comes in and
she says it's an emergency.
You got to talk to your dad.
I was all shit.
I thought somebody died and soI rinse off.
I get out.
I was like, yeah, what's up?
He's, oh, this lady's going tocall you in like five minutes.
(09:44):
So she calls.
My dad told me I already talkedto her.
I already told her that youwould take her case.
Mila (09:51):
That sounds like something my mom would do.
Shawn (09:54):
What do you do?
I mean, it's your dad, right?
Mila (09:57):
Was that your first case?
Is that how you got into thefield?
Shawn (09:59):
That's how I got in the field, wow, and what happened?
Did you win?
Yeah, we got a unanimousverdict.
It's $4.9 million a five-weekjury trial up in Orange County.
They appealed it and they loston appeal and then they did a
petition for cert to the SupremeCourt and that got rejected.
That was a scary story.
By then, yeah, they had taken a$4.9 million verdict and turned
(10:23):
it into a $10 million judgment,just with interest and
attorney's fees.
Mila (10:27):
Just for our viewers.
I want to just explain how insome cases you can get, in
addition to whatever juryverdict you receive from the
jury you can get any attorney'sfees for time you spent on the
case, for legal fees you spenton the case.
You can actually do that alsoin employment law in California.
Right, for legal fees you spenton the case.
You can actually do that alsoin employment law in California
and the legislature puts thesethings in place so that
(10:49):
attorneys are incentivized totake hard cases.
Shawn (10:53):
Right, right, that's exactly.
Tell the judges, though.
Ilona (10:56):
They always want to cut you back.
You probably ought to take alot of depositions.
Shawn (11:01):
Oh yeah.
Ilona (11:02):
So how much do you have to put out of pocket?
If this was a contingency caseto prevail ultimately.
Shawn (11:08):
I think in that case we had like 30 depositions.
They were a lot cheaper backthen than they are now.
I think it was probably $2,500per depo.
Mila (11:17):
Well and again.
I just want to explain, just forour viewers, that whenever a
law firm or an attorney takes acase on contingency which means
that they don't charge theclient anything but they take a
percentage of whatever they endup getting for the case, they
have to pay, most of the time,all of the costs out of pocket.
So everything they do, everydeposition they take, they have
(11:42):
to invest their own money totake those depositions.
So 30 depositions if they were$2,500 per deposition, I mean,
I'm not a mathematician butthat's a lot of money.
And then you have to pay foreach of the transcripts.
Sometimes you have to paywitness fees for like them
coming out and participating inthe deposition.
(12:02):
If you hire experts, that'smore costs.
So it's a very expensiveinvestment when you have a lot
of witnesses in a case.
So I want to ask you onequestion because I'm like my
mind is still stuck there whenyou were talking about that
civil rights case and the womanlost her kids for six years.
Shawn (12:19):
Yeah, six and a half.
Mila (12:20):
To me not as a lawyer but as a mom it is insanity that
someone would lose out on sixyears of raising their kids.
I mean as a mom.
I mean my oldest is eight, butyou have such a limited time
with your kids 18 years isnothing, and after like 10, they
don't even want to hang outwith you.
(12:40):
So these people have to fightthese government agencies just
to have their children.
It's not like they're fighting.
It's insane to me.
How do you deal with theemotional toll that all of that
comes with?
Shawn (12:58):
It's not actually easy.
I can tell you this particularcase.
I didn't really believe theclient.
I thought it was all crap.
But it was another trial and Iwas chasing trials at the time
and it wasn't until thedefendants started putting up
their case that it hit me that,oh shit, this really happened.
You know, these witches reallydid do what the client said they
(13:23):
did and I had this tremendousfeeling of guilt as attorneys
our clients they really put allof their trust.
I just had this feeling that Icompletely failed this lady, and
so I worked really hard.
But by the end it worked outLike I said, we got a unanimous
jury verdict and it was a goodverdict at the time.
Ilona (13:46):
What was the cause of action?
Negligence.
Shawn (13:49):
No, it was 42 USC Section 1983.
It was a violation of her 14thAmendment rights.
Ilona (13:53):
Okay.
Shawn (13:54):
Yeah, the social workers lied about her, basically denied
her due process and, as aresult, she lost her kids for
six and a half years.
Ilona (14:01):
I remember a days I did a few jury trials myself earlier
in my career and when you'restuck like that in trial and you
don't get any sleep.
I remember after one of mytrials ended up going to Las
Vegas to a conference and justlike walking.
I always remember this momentwhen I'm on a bridge from wind
(14:21):
going across and I rememberfeeling sun touching my skin and
the warmth and I was sograteful for good weather and to
be out in the sun and I stillfeel that moment of how good it
felt to be free.
Shawn (14:38):
You're free just for that moment.
Mila (14:40):
Yeah, so it sounds like there aren't a lot of attorneys
that handle these types ofmatters.
Shawn (14:45):
There's not.
Mila (14:46):
And I would assume that it's because of all of the
obstacles in bringing claimsagainst CPS, just like other
governmental entities, becausethey have so many immunities,
and especially in a case likethis where it's a lot of he said
, she said.
Shawn (15:01):
Yeah.
Mila (15:01):
So how do you like overcome those?
Talk to us a little bit aboutsome of the challenges and
obstacles ensuing thesegovernmental entities the
shucking and jiving man.
Shawn (15:12):
Back then there was really no Ninth Circuit case law
that focused on this judicialdeception question of whether or
not a social worker can lie intheir reports.
There was really nothing outthere.
And right as I was puttingtogether our opposition, a new
case came out of the NinthCircuit.
It was like days before myopposition was due.
(15:34):
It got published on Lexis andit was called Beltran versus
County of Santa Clara.
So I saw that.
I looked at who the attorneywas.
I called the guy up and said,hey, can I have your briefing?
And so he sent me all his stuff.
His name's Bob Powell.
Mila (15:47):
I love it when they do that yeah.
Shawn (15:48):
So he sent me all of his stuff and it was a published
decision and so I took that.
That's what I argued.
Ilona (15:57):
It's kind of surprising that the court, even on that
level, would rule that thegovernment can lie when they're
there to protect children andthat it's okay for them to have
immunity and do whatever thehell they want and just get away
with it.
Shawn (16:10):
Up until 2007, social workers were given massive
leeway because the idea was thatthey act as prosecutors and we
give prosecutors prosecutorialimmunity, so anything connected
with that judicial process ofprosecuting they're immune and
that was what they were applyingto social workers.
But social workers have twofunctions really.
(16:31):
One is investigatory right andthe other is sort of
prosecutorial, in that they makea decision about whether or not
to initiate a dependencypetition or dependency
proceeding, and that decisionitself.
We can't sue them for it,because the decision to initiate
the process is prosecutorial innature.
(16:52):
But every other thing they dois not.
Mila (16:56):
Well then my question would be how do you prove
someone is lying, Like if, forexample, in this case they look
like liars Like if, for example,in this case, but if they state
like someone is, you know,hostile or aggressive towards
them, that could be a subjectiveopinion and maybe to them
they're telling the truth andthey believe that.
And again it goes back tobiases, and so many biases are
(17:17):
implicit.
I mean, as an employmentattorney, I've done a ton of
training on bias and bias in thelegal profession and bias in
every profession, Like from anHR perspective.
It's so important in theworkplace but it's even more
important for social workersbecause some of the biases, most
of the biases, it's not aconscious decision to dislike
someone, it's whateverfoundationally they believe.
(17:40):
They, you know, use that tomake their decisions, which
formulates their perception,which in their mind they're
telling the truth, but maybeit's not.
How do you prove that, Can you?
Shawn (17:51):
I don't think anybody who lies ever thinks they're
telling the truth.
I think where bias comes intoit and it's not bias in the
sense that we talk about biassocially, where maybe I have
implicit bias against women orHispanics I think that it's more
like a transactional bias wherefor some reason, I don't like
(18:14):
you so I am going to allow thatdislike of you, for whatever
reason, to influence or shade myview of you and the way that I
write about you, the things Isay about you, so that it's bias
, but it's not the type of biasI think that you're talking
about.
Ilona (18:33):
What do you think should be the criteria for someone to
be hired to be a social worker?
Shawn (18:40):
I think they should be police.
I don't think we should havesocial services in the way that
we have it right now.
Ilona (18:46):
I think it's a completely defective model.
What do you think would bebetter?
What would be a better model?
Shawn (18:51):
I think the better model would be that if there's child
abuse and it rises to the levelof criminality it's a crime,
then we have highly trained,highly competent, very
professional police forceavailable to go do those
investigations.
If there's child abuse, arrestthe parent and then we do
something with the child.
But the way it is right now.
(19:12):
I can give you an example.
I have a mom who lost custodyof her child or daughter
allegedly for emotional abusebecause she was texting too much
.
Mila (19:25):
The mom was texting too much With her daughter.
