May 13, 2025 • 30 mins
In the premiere of Season 2 of The Glamorous Grind, attorneys Ilona Antonyan and Mila Arutunian sit down with family law expert Nicholas Moore for a raw, insightful look at the emotional and legal minefields of family court and juvenile dependency cases.
What happens when CPS knocks on your door? When does emotional abuse become a legal case? And what does “full custody” really mean?
In this episode, you’ll hear:
- The real legal process behind CPS and juvenile court
- Red flag vs. green flag scenarios in custody and separation
- How recovery from addiction is treated in family law
- Strategic insights for victims of domestic violence
- Why rushing to court without counsel can backfire
- And what every parent needs to know about their legal rights
Whether you’re navigating a divorce, recovering from abuse, or just want to understand the system better, this episode is a must-listen.
Follow & subscribe for more powerful conversations where the law meets life—with grit, glam, and heart.
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):
So Alona and I are going to bring up situations and
you're going to tell us if it'sa red flag or a green flag and
why.
Nick (00:07):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila (00:10):
So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody
on day one.
Nick (00:16):
That's a red flag.
Ilona (00:28):
Welcome back to the Glamorous Grind.
We're kicking off season twowith a powerful episode about
the hidden costs of family law.
Not just the financial ones,but the emotional toll, the
custody battles and what happenswhen Child Welfare Services,
now known as Child and FamilyWellbeing steps into your life
services, now known as child andfamily well-being, steps into
your life.
Nick (00:47):
We're joined by an incredible guest who's been in
the trenches with high conflictcases and knows how to fight
smart, it's her nicholas moorethanks for having me tell us
about your experience withjuvenile court so when a case
gets filed against a parent umwell, really, a case is filed
concerning the welfare of achild the parents, both of them
are entitled to counsel.
Ilona (01:08):
So that our viewers understand there's family court
and then there's juvenile court.
The types of cases that end upin juvenile court is where one
or both parents may be losingcustody and the child may
potentially become the ward ofthe court.
And in family court it'sdifferent.
Anyone who has a paternity case, a divorce case or arguing over
(01:29):
their children without therebeing any concerns about their
safety necessarily can go tofamily court and open up a
petition Domestic violence ordrugs are generally the two big
types of cases that end up injuvenile court.
What percentage of cases thatyou've dealt with?
You would say dealt withphysical abuse versus emotional,
although obviously, if there'sphysical abuse, emotional abuse
(01:52):
is part of it.
Nick (01:53):
For the most part, domestic violence cases involve
some serious allegations ofphysical violence that occur in
front of the child, and thereare occasionally child abuse
cases as well that deal with thephysical violence to the child
occasionally child abuse casesas well that deal with physical
violence to the child.
Ilona (02:06):
The way that a case gets reported to child welfare
services is either someone callsin and makes a report that's
often anonymous or it would be amandatory reporter who is a
doctor, a therapist, a teacher.
There are a number of mandatoryreporters that if they hear
about any sort of abuse theyhave to report it to child
(02:26):
welfare services.
Now let's go back to how thingsend up from family court and
juvenile.
So either for the parties whoare never in family court before
and there was an incident, orit was in family court already
and something happens and childwelfare services gets involved
and then they take action, filea petition in juvenile court and
(02:50):
at that point any family law orcustody proceeding that's
pending in family court isprobably on hold until things
are resolved in juvenile courtinvolves restraining order that
just keep getting dismissed atthe temporary restraining order
stage and then new allegationsof violence or abuse are made
(03:12):
and at that point the governmentis essentially considering the
parent non-protective orcodependent.
Nick (03:18):
They say here's our documented history of violence.
We have this from the familycourt file.
Here's a new allegation thatwas raised in a new temporary
restraining order.
We know that this has happenedbefore on multiple occasions.
The child is at risk.
We don't believe that thisperson is going to follow
through with this restrainingorder and so they'll remove the
case from family court tojuvenile court.
mila (03:39):
Those processes are in place to assist with, maybe,
spouses or partners who are notstrong enough to walk away on
their own kind of forces, forcestheir hand that's a good way to
describe it the average victimof domestic violence.
Nick (03:57):
It takes them seven attempts to leave and that's not
seven plans, that's not seventimes that they've written out
their goals in terms of end upin the system.
I'm constantly trying to figureout the right combination of
(04:36):
words to express the urgency ofthe situation and my sincere
desire to put them into a placeof safety so they don't have to
worry about the legalconsequences of it.
And I think it's a realcase-by-case and personal basis
where it gets a struggle toexplain to people, because you
are essentially trying to get aperson to conceptualize the
(05:01):
death of an idea, right, whichis the idea that I'm going to
raise this child with somebodyelse.