Shawn (19:27):
With her daughter.
Ilona (19:28):
yeah, that's so weird.
Shawn (19:30):
Exactly, that's like everything in America.
Everything has taken two stepstoo far so tell me, should that
mom have lost her child?
Yeah, of course not.
Was the social worker involveda good or solid person?
Well, maybe.
Ilona (19:43):
Well, what was the content of text messages?
Were they appropriate?
Or if it says you know you'rethis and that I'm going to kill
you, or like, really it wasn'tstuff like that.
Mila (19:52):
Threatening, yeah, but I think that.
I mean, I think that, like backin the day, our parents were a
lot harsher on us too, and nowwe are expected to be very soft
on our kids and I have parentsat, you know, my son's school
who are like, oh, my child isdoing bad in school and blame it
on the teachers.
Shawn (20:09):
Can't always not blame the teachers.
Sometimes there's stuff goingon there.
But back to your question, or Iguess not really question, but
sort of the little pushback onthe system being necessary.
Something is needed.
All right, we can all agreethat there are kids out there
that need help.
I mean there's been a massivechange in law.
(20:30):
You know there's been a coregroup of attorneys there's like
eight of us in the state that dothis work regularly, like as a
calling.
I guess it's what we do, it'sall we do, and a few of them are
here in San Diego.
There's a couple up in the BayArea and we've got it to the
point now where there's noabsolute immunity for anything
other than the decision to filea petition.
(20:51):
You get absolute immunity forthat.
And now what we're working on isbringing in these private
parties, like we have Rady'sChildren's Hospital right.
They collude with socialservices to do these medical
evaluations where they reallydon't even look at the kid, they
just look at the record andthen come up with some bullshit.
Why do they do that?
I've always assumed they getmoney for it.
Mila (21:11):
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering Probably from.
Shawn (21:12):
Medi-Cal would be my guess.
We haven't really donediscovery on that yet, but we're
looping those guys in and wehave a couple of good appellate
opinions saying that, yeah, whenthis private hospital comes in,
either under contract or someother reason, and interacts with
the government to take kids,they're going to be treated just
like a government actor.
Mila (21:32):
I love that.
Shawn (21:33):
So we can pull them in.
Now we have a bunch of lawsuitsagainst Rady Children's
Hospital for that.
Ilona (21:37):
People don't listen to children.
Sometimes At least I've noticedeven in family court In one of
my cases, like with videos, thechild is explaining what's
happening and then, because thecourt didn't like my client, the
child wasn't believed.
That my client wasn't believed,because they were saying the
same thing in the system.
Shawn (22:00):
anytime that you have people making decisions whether
it's judges or social workers,cops based on information
they're getting from otherpeople, there's always going to
be defects in judgment.
Ilona (22:14):
And relying on CWS records where there is bias.
Shawn (22:17):
I can give you a good example.
In fact, this is what we do atmy place.
When somebody brings a report,the first thing I tell them is
look for the quotes.
You find something in quotes.
Go talk to that person that'sbeing quoted.
Nine times out of ten they didnot say what they're being
quoted as saying.
It's a lie.
And the court goes into greatdetail about the importance of
(22:39):
quotes.
It says a quote means it'sverbatim what was said and it
lends an air of authenticity, ofcredibility to the report if
it's in quotes.
What that means to me is itdamn well better be true.
And when I go talk to thethird-party witness and they say
no, I never said that, I cantell you that's like half of my
(23:00):
judicial deception cases,literally.
So it happens very frequently.
Ilona (23:05):
But then that witness has to be believed and appear more
credible than the social workerthat Like a doctor.
Shawn (23:12):
They misquote doctors all the time.
I have a case like that rightnow.
We're going to be in trial inAugust downtown in the federal
district court.
The doctors never said what thesocial worker said.
Mila (23:21):
they said so it sounds like you're really trailblazing
and really changing the system.
Shawn (23:28):
I don't know that a lot's changed.
I'm still in business.
Mila (23:32):
I mean, but it sounds like there's been a lot of movement
in the law in recent years thathas made it more difficult to
pull kids from parents withoutproof, or at least to lie.
Shawn (23:45):
What I would say is it has made it easier to hold them
accountable when they do it.
Ilona (23:51):
Do they get fired?
Like all these people that yousued, they weren't involved in
some sort of you know nonsense.
Mila (23:57):
Don't say they don't get fired.
They never get fired.
You're kidding.
Shawn (24:01):
What happens?
They'll either take a lateralmove or they'll get promoted.
Mila (24:06):
Sure Promoted.
Shawn (24:08):
Promoted.
Mila (24:08):
Okay.
Shawn (24:10):
Usually into a training position where they're training
other social workers.
Mila (24:13):
No, no, don't tell me this .
No, I don't believe that.
Okay, we're opening a newpractice area.
I have a discovery.
Shawn (24:19):
I can tell you what happens to them.
They'll either get promoted orthey'll make a lateral move away
from contact with parents andchildren Because, remember, the
liability for the county isgenerated in that interface
between social worker and childor social worker and family.
So if we just take thewrongdoer and we move them
somewhere else so they're nolonger in a maybe that's a
(24:42):
hotline, so they're just takingphone calls- that would be
demotion though Hotline ordemotion no it's lateral move
Same pay, Same pay, same jobtitle same everything just
they're not with kids.
Mila (24:53):
So kind of a similar story .
I do employment law and thereare not a lot of law firms that
take on governmental entities.
Shawn (25:03):
Right.
Mila (25:04):
And you need a lot of resources to do that.
Currently we don't take onthose cases, but we will
eventually when our team issubstantial enough.
But I I have done a lot ofthose cases and they are the
worst cases that people thereact insane.
If these things happened at aprivate company, there would be
(25:24):
no second thought in my mind.
I'd be like let's do these ohyeah, guys immediately, but they
have so many immunities forcivil suits.
You know, there's first of all,there's the six-month period
where you have to yeah you haveto the government tort claims
act.
So if the plaintiff doesn't cometo me within six months of
(25:45):
whatever happened, you lose theclaims.
You could still bring themunder the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, but those claimsare limited.
There's no constructivedischarge claims against
governmental entities.
So if there's like a hostilework environment and someone has
to resign because it's so bad,they can't be there.
If it's against a privateemployer, they can still get
their lost wages.
(26:05):
It counts as if it's atermination.
Can't bring that against agovernmental entity.
There are so many wildlimitations in bringing those
claims.
And on top top of that it's thesame story where they don't get
fired they don't get fired,they get promoted or they get
moved that's government.
Shawn (26:22):
That's why we so screwed.
Mila (26:23):
And then they go oh, we did an investigation and didn't
find anything like won't producethe investigation report.
It's insane, insane.
Everything is a huge likehassle, a huge fight.
You have to file 1,000 motionswith the court and they have all
the attorney's fees.
They need to like pay out theirattorneys because our taxes are
paying for them and us, asplaintiffs, have to take it on
(26:45):
contingency.
I mean, granted, we may be ableto recover attorney's fees at
the end if it goes all the waythrough trial or you get a
really great 998.
But it's like a huge risk andyou could lose.
You don't know what's in thosereports.
Ilona (26:57):
Right.
And then most clients cannotafford to advance the cost out
of pocket and put like a $50,000deposit to pay for depositions
and filing fees and experts.
So you know you have to bepicky about what you're going to
take.
Shawn (27:11):
On these particular cases , the CPS cases.
It's mostly poor people.
You know most of my clients.
They're not making $200,000,$300,000 a year.
They can't afford a $5,000 aday depot.
They can't even afford juryfees necessarily.
Ilona (27:28):
To the point that Mila was making.
Like government has certainstandards as to whether you can
sue them or not and what causeof actions you can bring, versus
if you're a private employer inCalifornia, you are screwed.
You can get sued for anything.
You will get sued for anything,and I mean I know that now that
you joined our firm, I can seethat most businesses where
(27:48):
there's a claim brought againstthem are incentivized to settle
you know, I mean you know, youknow it happened to us before
and we fought it all the waythrough jury trial because it
was how much did you spend?
yeah, but like you have to standup for yourself, like you know
I I will not accept bullshitclaims, like I just will not.
So but point being is that forprivate businesses in California
(28:12):
the government made all kindsof laws for you to get sued
versus.
Government has differentstandards for itself, although
they invite that against privateentities.
Shawn (28:25):
Yeah, it's hard to be in business in California.
Mila (28:27):
But in some states, did you know, like, for example,
under the federal government, ifyou have under 15 employees,
you cannot be sued for likesexual harassment, for example?
Ilona (28:38):
But in California, yeah, you can.
You can be sued for anything inCalifornia.
Shawn (28:42):
Yeah, that's a problem with.
Ilona (28:43):
California.
Shawn (28:44):
Unfortunately, we're all here, right, that's where our
businesses are, so we're kind ofstuck.
Mila (28:50):
We pay for the weather.
Shawn (28:54):
Tell us about your craziest case, my craziest case
or your saddest case?
I don't know what's I can tellyou they're all emotionally
taxing, every one of them.
You have to understand.
Any time that somebody comes,whether it's a child I represent
kids too um or a parent,whatever it is it is, they're at
my office dealing with one ofthe most horrendous things that
(29:19):
probably ever happened to themin their lives.
Every one of those cases, youknow it takes a bite out of you
and it leaves something septicin its place and that sort of
accumulates you never really getover.
Mila (29:31):
How do you deal with that, like going home and leaving
that at work.
Shawn (29:36):
You don't.
You don't, I mean that stickswith you.
I can tell you that first caseI did.
In fact that was the wholereason I got into this area of
work.
After that verdict I went homewhen I was doing her case my
kids were six and nine they wereabout the same age as her kids
were when they were taken andI'd been gone for like six weeks
(29:59):
as a week before trial, gettingall our crap together and then
five weeks of trial and I wasjust gone.
I was living up there and Icame home after the verdict and
I just sat at my desk for awhile and I still had this like
thing kind of burning right herethat I just thought you know
I'm not doing this for the rightreasons, I should just do
(30:19):
something else.
And I started looking atmedical school.
Mila (30:24):
I was like yeah, you know.
Shawn (30:24):
I'm interested, I'm going to just fuck this.
I'm going to go to medicalschool and blow this off.
So I started, like you know,getting rid of all my clients.
I had a very vibrant businessand commercial practice going at
that time.
I was as a solo practitioner.
I was had collected billingsabout 900 grand a year.
So I was doing really well.
And my wife, she works in thebusiness with me and she sees
(30:46):
the like money stopping the flow, like slowly choking off, and
sees the clients gettingoffloaded.
And she just came in one dayand said, hey, what are we doing
?
And I just told her that I'mnot going to do this anymore.
Ilona (31:05):
What got you back into it , she?
Shawn (31:07):
did.
How she did Said hey, look well, you know.
She said, hey, look well, youknow.
This is the deal.
You found something thatobviously had an impact on you
and you're good at it, so justdo it for one year I mean you're
in it now, over 24 years later.
Yeah, that's a long one year.
Ilona (31:31):
There's something that drives you, what drives you.
That has changed from that timewhen you were ready to throw in
the towel.
Shawn (31:39):
Because what is happening is just wrong.
It's wrong and there's nothingthat they can do about it.
The clients can do about it.
They're stuck.
They're in a position wherethey literally have the
government boot on their throatand there's nobody to help them.
Mila (31:56):
Now you're passionate about it.
Obviously, you know what you'redoing.
You're making a change.
I mean, what's interesting tome is the first time you and I
had talked on the phone on aSunday morning while we were
both taking our walks.
We were talking about a casethat I, you know, kind of wanted
to pick your brain on, and yougraciously responded to my email
(32:17):
, and one of the things you toldme, which I haven't really ever
heard from an attorney is yousaid I want my kids to both be
lawyers, because I thinkeveryone should be lawyers.
And it's a great thing, and Ihave never heard that before.
I mean, I feel the same way.
I find so much purpose in doingwhat I do.
(32:40):
I think Alona feels the sameway, that's important work.
But I think most attorneys arelike I would never want my
children to do this.
You have to put your whole lifeinto it.
I want them to have an eight tofive.
But no, like when you love whatyou do and you find purpose in
it, you really don't work a dayof your life.
Shawn (32:58):
Well, some of it's work.
It's work, it's a lot of trialwork.
Mila (33:03):
Some of it's work, but when you see that light at the
end of the tunnel and you knowwhat you're doing it for, as
opposed to just doing work.
Ilona (33:11):
It's a completely different feeling right, I think
you get sucked into it right,Like I know, when you start
working on a client's case.
Like you devote your life totheir life to advance their
purpose and to make their lifebetter.
Like you give up your life fortheirs, yeah.
Shawn (33:27):
Well, you have to.
If you're going to do a goodjob, you have to do that and
that's work.
It definitely is work, andthat's the part that is
sometimes hard to get rid of.
Once you get that ingrainedwith one of your clients and you
carry whatever their story isand they're usually horrific
(33:47):
stories you carry that stillwith you.
It becomes part of you.
You never really get rid ofthat.
Mila (33:53):
I want to ask you something from, I guess, a
business perspective and runninga law firm, and I had to switch
from, you know, defense side toplaintiff side and I think for
employment cases similar to yourcases, where every client that
comes to me has a really greatstory and it's very hard to
determine which cases to takebecause they all sound great
(34:16):
from the get-go and sometimesit's a lot of investigation
before figuring out what reallyhappened.
Shawn (34:24):
Yeah, sometimes you get it wrong.
Mila (34:27):
How do you know if something could potentially be a
case, because I'm sure thishappens every day and I'm sure
pretty much 90% of people whohave their kids taken from them
think that it's unfair orillegal.
I'm sure they try to call youor other firms.
So how do you determine whichcases to take, whether or not
there can be civil claims made?
Shawn (34:46):
It's hard.
I get maybe 200 calls a weekand we get them from all over
the country just because there'snot a lot of people that do the
work.
And when you do get a goodresult usually a newspaper or
television media, somebody willpick it up.
So we don't do any advertising.
We don't need to because thenews does it for you.
You can't help everybody.
You can't take all the casesthat are out there, whether
(35:09):
they're good cases or not.
So the first criteria is canthis person communicate right?
Are they able to communicate,to articulate in words what it
is that happened to them, thewho, what, where, why, when, how
, right.
If they can't do that, they'reimmediately you know.
Next we can't deal with them,and the way that we test that is
(35:30):
on the phone.
We say okay, write an email 500words or less.
Tell us who, what, why, where,when and how.
Ilona (35:39):
You know, now people will be using Chad GPT and that
might not be a good test, I knowthat, and that's actually been
a problem.
Shawn (35:46):
I'll get some really well-written story.
I'll call them up and theycan't speak.
It's like well, dude, I knowyou didn't write this.
Mila (35:56):
I've had a few clients who only email via chat.
Gpt Like every response to myemail.
I could just tell they yeah.
Shawn (36:03):
I hate that.
I actually hate it.
You don't get to know theperson very well or their
mannerisms, the way theyarticulate their thoughts, or
even whether or not they canexpress their thoughts really
over email anymore.
Ilona (36:17):
So what's the second layer?
Shawn (36:19):
Second layer is where are you?
Where are you?
If I can't get to you in threehours, I'm really reluctant to
take the case.
That's not to say that I won't.
I've taken a bunch of cases inArizona.
I've taken them all overCalifornia.
Ilona (36:34):
Are you licensed in Arizona?
Shawn (36:35):
Yeah, Over COVID.
I took the bar in Arizona.
I got Oregon.
I got Washington.
I'm thinking about Idaho.
I want to try to get all theNinth Circuit licenses.
That's awesome.
I love the energy I don't knowthat I'll still have energy.
I did have a heart attack, soyou never know.
Mila (36:52):
I can't know that I'll still have energy.
I did have a heart attack, soyou never know.
I can't tell.
I could not tell when I met youor when I talked to you.
Well, I've been working.
Shawn (36:57):
I've been working on it, you know, trying to get better.
The other criteria would belike was it a deception case?
Was it a warrantless seizurecase?
What is it?
What's the underlying liabilitytriggering event?
What is it?
What's the underlying liabilitytriggering event?
If it's a kid, the criteria aregoing to be a little bit
different.
If you know, usually it'ssomething happened in foster
(37:18):
care where you beat and whereyou molested, something like
that, or was the child killed.
That happens too.
So what happens in each of mycases where there's either a
large settlement or a goodverdict, there are policy
changes that are made, there'straining that's administered, or
created and then administered,and that happens statewide, like
I can tell you on the Duvalcase up in LA, when we got that
(37:42):
verdict, we got a unanimousverdict.
What happened after thatverdict is they made a policy
hey, we need to get warrants, weneed to follow Ninth Circuit
law and they started training onit.
Same thing in Orange County,same thing in San Diego,
riverside, san Bernardino.
All the Southern Californiacounties immediately implemented
policies and training regardingthe need to get warrants and
(38:05):
how to do it.
Mila (38:06):
So let me ask you this, just for our viewers, god forbid
.
There's a person in a situationwhere their children are taken
from them by Child ProtectiveServices, what do you do?
What is the right approach to,I guess, increase your chances
to get your child back?
You know, separate and apartfrom any civil claims you can
(38:29):
bring, practically, what do youdo in that situation?
Shawn (38:33):
Participate in your services.
Okay, once you're in, once youhave a case going, they have
your kid, you're in the system.
Right, you're going to court.
Participate in your services.
Always be polite, civil, prompt.
Right With your social worker.