We're going to be a familytogether, right?
And if they're not willing toaccept that, not only is it a
distinct possibility that thatmay not happen, but there will
be severe consequences unlessthey take immediate action.
It's a really hard thing for aperson to process.
Ilona (05:23):
What are different types of cases that are dealt with in
juvenile court?
Nick (05:27):
Sure, the most common is drug and alcohol dependency.
That's where at least oneparent has a serious addiction
issue that requires the child tobe removed because the drug use
has placed the child at riskeither of exposure, or there has
been some positive exposure tothe child, or it results in the
child being placed in dangeroussituations.
mila (05:48):
What does exposure mean?
Does that just mean they'rearound the parent when they're
on drugs or alcohol?
Nick (05:53):
Testing positive for drug zero.
mila (05:56):
The child.
Nick (05:57):
Yes Wow.
mila (05:58):
So what about?
You know, because drugs couldbe illegal, but alcohol is
obviously legal.
What point would alcohol abusebe considered enough to move
into the juvenile court system,like if, for example, a parent
is an alcoholic but there's nophysical abuse, there's no
physical violence.
Just get strong.
(06:18):
Is that enough?
Nick (06:20):
Yeah, it is enough and there's not a bright line.
So, like there's no particularline that can be crossed with
alcohol, that puts you injuvenile court.
The heuristic is essentially,is your alcohol use creating
unsafe situations for a child?
So we'll see it in DUI caseswhere there's a child in the car
, in certain cases where alcoholis contributing to other types
(06:44):
of unsafe behavior and that canlook like parent day drinking
and falling asleep while they'resupposed to be at home watching
the child, and the child orchildren are spending several
hours unsupervised and they'repassed out on the couch.
By the time a case reachesjuvenile court, the court is
slowing everything down andsaying that everything's going
to be analyzed and there's aprocess for that.
(07:06):
So juvenile court hasdependency and delinquency.
Dependency is when there's ahealth and safety risk
identified for a child.
Delinquency is when the childis committed a crime.
The adage is that everything achild says in juvenile
delinquency is not believed, buteverything a child says in
juvenile dependency is believed.
mila (07:23):
That's so hard because kids I mean their imaginations
run wild.
I mean you know you have three.
Ilona (07:30):
And they can be coached.
One of the things that theFamily Court Services and the
mediators look for when theyinterview the children if they
do that in any specific case iswhether the child is coached.
And the way that parents oftencoach a child is by telling them
what to say, by preparing themin advance, by scaring them
they're not going to see them orbad-mouthing the other parent.
(07:52):
They understand what answersyou probably want to hear and
they're going to tell you whatyou want to hear.
I mean, how often has that comeup in juvenile court, where the
evidence elicited by one parentagainst the other through video
of the child been used.
Nick (08:07):
It's a great question because, well, first, the
dynamic is not really one parentagainst the other, it's really
the state against both of theparents at the time that it
reaches the juvenile court.
So the court is really lessconcerned with what one
particular parent thinks is theright idea, as opposed to just
holistically what is the rightapproach for the situation.
mila (08:29):
So, nick, coming from a different background, that's not
in family law.
This is all very interesting tome.
How did you get started in thisfield?
By accident?
Tell us about that.
Nick (08:41):
I wasn't really sure what type of law I wanted to practice
.
Coming out of law school I wasreally interested in white
collar criminal defense and Iwas fortunate to have an
opportunity where a greatcriminal defense attorney was a
mentor to me, brought me alongfor several big trials at the
very beginning of my career,helped me establish my own
practice by referring me cases.
(09:02):
But I knew that I needed tofind other ways to get into a
courtroom, and so domesticviolence restraining orders
really were that kind of firstopportunity to litigate,
something that's very similar tothe criminal realm, albeit in
family court.
And I was fortunate enough thatwhen I was first starting out I
needed some office space andthere was an opportunity to be
(09:24):
co-located with a victims'advocacy organization who said
we'll give you a great deal onoffice space if you're willing
to do pro bono hours to helpdomestic violence victims.
And so the opportunitypresented itself and I just sort
of started doing it and lookingback, you know, sort of more
than a decade later, it's whatI'll be doing for the rest of my
life, is this?
mila (09:45):
easy.
Yeah, you seem very passionateabout it and we've had a few
consults together on DV victims.
You know where we kind ofcombine the family law
perspective and the personalinjury side of DV.
And you're very good withclients.
You're a great communicator,you have incredible empathy.
So how did that happen?
Nick (10:11):
Like what's your background?