If you're supposed to besomewhere, be there.
Right With your social worker.
If you're supposed to besomewhere, be there.
(38:54):
If you have visitation,whatever that visitation is,
make it work.
Make it happen From theirperspective.
Visitation, participation invisitation, is the number one
indicator of reunification.
Ilona (39:05):
One of the cases that I mentioned earlier.
When the verdict was finallygiven after all these years, the
judge said you know the child'sname, said I'm so sorry, the
court system has failed you, andthat was just like so emotional
for me and our client and justfelt so bad because, like this
is what my client was trying toprove all these years and nobody
(39:27):
believed her, nobody believedthe child and finally we had a
change in judicial officer wholooked at it.
It made a huge difference inthis child's life.
It made a huge difference thatthe truth was finally proven and
like this apology from court tothe child was so painful.
It was truly owed to the childbut sucks that they had to live
(39:47):
through that.
Shawn (39:48):
Well, and that happens like every day, that story that
you just told.
It's replayed every single day,maybe hundreds of times, all
across the state in the juveniledependency court.
Mila (39:59):
So two questions what's the statute of limitations for
the parents bringing claims?
Shawn (40:04):
For everybody.
It's going to be two years, butit's told for minors till they
reach the age of majority.
Ilona (40:09):
What causes of actions would a minor have, and against
whom, if they were not removedfrom parents through juvenile
court but were just placed witha wrong parent because of
deception?
Shawn (40:22):
If it's lies, then the child would potentially have a
claim under the 14th Amendmentfor Judicial Deception and it'd
be a 42 USC Section 1983 claim.
Ilona (40:36):
And those are through state court or federal.
Shawn (40:38):
There's concurrent jurisdictions.
You can file either in state orfederal.
In San Diego County the countyalways will remove 100%, will
remove it to federal court.
Ilona (40:49):
You said that you previously were chasing trials.
What do you love about doingtrials?
What ennui drives you to wantto be in court?
Shawn (40:55):
The best moment is when they come in and read a positive
verdict.
Ilona (40:58):
I love that.
And I remember that feelingwhen your heart is beating.
Shawn (41:03):
I cried with my clients on both of the civil rights
cases.
I've never cried in acommercial case.
You just don't get soemotionally wrapped up.
I've never cried in acommercial case.
You just don't get soemotionally wrapped up.
But with both of them it waslike a cathartic moment.
Not even a cathartic moment,it's like they're vindicated.
Mila (41:25):
You take on these cases when the clients are going
through the hardest times oftheir lives and they're so
wronged and they have theclosest thing to them children
that they've produced removedfrom them and no one believes
them, and you help them findtheir voices again.
You help them get their powerback with those verdicts.
Ilona (41:39):
I think it really sucks that if only one out of 200 gets
accepted, there's so manypeople that can't be helped that
are victims of.
Shawn (41:48):
What we've tried to do to address that and it doesn't
work for everybody items of whatwe've tried to do to address
that and it doesn't work foreverybody is I put all of my
work product out on the internet.
So the motions we make, themotions we oppose, the stuff we
win, the stuff we lose,discovery, you know, pattern
discovery all of that isavailable for and there's a lot
of pro se people out there thatare capable, yeah so we put it
(42:10):
all out there.
They can use it, that's verygenerous of you the depositions
our little caps and stems thingthat's on my sweatshirt.
We uh put that out on youtube.
People can go watch.
See you know how do you do adepo where can people find it?
Ilona (42:24):
for those who don't have an attorney and want to take
action on their own, where canthey find?
Shawn (42:29):
your material, caps and stems law, just do itaps and
Stems Law.
Mila (42:32):
Just do a.
Shawn (42:33):
Google search Caps and Stems like the letter N Stems.
The YouTube channel has all thedeposition stuff and that's
totally available for free.
Mila (42:43):
Thank you so much for joining us Well.
Thanks for having me, this isfun.
Ilona (42:46):
And stay healthy.
Hope that all your work isworth it.
Shawn (42:48):
Yeah, I think I'm going to be okay actually.
Mila (42:50):
I know you're going to be okay.
Like you are a warrior, I seeit in you, maybe.
I absolutely know you're goingto be okay.
And you're not just going to beokay, you're going to be great.
Ilona (43:01):
And that's it for today's episode.
Huge thanks to Sean McMillanfor sharing his incredible
journey with us.
Mila (43:07):
Definitely an inspiring conversation.
If you're ready to keepgrinding and making a difference
, don't forget to subscribe,leave us a review and stay tuned
for more.
Ilona (43:17):
Stay bold, stay beautiful and catch you next time.
Oh, by the way, and handsometoo.
Catch us next time on theGlamorous Grind.
God forbid.
There's a person in a situationwhere their children are taken
from them by Child ProtectiveServices, what do you do?
Shawn (00:09):
As attorneys, our clients .
They really put all of theirtrust.
Ilona (00:14):
People don't listen to children.
Sometimes the child isexplaining what's happening and
then, because court didn't likemy client, the child wasn't
believed.
How do you prove?
Mila (00:23):
someone is lying.
Shawn (00:25):
Something is needed.
There are kids out there thatneed help.
Ilona (00:29):
Welcome to the Glamorous Grind where grit meets glamour
and law is always in style.
I'm Alona Antonian, a trialattorney and a certified family
law specialist.
Mila (00:39):
And I'm Mila Aratunian, a trial attorney who specializes
in employment and personalinjury law.
We are lawyers friends and yourgo-to guides for real-life
legal drama.
Ilona (00:51):
Every week, we're diving into unforgettable cases,
sharing inspiring personalstories and keeping you in the
loop on what drives us,motivates us.
Mila (00:59):
So, whether you're chasing your dreams or just here for a
captivating story, grab yourfavorite drink, because we are
serving up insight, wit and atouch of style, it's law, it's
life, it's a glamorous grind.
Ilona (01:21):
Hey everyone, welcome back.
We're so excited about today'sepisode.
We have a truly inspiring guestjoining us, someone who's not
only made a name for himself inthe legal world, but is also a
passionate advocate for civilrights.
My good friend.
Mila (01:35):
Sean McMillan is here.
His career is such a testamentto hard work and dedication.
He's worked on high-profilecases, fought for children and
families in the child protectionsystem and has earned countless
accolades for his trial work.
Ilona (01:50):
He has taken his skills from business litigation and
translated them into a powerfulforce for change in civil rights
law.
It's not just about winningcases.
It's about using the law totruly impact lives.
Mila (02:03):
So if you're looking for some real inspiration about
following your passions, makingan impact and doing the hard
work it takes to succeed, thisepisode is definitely for you.
Get ready and join us inwelcoming Sean.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
It's an absolute privilege tohave you here today.
Why don't you tell us a littlebit about yourself?
Shawn (02:23):
Sure Well, first, thanks for having me.
I don't know about privilege,but you specialize in suing CWS.
Ilona (02:29):
Can you tell us more about that?
Shawn (02:31):
What I specialize in.
I refer to it more asconstitutional laws.
Fourth and Fourteenth AmendmentPeople who aren't attorneys, I
think, are more familiar withChild Protective Services or
Child Protective Agencies, andthat's who I sue.
Generally we sue them when acaseworker has a conflict of
some sort with a parent.
They'll do things like lieabout them in their reports to
(02:54):
justify whatever escalationhappened, and usually the
escalation is they took yourkids and so we do a lot of that.
We call that judicial deceptionand that's where they'll either
lie or suppress materialexculpatory evidence in their
reports from the court.
I've seen that happen in myfamily law cases.
Ilona (03:11):
And one specifically.
I'm going to have that clientas a guest in our show in the
near future.
But you know it was a battlefor over nine years.
She finally got her daughterback.
It was through family courtmostly, but child welfare
services.
They didn't like her too muchand I attended several of their
meetings and interviews.
I mean to the point where I hadto poke my client with a pen,
(03:35):
like, okay, just behave Like.
I know you're passionate andyour truth is.
Her truth was the truth.
But you got to carry yourself acertain way because it's so
easy to make enemies.
If they don't like you for somereason, they can side with the
other parent who can be a totalass and bad to their children,
(03:55):
but present absolutelydifferently in front of third
parties and be manipulative withCWS and they'll write reports
in their favor.
Shawn (04:03):
It's not even necessarily that it's.
This is the problem with thesocial workers.
Number one they're not cops,right?
So they don't get the sametraining, they don't have the
same level of professionalism.
And I'm not saying all policeare great.
I mean, we have our examplesout there that you see on the
news, stuff like that.
But generally speaking, I thinkthat police do a pretty good
(04:25):
job.
They're highly trained, they'revery well supervised, all eyes
are on them.
But you can't equate socialworkers with cops.
They don't get that level oftraining, they don't get that
level of supervision and they'renot licensed.
They're not like licensedclinical social workers.
They don't have that same levelof professionalism and they are
human.
So you have to recognize that.
(04:46):
And I would say the vastmajority of my judicial
deception cases came out offamily law custody battles where
one parent calls socialservices.
It doesn't matter which parent,it's the same issue Social
services will come out and thesocial worker, being human
that's not as professional as wemight like and not as well
(05:07):
trained as we might like willinteract with those parents.
And if the parents don't givethem sufficient respect or
aren't sufficiently deferential,they'll immediately develop a
bad impression.
Maybe If one of the parents ismaybe highly educated, knows
what their rights are, andstarts sort of throwing that
kind of language around thesocial worker.
(05:28):
The only method of escalationthey have is take your kid.
Really, that's all.
They have Police, they have allkinds of things they can do.
Social workers don't have that.
The only thing they have istaking your kid.
And once they make thatdecision to take your kid, if
they don't justify it, they knowthey're in trouble.
Ilona (05:48):
And often, when I looked at CWS reports, they'll have
summaries of conversationsrather than specific quotes, and
sometimes, if a client insists,they'll let you record the
meeting, although they may notlike it.
And most of the meetings are notrecorded right.
And then if you're in familycourt and you obtain CWS records
(06:11):
, first of all it's really hardbecause they're confidential and
they're protected.
So by the time you get them, bythe time you get the judge to
look at them, then you read themand you have to bring those
social workers to court and thensome of them may work at that
point for the government, somemay not.
They don't have their notes,they don't bring the notes, and
(06:31):
then they always support thestatements they've put in,
although they may not haverecollection.
But there's no specific quote,just their summaries.
Shawn (06:38):
And if they formed a negative impression against one
of the parties, not based onfacts but on personal feelings,
yeah, they'll sort of tailortheir summary to fit whatever
narrative it is they want toadvance to the court to support
whatever their earlier decisionwas.
That's generally what we see.
Ilona (07:00):
You know that movie that was on Netflix.
Shawn (07:03):
Oh, is that the Gabriel Fernandez?
Yes, Gabriel.
Ilona (07:06):
Fernandez, have you seen it?
Shawn (07:08):
I haven't seen it.
I know about it, I've heardabout it.
I was following that when itwas all happening.
A lot of the cases I generallyknow about them or see them or
sometimes consult on them, justbecause there are so few people
nationwide actually that do thiswork that eventually I know
this sounds kind of cocky orwhatever, but all roads in this
(07:30):
area eventually lead to me.
Ilona (07:32):
Now, not all social workers are bad, but there are a
few that kind of go there, dotheir job and leave and they
don't really care as much, andthat's why these low-.
Shawn (07:40):
Yeah they're not all bad.
Ilona (07:41):
Yeah.
Mila (07:42):
Well, and I think that probably sometimes it's not that
they're bad per se, it's justlike you said, they're not
well-trained or they're human.
They can be biased and I thinkbias training-.
Shawn (07:54):
Bias is huge.
It's huge, it's huge in childwelfare services and that is
what we see mostly in thejudicial deception or
retaliation type cases.
I had one up in Orange Countyit's actually the first one I
ever did Basically what hadhappened.
There's this lady, former MissCalifornia, beautiful woman,
(08:15):
very intelligent, highlyeducated, and she is in a
custody battle with her husbandand I don't remember exactly how
social services got involved,but they did, and there was a
conflict between the line-levelworker not even the supervisor,
the line-level worker and themom, and it wasn't, from the
mom's perspective, even really aconflict.
(08:37):
She was just explaining thesituation and the social worker
took an attitude with her andthey kind of got into a not even
a yelling match.
It was just sort of a strongconversation.
The social worker got upset,ran into court and said that mom
had attacked her or somethinglike that to the judge, and the
judge issued a forthwith removalorder right there on the spot,
(09:01):
said go get the kids right now.
This is, we're done with this.
And she lost her kids for sixand a half years.
And so she called me up andsaid will you do this case?
And I said no, I won't do that.
That's dumb.
I mean, of course the ladyprobably did something bad.
That's why they took her kidand so I rejected it.
I'd never done a civil rightscase.
(09:21):
I had no idea constitutionallaw was something you study in
law school.
So I get this call like threedays later from my dad and I'm
in the shower, I'm like allsoapy and my wife comes in and
she says it's an emergency.
You got to talk to your dad.
I was all shit.
I thought somebody died and soI rinse off.
I get out.
I was like, yeah, what's up?
He's, oh, this lady's going tocall you in like five minutes.
(09:44):
So she calls.
My dad told me I already talkedto her.
I already told her that youwould take her case.
Mila (09:51):
That sounds like something my mom would do.
Shawn (09:54):
What do you do?
I mean, it's your dad, right?
Mila (09:57):
Was that your first case?
Is that how you got into thefield?
Shawn (09:59):
That's how I got in the field, wow, and what happened?
Did you win?
Yeah, we got a unanimousverdict.
It's $4.9 million a five-weekjury trial up in Orange County.
They appealed it and they loston appeal and then they did a
petition for cert to the SupremeCourt and that got rejected.
That was a scary story.
By then, yeah, they had taken a$4.9 million verdict and turned
(10:23):
it into a $10 million judgment,just with interest and
attorney's fees.
Mila (10:27):
Just for our viewers.
I want to just explain how insome cases you can get, in
addition to whatever juryverdict you receive from the
jury you can get any attorney'sfees for time you spent on the
case, for legal fees you spenton the case.
You can actually do that alsoin employment law in California.
Right, for legal fees you spenton the case.
You can actually do that alsoin employment law in California
and the legislature puts thesethings in place so that
(10:49):
attorneys are incentivized totake hard cases.
Shawn (10:53):
Right, right, that's exactly.
Tell the judges, though.
Ilona (10:56):
They always want to cut you back.
You probably ought to take alot of depositions.
Shawn (11:01):
Oh yeah.
Ilona (11:02):
So how much do you have to put out of pocket?
If this was a contingency caseto prevail ultimately.
Shawn (11:08):
I think in that case we had like 30 depositions.
They were a lot cheaper backthen than they are now.
I think it was probably $2,500per depo.
Mila (11:17):
Well and again.
I just want to explain, just forour viewers, that whenever a
law firm or an attorney takes acase on contingency which means
that they don't charge theclient anything but they take a
percentage of whatever they endup getting for the case, they
have to pay, most of the time,all of the costs out of pocket.
So everything they do, everydeposition they take, they have
(11:42):
to invest their own money totake those depositions.
So 30 depositions if they were$2,500 per deposition, I mean,
I'm not a mathematician butthat's a lot of money.
And then you have to pay foreach of the transcripts.
Sometimes you have to paywitness fees for like them
coming out and participating inthe deposition.
(12:02):
If you hire experts, that'smore costs.
So it's a very expensiveinvestment when you have a lot
of witnesses in a case.
So I want to ask you onequestion because I'm like my
mind is still stuck there whenyou were talking about that
civil rights case and the womanlost her kids for six years.
Shawn (12:19):
Yeah, six and a half.
Mila (12:20):
To me not as a lawyer but as a mom it is insanity that
someone would lose out on sixyears of raising their kids.
I mean as a mom.
I mean my oldest is eight, butyou have such a limited time
with your kids 18 years isnothing, and after like 10, they
don't even want to hang outwith you.
(12:40):
So these people have to fightthese government agencies just
to have their children.
It's not like they're fighting.
It's insane to me.
How do you deal with theemotional toll that all of that
comes with?
Shawn (12:58):
It's not actually easy.
I can tell you this particularcase.
I didn't really believe theclient.
I thought it was all crap.
But it was another trial and Iwas chasing trials at the time
and it wasn't until thedefendants started putting up
their case that it hit me that,oh shit, this really happened.
You know, these witches reallydid do what the client said they
(13:23):
did and I had this tremendousfeeling of guilt as attorneys
our clients they really put allof their trust.
I just had this feeling that Icompletely failed this lady, and
so I worked really hard.
But by the end it worked outLike I said, we got a unanimous
jury verdict and it was a goodverdict at the time.
Ilona (13:46):
What was the cause of action?
Negligence.
Shawn (13:49):
No, it was 42 USC Section 1983.
It was a violation of her 14thAmendment rights.
Ilona (13:53):
Okay.
Shawn (13:54):
Yeah, the social workers lied about her, basically denied
her due process and, as aresult, she lost her kids for
six and a half years.
Ilona (14:01):
I remember a days I did a few jury trials myself earlier
in my career and when you'restuck like that in trial and you
don't get any sleep.
I remember after one of mytrials ended up going to Las
Vegas to a conference and justlike walking.
I always remember this momentwhen I'm on a bridge from wind
(14:21):
going across and I rememberfeeling sun touching my skin and
the warmth and I was sograteful for good weather and to
be out in the sun and I stillfeel that moment of how good it
felt to be free.