Yeah, I think the reason Istuck with it, as opposed to
like looking for a differentarea of law, was that there's
real tangible success whenyou're doing domestic violence
cases, and that success isgenerally you have a victim that
is afraid that their storyisn't going to be told well,
that their story isn't going tobe told well, that their voice
isn't going to be heard, thattheir concerns aren't valid.
All of these things are in themind of a person who's wondering
(10:33):
should I even go forward withthis?
One of my favorite closings togive in a domestic violence case
is that, at the end of the day,victims know that some lawyer
is going to stand up in acourtroom right and, with a
smile on their face, say victims, don't do that, victims don't
do that, victims don't do that.
And it's a really important, Ithink, argument for everyone to
(10:54):
hear, which is that a lot oflawyers are hardwired to think
that way, and if you know thatthat's going to be their
approach to the case, well thenyou know.
You just got to help them telltheir story in a way that makes
them feel confident that they'rebeing hurt, because judges
aren't going to believe that.
Well, victims don't do that,because we know there's no such
thing as a perfect victim, and Ithink we're finally at a place
(11:16):
in society where we understandthat victims don't behave
rationally.
There's no right way to respondto a safety concern.
We all think we know what wewould do in the moment.
The truth is, when faced withthose moments, most people
freeze or flake care, um, butoccasionally you get a victim
(11:39):
that fights back and the otherperson will say, well, that's
the abuser, right there.
Do you see the scratches, youknow, on this person's arm?
Well, of course, there arescratches on this person's arm
that were strangling, right?
What are you going to do whenyou're going to claw back, right
, if you have somebody layinghands on you?
And so you know, a lot ofpeople are sort of locked in
this mindset of, well, victimsdon't do that, and if there's
(12:04):
one important message for anyonewho's a victim to hear is that
is your reaction to the abuseisn't relevant, okay, and if
they want to make it relevant,then they're arguing the case
the wrong way.
What's important is whether ornot something happened.
mila (12:19):
And I think a lot of times , especially in cases with
children, when there's domesticviolence, what people fail to
take into account is it's veryeasy to judge someone for
staying with their abuser, right, oh, how could you.
But I think a lot of peopleI've seen, I've met and spoken
with at least thought that theywere doing the best thing for
(12:41):
their child.
Oh, I don't want to get police,I don't want to make their dad
out to be this terrible guy andarrested and make a big deal out
of this, Like it's probably OK.
And you know, for someone likeyou or I who are third party, we
see this and we're like, oh myGod, how could you have stayed?
But for them, that was theirlife.
Nick (13:09):
And and we're like, oh my God, how could you have stayed?
But for them that was theirlife and it wasn't anything
crazy.
It was hard for them to seebeyond that.
Statistics say my child isgoing to have a worse outcome.
All right, if I leave thisperson and we're in a lower
socioeconomic status because ofit.
Statistics say my child isgoing to have a worse outcome,
(13:31):
depending what statistics theyread, because that's also
arguable.
Yes, of course, of course, but Ithink, generally speaking,
right, what we understand isthat, you know, children of
single parent households willsome, I think, by and large have
lower educational outcomes,lower socioeconomic outcomes.
Ilona (13:53):
We don't fit neatly in the boxes for our lives right
causes severe damage to theemotional well-being of the
children.
Their confidence level, theirsuccess in the future is
impacted.
Everything is impacted and Ithink it's worse than just being
raised by one parent who canprovide you a stable, happy home
.
That's better for the child,that they can live in a calm
(14:18):
environment.
That's happy, even if they havelimited visitation with other
parents, versus living in ahouse where the parents are
fighting, arguing in front ofthem, screaming, hurting each
other.
That will mess you up for life.
Nick (14:30):
This goes to Mila's point, though, where, like that's, the
mindset of the person is likewell, I'm afraid that life will
be more difficult this way,because this happens rarely,
right, this only happens when hedrinks, or this only happens
when you know.
So it's intermittent, right,it's not a daily thing.
But you're absolutely rightthat it's much better for a kid
to grow up in a home free ofviolence, because one of the
(14:50):
things that we know is thatpeople who perpetrate the
violence grew up in a home withviolence, right?
So that child that you'reraising in a violent home is
going to grow up to be a violentchild.
Ilona (15:02):
The reality is you never deserve for someone else to put
your hands on you or your childand if it happened once, it will
happen again.
I've seen that in family law.
That happened to me once inpersonal life and I ended up my
marriage after four monthsbecause of that, because I knew
that if it happened once, if ithappened twice, it is going to
(15:24):
happen again, because it happensto women, it happens to men,
and to then have a family withsomeone or continue on is
inviting more problems into yourlife, inviting court disputes
in family court or juvenilecourt in the future.