Shawn (14:38):
You're free just for that moment.
Mila (14:40):
Yeah, so it sounds like there aren't a lot of attorneys
that handle these types ofmatters.
Shawn (14:45):
There's not.
Mila (14:46):
And I would assume that it's because of all of the
obstacles in bringing claimsagainst CPS, just like other
governmental entities, becausethey have so many immunities,
and especially in a case likethis where it's a lot of he said
, she said.
Shawn (15:01):
Yeah.
Mila (15:01):
So how do you like overcome those?
Talk to us a little bit aboutsome of the challenges and
obstacles ensuing thesegovernmental entities the
shucking and jiving man.
Shawn (15:12):
Back then there was really no Ninth Circuit case law
that focused on this judicialdeception question of whether or
not a social worker can lie intheir reports.
There was really nothing outthere.
And right as I was puttingtogether our opposition, a new
case came out of the NinthCircuit.
It was like days before myopposition was due.
(15:34):
It got published on Lexis andit was called Beltran versus
County of Santa Clara.
So I saw that.
I looked at who the attorneywas.
I called the guy up and said,hey, can I have your briefing?
And so he sent me all his stuff.
His name's Bob Powell.
Mila (15:47):
I love it when they do that yeah.
Shawn (15:48):
So he sent me all of his stuff and it was a published
decision and so I took that.
That's what I argued.
Ilona (15:57):
It's kind of surprising that the court, even on that
level, would rule that thegovernment can lie when they're
there to protect children andthat it's okay for them to have
immunity and do whatever thehell they want and just get away
with it.
Shawn (16:10):
Up until 2007, social workers were given massive
leeway because the idea was thatthey act as prosecutors and we
give prosecutors prosecutorialimmunity, so anything connected
with that judicial process ofprosecuting they're immune and
that was what they were applyingto social workers.
But social workers have twofunctions really.
(16:31):
One is investigatory right andthe other is sort of
prosecutorial, in that they makea decision about whether or not
to initiate a dependencypetition or dependency
proceeding, and that decisionitself.
We can't sue them for it,because the decision to initiate
the process is prosecutorial innature.
(16:52):
But every other thing they dois not.
Mila (16:56):
Well then my question would be how do you prove
someone is lying, Like if, forexample, in this case they look
like liars Like if, for example,in this case, but if they state
like someone is, you know,hostile or aggressive towards
them, that could be a subjectiveopinion and maybe to them
they're telling the truth andthey believe that.
And again it goes back tobiases, and so many biases are
(17:17):
implicit.
I mean, as an employmentattorney, I've done a ton of
training on bias and bias in thelegal profession and bias in
every profession, Like from anHR perspective.
It's so important in theworkplace but it's even more
important for social workersbecause some of the biases, most
of the biases, it's not aconscious decision to dislike
someone, it's whateverfoundationally they believe.
(17:40):
They, you know, use that tomake their decisions, which
formulates their perception,which in their mind they're
telling the truth, but maybeit's not.
How do you prove that, Can you?
Shawn (17:51):
I don't think anybody who lies ever thinks they're
telling the truth.
I think where bias comes intoit and it's not bias in the
sense that we talk about biassocially, where maybe I have
implicit bias against women orHispanics I think that it's more
like a transactional bias wherefor some reason, I don't like
(18:14):
you so I am going to allow thatdislike of you, for whatever
reason, to influence or shade myview of you and the way that I
write about you, the things Isay about you, so that it's bias
, but it's not the type of biasI think that you're talking
about.
Ilona (18:33):
What do you think should be the criteria for someone to
be hired to be a social worker?
Shawn (18:40):
I think they should be police.
I don't think we should havesocial services in the way that
we have it right now.
Ilona (18:46):
I think it's a completely defective model.
What do you think would bebetter?
What would be a better model?
Shawn (18:51):
I think the better model would be that if there's child
abuse and it rises to the levelof criminality it's a crime,
then we have highly trained,highly competent, very
professional police forceavailable to go do those
investigations.
If there's child abuse, arrestthe parent and then we do
something with the child.
But the way it is right now.
(19:12):
I can give you an example.
I have a mom who lost custodyof her child or daughter
allegedly for emotional abusebecause she was texting too much
.
Mila (19:25):
The mom was texting too much With her daughter.
Shawn (19:27):
With her daughter.
Ilona (19:28):
yeah, that's so weird.
Shawn (19:30):
Exactly, that's like everything in America.
Everything has taken two stepstoo far so tell me, should that
mom have lost her child?
Yeah, of course not.
Was the social worker involveda good or solid person?
Well, maybe.
Ilona (19:43):
Well, what was the content of text messages?
Were they appropriate?
Or if it says you know you'rethis and that I'm going to kill
you, or like, really it wasn'tstuff like that.
Mila (19:52):
Threatening, yeah, but I think that.
I mean, I think that, like backin the day, our parents were a
lot harsher on us too, and nowwe are expected to be very soft
on our kids and I have parentsat, you know, my son's school
who are like, oh, my child isdoing bad in school and blame it
on the teachers.
Shawn (20:09):
Can't always not blame the teachers.
Sometimes there's stuff goingon there.
But back to your question, or Iguess not really question, but
sort of the little pushback onthe system being necessary.
Something is needed.
All right, we can all agreethat there are kids out there
that need help.
I mean there's been a massivechange in law.
(20:30):
You know there's been a coregroup of attorneys there's like
eight of us in the state that dothis work regularly, like as a
calling.
I guess it's what we do, it'sall we do, and a few of them are
here in San Diego.
There's a couple up in the BayArea and we've got it to the
point now where there's noabsolute immunity for anything
other than the decision to filea petition.
(20:51):
You get absolute immunity forthat.
And now what we're working on isbringing in these private
parties, like we have Rady'sChildren's Hospital right.
They collude with socialservices to do these medical
evaluations where they reallydon't even look at the kid, they
just look at the record andthen come up with some bullshit.
Why do they do that?
I've always assumed they getmoney for it.
Mila (21:11):
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering Probably from.
Shawn (21:12):
Medi-Cal would be my guess.
We haven't really donediscovery on that yet, but we're
looping those guys in and wehave a couple of good appellate
opinions saying that, yeah, whenthis private hospital comes in,
either under contract or someother reason, and interacts with
the government to take kids,they're going to be treated just
like a government actor.
Mila (21:32):
I love that.
Shawn (21:33):
So we can pull them in.
Now we have a bunch of lawsuitsagainst Rady Children's
Hospital for that.
Ilona (21:37):
People don't listen to children.
Sometimes At least I've noticedeven in family court In one of
my cases, like with videos, thechild is explaining what's
happening and then, because thecourt didn't like my client, the
child wasn't believed.
That my client wasn't believed,because they were saying the
same thing in the system.
Shawn (22:00):
anytime that you have people making decisions whether
it's judges or social workers,cops based on information
they're getting from otherpeople, there's always going to
be defects in judgment.
Ilona (22:14):
And relying on CWS records where there is bias.
Shawn (22:17):
I can give you a good example.
In fact, this is what we do atmy place.
When somebody brings a report,the first thing I tell them is
look for the quotes.
You find something in quotes.
Go talk to that person that'sbeing quoted.
Nine times out of ten they didnot say what they're being
quoted as saying.
It's a lie.
And the court goes into greatdetail about the importance of
(22:39):
quotes.
It says a quote means it'sverbatim what was said and it
lends an air of authenticity, ofcredibility to the report if
it's in quotes.
What that means to me is itdamn well better be true.
And when I go talk to thethird-party witness and they say
no, I never said that, I cantell you that's like half of my
(23:00):
judicial deception cases,literally.
So it happens very frequently.
Ilona (23:05):
But then that witness has to be believed and appear more
credible than the social workerthat Like a doctor.
Shawn (23:12):
They misquote doctors all the time.
I have a case like that rightnow.
We're going to be in trial inAugust downtown in the federal
district court.
The doctors never said what thesocial worker said.
Mila (23:21):
they said so it sounds like you're really trailblazing
and really changing the system.
Shawn (23:28):
I don't know that a lot's changed.
I'm still in business.
Mila (23:32):
I mean, but it sounds like there's been a lot of movement
in the law in recent years thathas made it more difficult to
pull kids from parents withoutproof, or at least to lie.
Shawn (23:45):
What I would say is it has made it easier to hold them
accountable when they do it.
Ilona (23:51):
Do they get fired?
Like all these people that yousued, they weren't involved in
some sort of you know nonsense.
Mila (23:57):
Don't say they don't get fired.
They never get fired.
You're kidding.
Shawn (24:01):
What happens?
They'll either take a lateralmove or they'll get promoted.
Mila (24:06):
Sure Promoted.
Shawn (24:08):
Promoted.
Mila (24:08):
Okay.
Shawn (24:10):
Usually into a training position where they're training
other social workers.
Mila (24:13):
No, no, don't tell me this .
No, I don't believe that.
Okay, we're opening a newpractice area.
I have a discovery.
Shawn (24:19):
I can tell you what happens to them.
They'll either get promoted orthey'll make a lateral move away
from contact with parents andchildren Because, remember, the
liability for the county isgenerated in that interface
between social worker and childor social worker and family.
So if we just take thewrongdoer and we move them
somewhere else so they're nolonger in a maybe that's a
(24:42):
hotline, so they're just takingphone calls- that would be
demotion though Hotline ordemotion no it's lateral move
Same pay, Same pay, same jobtitle same everything just
they're not with kids.
Mila (24:53):
So kind of a similar story .
I do employment law and thereare not a lot of law firms that
take on governmental entities.
Shawn (25:03):
Right.
Mila (25:04):
And you need a lot of resources to do that.
Currently we don't take onthose cases, but we will
eventually when our team issubstantial enough.
But I I have done a lot ofthose cases and they are the
worst cases that people thereact insane.
If these things happened at aprivate company, there would be
(25:24):
no second thought in my mind.
I'd be like let's do these ohyeah, guys immediately, but they
have so many immunities forcivil suits.
You know, there's first of all,there's the six-month period
where you have to yeah you haveto the government tort claims
act.
So if the plaintiff doesn't cometo me within six months of
(25:45):
whatever happened, you lose theclaims.
You could still bring themunder the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, but those claimsare limited.
There's no constructivedischarge claims against
governmental entities.
So if there's like a hostilework environment and someone has
to resign because it's so bad,they can't be there.
If it's against a privateemployer, they can still get
their lost wages.
(26:05):
It counts as if it's atermination.
Can't bring that against agovernmental entity.
There are so many wildlimitations in bringing those
claims.
And on top top of that it's thesame story where they don't get
fired they don't get fired,they get promoted or they get
moved that's government.
Shawn (26:22):
That's why we so screwed.
Mila (26:23):
And then they go oh, we did an investigation and didn't
find anything like won't producethe investigation report.
It's insane, insane.
Everything is a huge likehassle, a huge fight.
You have to file 1,000 motionswith the court and they have all
the attorney's fees.
They need to like pay out theirattorneys because our taxes are
paying for them and us, asplaintiffs, have to take it on
(26:45):
contingency.
I mean, granted, we may be ableto recover attorney's fees at
the end if it goes all the waythrough trial or you get a
really great 998.
But it's like a huge risk andyou could lose.
You don't know what's in thosereports.
Ilona (26:57):
Right.
And then most clients cannotafford to advance the cost out
of pocket and put like a $50,000deposit to pay for depositions
and filing fees and experts.
So you know you have to bepicky about what you're going to
take.
Shawn (27:11):
On these particular cases , the CPS cases.
It's mostly poor people.
You know most of my clients.
They're not making $200,000,$300,000 a year.
They can't afford a $5,000 aday depot.
They can't even afford juryfees necessarily.
Ilona (27:28):
To the point that Mila was making.
Like government has certainstandards as to whether you can
sue them or not and what causeof actions you can bring, versus
if you're a private employer inCalifornia, you are screwed.
You can get sued for anything.
You will get sued for anything,and I mean I know that now that
you joined our firm, I can seethat most businesses where
(27:48):
there's a claim brought againstthem are incentivized to settle
you know, I mean you know, youknow it happened to us before
and we fought it all the waythrough jury trial because it
was how much did you spend?
yeah, but like you have to standup for yourself, like you know
I I will not accept bullshitclaims, like I just will not.
So but point being is that forprivate businesses in California
(28:12):
the government made all kindsof laws for you to get sued
versus.
Government has differentstandards for itself, although
they invite that against privateentities.
Shawn (28:25):
Yeah, it's hard to be in business in California.
Mila (28:27):
But in some states, did you know, like, for example,
under the federal government, ifyou have under 15 employees,
you cannot be sued for likesexual harassment, for example?
Ilona (28:38):
But in California, yeah, you can.
You can be sued for anything inCalifornia.
Shawn (28:42):
Yeah, that's a problem with.
Ilona (28:43):
California.
Shawn (28:44):
Unfortunately, we're all here, right, that's where our
businesses are, so we're kind ofstuck.
Mila (28:50):
We pay for the weather.
Shawn (28:54):
Tell us about your craziest case, my craziest case
or your saddest case?
I don't know what's I can tellyou they're all emotionally
taxing, every one of them.
You have to understand.
Any time that somebody comes,whether it's a child I represent
kids too um or a parent,whatever it is it is, they're at
my office dealing with one ofthe most horrendous things that
(29:19):
probably ever happened to themin their lives.
Every one of those cases, youknow it takes a bite out of you
and it leaves something septicin its place and that sort of
accumulates you never really getover.
Mila (29:31):
How do you deal with that, like going home and leaving
that at work.
Shawn (29:36):
You don't.
You don't, I mean that stickswith you.
I can tell you that first caseI did.
In fact that was the wholereason I got into this area of
work.
After that verdict I went homewhen I was doing her case my
kids were six and nine they wereabout the same age as her kids
were when they were taken andI'd been gone for like six weeks
(29:59):
as a week before trial, gettingall our crap together and then
five weeks of trial and I wasjust gone.
I was living up there and Icame home after the verdict and
I just sat at my desk for awhile and I still had this like
thing kind of burning right herethat I just thought you know
I'm not doing this for the rightreasons, I should just do
(30:19):
something else.
And I started looking atmedical school.
Mila (30:24):
I was like yeah, you know.
Shawn (30:24):
I'm interested, I'm going to just fuck this.
I'm going to go to medicalschool and blow this off.
So I started, like you know,getting rid of all my clients.
I had a very vibrant businessand commercial practice going at
that time.
I was as a solo practitioner.
I was had collected billingsabout 900 grand a year.
So I was doing really well.
And my wife, she works in thebusiness with me and she sees
(30:46):
the like money stopping the flow, like slowly choking off, and
sees the clients gettingoffloaded.
And she just came in one dayand said, hey, what are we doing
?
And I just told her that I'mnot going to do this anymore.
Ilona (31:05):
What got you back into it , she?
Shawn (31:07):
did.
How she did Said hey, look well, you know.
She said, hey, look well, youknow.
This is the deal.
You found something thatobviously had an impact on you
and you're good at it, so justdo it for one year I mean you're
in it now, over 24 years later.
Yeah, that's a long one year.
Ilona (31:31):
There's something that drives you, what drives you.
That has changed from that timewhen you were ready to throw in
the towel.
Shawn (31:39):
Because what is happening is just wrong.
It's wrong and there's nothingthat they can do about it.
The clients can do about it.
They're stuck.
They're in a position wherethey literally have the
government boot on their throatand there's nobody to help them.
Mila (31:56):
Now you're passionate about it.
Obviously, you know what you'redoing.
You're making a change.
I mean, what's interesting tome is the first time you and I
had talked on the phone on aSunday morning while we were
both taking our walks.
We were talking about a casethat I, you know, kind of wanted
to pick your brain on, and yougraciously responded to my email
(32:17):
, and one of the things you toldme, which I haven't really ever
heard from an attorney is yousaid I want my kids to both be
lawyers, because I thinkeveryone should be lawyers.
And it's a great thing, and Ihave never heard that before.
I mean, I feel the same way.
I find so much purpose in doingwhat I do.
(32:40):
I think Alona feels the sameway, that's important work.
But I think most attorneys arelike I would never want my
children to do this.
You have to put your whole lifeinto it.
I want them to have an eight tofive.
But no, like when you love whatyou do and you find purpose in
it, you really don't work a dayof your life.
Shawn (32:58):
Well, some of it's work.
It's work, it's a lot of trialwork.
Mila (33:03):
Some of it's work, but when you see that light at the
end of the tunnel and you knowwhat you're doing it for, as
opposed to just doing work.
Ilona (33:11):
It's a completely different feeling right, I think
you get sucked into it right,Like I know, when you start
working on a client's case.
Like you devote your life totheir life to advance their
purpose and to make their lifebetter.
Like you give up your life fortheirs, yeah.
Shawn (33:27):
Well, you have to.
If you're going to do a goodjob, you have to do that and
that's work.
It definitely is work, andthat's the part that is
sometimes hard to get rid of.
Once you get that ingrainedwith one of your clients and you
carry whatever their story isand they're usually horrific
(33:47):
stories you carry that stillwith you.
It becomes part of you.
You never really get rid ofthat.
Mila (33:53):
I want to ask you something from, I guess, a
business perspective and runninga law firm, and I had to switch
from, you know, defense side toplaintiff side and I think for
employment cases similar to yourcases, where every client that
comes to me has a really greatstory and it's very hard to
determine which cases to takebecause they all sound great
(34:16):
from the get-go and sometimesit's a lot of investigation
before figuring out what reallyhappened.