So if you can get out of anabusive relationship early on
when you see red flags, do it,but when people are in that
(15:48):
situation, they don't see that.
mila (15:50):
I think, especially a lot of times, if you know there's a
codependency, whether it'sfinancial or otherwise, someone
can't even fathom their lifewithout this other person who
they depend on.
And that's why I think it's agood time to talk about really
quickly that there are servicesavailable for people women or
(16:11):
men who don't have money, don'thave jobs and are being abused,
and we actually arecollaborating with one currently
(16:37):
, one Safe Place, or the NorthCounty Justice Center, which is
a center where women get medicalservices.
I mean, it's crazy the servicesthat are available for free to
help in those particularsituations where people don't
have the funds or the financesor they're dependent on a person
who's abusing them person whois abusing them, absolutely,
(17:01):
really proud of our firm'scollaboration with One Safe
Place.
Nick (17:03):
It's really exciting.
The idea is that before placeslike the Family Justice Center
existed and this goes back toabout 2002, when the Downtown
Family Justice Center was firststarted if a victim wanted to
make use of county services,they would have to travel all
around the county right and, ifthey didn't have a car, by
public transit it could be a twoor three day affair to get to
(17:25):
all the different serviceproviders.
They have to retell their storyat each provider, and so the
idea was started back in 2002,2003 by Casey Quinn, when he was
the city attorney here, that weought to create just a one-stop
shop for people to tell theirstory one time and receive all
the services they need.
mila (17:45):
Okay, so let's play red flag, green flag.
So Alona and I are going tobring up situations and you're
going to tell us if it's a redflag or a green flag and why.
Nick (17:55):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila (17:58):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
Nick (17:59):
Beige.
mila (18:00):
So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody
on day one.
Nick (18:05):
That's a red flag.
mila (18:07):
Why is it a red flag?
Nick (18:09):
Well, the law in California says that it's in
children's best interest to havefrequent, continuous contact
with both parents, and so thefamily court and even the
juvenile court is going tocreate paths for both parents to
be involved in a child's life,and so full custody.
People have this idea in theirmind that it means that this
other parent doesn't get theopportunity to be involved at
(18:30):
all, and if that's their mindset, going in and some reframing
needs to happen in order toproperly set their expectations.
mila (18:38):
How would you recommend that someone acts if their
partner says I want full custodyon day one of the announcement
of the divorce?
Nick (18:46):
Well, try and explain to them what the law says and what
the law is going to do, which isgoing to give their partner a
path or an opportunity to be anactive parent in the child's
life their children just on aspecific schedule and they don't
(19:12):
know that.
Ilona (19:13):
That doesn't mean they're getting full custody.
They're going to have primarycustody and the other parent
will have the rights ofvisitation.
Nick (19:16):
It does indicate a desire for control over the situation.
mila (19:20):
I think.
I mean I don't practice infamily law, but I've seen a lot
of times where people will usecustody as a weapon against the
other spouse or ex-spouse orparent to, and they'll say that
just to hurt the other person.
Nick (19:36):
Absolutely.
Sometimes they'll be open aboutthat desire and sometimes it
might be borne out by the other.
Ilona (19:43):
What about going to child welfare services interview when
they knock on your door andleave a business card without
legal counsel interview when?
Nick (19:50):
they knock on your door and leave a business cart
without legal counsel Huge redflag why, anytime you're dealing
with the government, they'regoing to tell you things such as
we just need to hear your sideof the story, give us your
version so we can write it up infavor of you and be done with
it, because I just need to talkto you and then write this down
and it'll be okay.
And the reality is thateverything you say, they'll find
(20:13):
a way to use against you ifthey feel like there's a risk to
the child, even if that riskseems very minimal.
Right, you'll see this withpolice.
You'll see this with childwelfare services.
Talk to an attorney first, butunderstand that you're under no
obligation to talk to them.
mila (20:31):
I would assume it's extremely emotional.
When you're emotional, you'renot rational.
That's inevitable.
You could be giving a statementbecause it's innate, I think,
to want to tell your side of thestory and want to tell everyone
you didn't do anything wrong.
And very important to take astep back and remember that,
even with the best intentions,you could accidentally misstate
(20:55):
something that later will beused to you know, make you out
to be a liar.
Ilona (21:01):
I mean you could be asked by a child welfare service
worker do you ever drink?
Yeah, don't lie about that.
If you ever drink, evensocially, say yes, because the
moment you say no, most likelythey're going to doubt the rest
of what you said.
But if you're asked did youdrink on any specific occasion,
then that's a different questionRed flag or green flag Keeping
(21:24):
a shared bank account openduring separation.