Shawn (34:24):
Yeah, sometimes you get it wrong.
Mila (34:27):
How do you know if something could potentially be a
case, because I'm sure thishappens every day and I'm sure
pretty much 90% of people whohave their kids taken from them
think that it's unfair orillegal.
I'm sure they try to call youor other firms.
So how do you determine whichcases to take, whether or not
there can be civil claims made?
Shawn (34:46):
It's hard.
I get maybe 200 calls a weekand we get them from all over
the country just because there'snot a lot of people that do the
work.
And when you do get a goodresult usually a newspaper or
television media, somebody willpick it up.
So we don't do any advertising.
We don't need to because thenews does it for you.
You can't help everybody.
You can't take all the casesthat are out there, whether
(35:09):
they're good cases or not.
So the first criteria is canthis person communicate right?
Are they able to communicate,to articulate in words what it
is that happened to them, thewho, what, where, why, when, how
, right.
If they can't do that, they'reimmediately you know.
Next we can't deal with them,and the way that we test that is
(35:30):
on the phone.
We say okay, write an email 500words or less.
Tell us who, what, why, where,when and how.
Ilona (35:39):
You know, now people will be using Chad GPT and that
might not be a good test, I knowthat, and that's actually been
a problem.
Shawn (35:46):
I'll get some really well-written story.
I'll call them up and theycan't speak.
It's like well, dude, I knowyou didn't write this.
Mila (35:56):
I've had a few clients who only email via chat.
Gpt Like every response to myemail.
I could just tell they yeah.
Shawn (36:03):
I hate that.
I actually hate it.
You don't get to know theperson very well or their
mannerisms, the way theyarticulate their thoughts, or
even whether or not they canexpress their thoughts really
over email anymore.
Ilona (36:17):
So what's the second layer?
Shawn (36:19):
Second layer is where are you?
Where are you?
If I can't get to you in threehours, I'm really reluctant to
take the case.
That's not to say that I won't.
I've taken a bunch of cases inArizona.
I've taken them all overCalifornia.
Ilona (36:34):
Are you licensed in Arizona?
Shawn (36:35):
Yeah, Over COVID.
I took the bar in Arizona.
I got Oregon.
I got Washington.
I'm thinking about Idaho.
I want to try to get all theNinth Circuit licenses.
That's awesome.
I love the energy I don't knowthat I'll still have energy.
I did have a heart attack, soyou never know.
Mila (36:52):
I can't know that I'll still have energy.
I did have a heart attack, soyou never know.
I can't tell.
I could not tell when I met youor when I talked to you.
Well, I've been working.
Shawn (36:57):
I've been working on it, you know, trying to get better.
The other criteria would belike was it a deception case?
Was it a warrantless seizurecase?
What is it?
What's the underlying liabilitytriggering event?
What is it?
What's the underlying liabilitytriggering event?
If it's a kid, the criteria aregoing to be a little bit
different.
If you know, usually it'ssomething happened in foster
(37:18):
care where you beat and whereyou molested, something like
that, or was the child killed.
That happens too.
So what happens in each of mycases where there's either a
large settlement or a goodverdict, there are policy
changes that are made, there'straining that's administered, or
created and then administered,and that happens statewide, like
I can tell you on the Duvalcase up in LA, when we got that
(37:42):
verdict, we got a unanimousverdict.
What happened after thatverdict is they made a policy
hey, we need to get warrants, weneed to follow Ninth Circuit
law and they started training onit.
Same thing in Orange County,same thing in San Diego,
riverside, san Bernardino.
All the Southern Californiacounties immediately implemented
policies and training regardingthe need to get warrants and
(38:05):
how to do it.
Mila (38:06):
So let me ask you this, just for our viewers, god forbid
.
There's a person in a situationwhere their children are taken
from them by Child ProtectiveServices, what do you do?
What is the right approach to,I guess, increase your chances
to get your child back?
You know, separate and apartfrom any civil claims you can
(38:29):
bring, practically, what do youdo in that situation?
Shawn (38:33):
Participate in your services.
Okay, once you're in, once youhave a case going, they have
your kid, you're in the system.
Right, you're going to court.
Participate in your services.
Always be polite, civil, prompt.
Right With your social worker.
If you're supposed to besomewhere, be there.
Right With your social worker.
If you're supposed to besomewhere, be there.
(38:54):
If you have visitation,whatever that visitation is,
make it work.
Make it happen From theirperspective.
Visitation, participation invisitation, is the number one
indicator of reunification.
Ilona (39:05):
One of the cases that I mentioned earlier.
When the verdict was finallygiven after all these years, the
judge said you know the child'sname, said I'm so sorry, the
court system has failed you, andthat was just like so emotional
for me and our client and justfelt so bad because, like this
is what my client was trying toprove all these years and nobody
(39:27):
believed her, nobody believedthe child and finally we had a
change in judicial officer wholooked at it.
It made a huge difference inthis child's life.
It made a huge difference thatthe truth was finally proven and
like this apology from court tothe child was so painful.
It was truly owed to the childbut sucks that they had to live
(39:47):
through that.
Shawn (39:48):
Well, and that happens like every day, that story that
you just told.
It's replayed every single day,maybe hundreds of times, all
across the state in the juveniledependency court.
Mila (39:59):
So two questions what's the statute of limitations for
the parents bringing claims?
Shawn (40:04):
For everybody.
It's going to be two years, butit's told for minors till they
reach the age of majority.
Ilona (40:09):
What causes of actions would a minor have, and against
whom, if they were not removedfrom parents through juvenile
court but were just placed witha wrong parent because of
deception?
Shawn (40:22):
If it's lies, then the child would potentially have a
claim under the 14th Amendmentfor Judicial Deception and it'd
be a 42 USC Section 1983 claim.
Ilona (40:36):
And those are through state court or federal.
Shawn (40:38):
There's concurrent jurisdictions.
You can file either in state orfederal.
In San Diego County the countyalways will remove 100%, will
remove it to federal court.
Ilona (40:49):
You said that you previously were chasing trials.
What do you love about doingtrials?
What ennui drives you to wantto be in court?
Shawn (40:55):
The best moment is when they come in and read a positive
verdict.
Ilona (40:58):
I love that.
And I remember that feelingwhen your heart is beating.
Shawn (41:03):
I cried with my clients on both of the civil rights
cases.
I've never cried in acommercial case.
You just don't get soemotionally wrapped up.
I've never cried in acommercial case.
You just don't get soemotionally wrapped up.
But with both of them it waslike a cathartic moment.
Not even a cathartic moment,it's like they're vindicated.
Mila (41:25):
You take on these cases when the clients are going
through the hardest times oftheir lives and they're so
wronged and they have theclosest thing to them children
that they've produced removedfrom them and no one believes
them, and you help them findtheir voices again.
You help them get their powerback with those verdicts.
Ilona (41:39):
I think it really sucks that if only one out of 200 gets
accepted, there's so manypeople that can't be helped that
are victims of.
Shawn (41:48):
What we've tried to do to address that and it doesn't
work for everybody items of whatwe've tried to do to address
that and it doesn't work foreverybody is I put all of my
work product out on the internet.
So the motions we make, themotions we oppose, the stuff we
win, the stuff we lose,discovery, you know, pattern
discovery all of that isavailable for and there's a lot
of pro se people out there thatare capable, yeah so we put it
(42:10):
all out there.
They can use it, that's verygenerous of you the depositions
our little caps and stems thingthat's on my sweatshirt.
We uh put that out on youtube.
People can go watch.
See you know how do you do adepo where can people find it?
Ilona (42:24):
for those who don't have an attorney and want to take
action on their own, where canthey find?
Shawn (42:29):
your material, caps and stems law, just do itaps and
Stems Law.
Mila (42:32):
Just do a.
Shawn (42:33):
Google search Caps and Stems like the letter N Stems.
The YouTube channel has all thedeposition stuff and that's
totally available for free.
Mila (42:43):
Thank you so much for joining us Well.
Thanks for having me, this isfun.
Ilona (42:46):
And stay healthy.
Hope that all your work isworth it.
Shawn (42:48):
Yeah, I think I'm going to be okay actually.
Mila (42:50):
I know you're going to be okay.
Like you are a warrior, I seeit in you, maybe.
I absolutely know you're goingto be okay.
And you're not just going to beokay, you're going to be great.
Ilona (43:01):
And that's it for today's episode.
Huge thanks to Sean McMillanfor sharing his incredible
journey with us.
Mila (43:07):
Definitely an inspiring conversation.
If you're ready to keepgrinding and making a difference
, don't forget to subscribe,leave us a review and stay tuned
for more.
Ilona (43:17):
Stay bold, stay beautiful and catch you next time.
Oh, by the way, and handsometoo.
Catch us next time on theGlamorous Grind.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.