Nick (21:28):
Oh, that's a red flag Right open during separation.
Oh that's a red flag.
Go ahead Well, becausesomething is going to happen
that's going to cause someproblems with this account at
some point in the future.
Somebody's going to make someexpenditure that becomes the
source of some degree ofconflict, the sooner you can, I
(21:49):
think, clearly account for whatcould be community or separate
property from the outset of thecase and have some clear
boundaries.
That limits the disagreementsthat will happen in the future
equal, you know for both parties.
mila (22:00):
But once you separate, does the community part, does
the community property separate?
Yeah, Immediately Do you haveto file anything?
Nick (22:19):
The property itself doesn't separate, but the idea
that the property earned duringthe time period after separation
is that it now becomes separate.
Ilona (22:29):
Acquisition rule.
If something was acquiredduring the marriage or while the
parties are together, then it'spresumed to be community
property.
If it's acquired after date ofseparation, then it's presumed
to be separate property.
But it's just a presumption.
Presumption can be overcome byevidence that's presented.
During period of separation youpurchase something, although it
(22:52):
is presumed to be separateproperty.
If you use community money fromjoint account to purchase it,
then you'll probably overcomethe presumption that it's
separate property.
mila (22:59):
So is the date of separation a date when something
is filed or submitted, or is itjust when you decide that
you're being?
Nick (23:06):
separated.
It depends.
I mean it is looked at in termsof objective factors, but
sometimes the parties willdisagree as to when the
separation happened.
Living together can be messy,especially with somebody that
you love and you built a lifewith, and there might be brief
periods of love or romance,right, that could then be used
to argue oh, we weren'tseparated, this was a
reconciliation that happened.
Ilona (23:25):
There has to be mutual meeting of the minds and it's
clear to both parties that themarriage is over.
So if you want to be sure thatyour finances are separate, you
send a text message about it.
You don't text about how youlove each other and you may get
back together.
There has to be clear, definite, hey, it's over.
And if you're continuing tolive together for financial
(23:47):
reasons, than if arguing overdate of separation in family
court later, questions you'll beasked by the attorneys in
deposition or trial will be wereyou having sex still together?
And one may say, yeah, we stillslept together and I have
pictures, or I have photos.
Or we slept on Christmas orwhatever may have happened.
That's relevant.
(24:07):
Have you been going toconjoined therapy together?
Try to save their relationship?
If you have a text message it'sover, but you're going to
conjoined therapy or triedtherapy to save their
relationship, then you're notseparated.
That'll be strong evidenceagainst your date of separation.
mila (24:21):
When should you open a separate bank account and close
a joint account?
Nick (24:26):
I think when you are fearful that the end really is
here is probably the best timeto do it.
Like, if you have that fearthat it might be over, that's
probably the time to starttaking it.
mila (24:36):
And it'll definitely be over.
Ilona (24:41):
So what's the process once the parties end up in
juvenile court?
Nick (24:46):
So the first hearing is an arraignment or detention
hearing.
Arraignment's just the fancyword for your first appearance
in court where you're answeringan allegation made by a
government.
Is there enough to kind of kickoff this case to make some
temporary orders the next threeweeks, because another hearing
will be set within three weeksof that detention?
Ilona (25:05):
At that hearing they have a choice to place the child
with a foster family or with oneof the two parents, if one of
the two is capable and safe tobe with right Correct.
Nick (25:17):
Or relative.
And what happens three weekslater at the next hearing.
What is that hearing called?
It's called the Jurisdictionand Disposition Hearing.
That is where the court isanswering the question of
jurisdiction, which is is thiscourt the appropriate court to
make orders?
Ilona (25:30):
And if it's not, then it will be family court, correct.
Nick (25:32):
No, if it's not the case, should just be dismissed.
At that point the question atdisposition becomes what are we
doing about a juveniledependency case?
And there are three potentialoutcomes.
Either it's going to be afamily maintenance case, which
means the child or children areplaced with one or both of the
parents.
If the child is not placed witheither parent but is placed
with a relative or a fosterparent, then the parents may be
(25:54):
offered something called familyreunification services, which
would be essentially the sametypes of services as family
maintenance services.
Reunification just describesthat the child's out of the home
, and these are again servicesdesigned to remedy the reason
for why the child came intocourt.
The third outcome is bypass andthat's the outcome you want to
avoid, and that means that thecourt system is determined that
(26:15):
it is not in the child's bestinterest for reunification
services to be offered to theparents.
Those are most likely drugcases, where addiction has been
so prevalent during the parent'slife that they've lost multiple
children throughout theiraddiction.
What's the last hearing?
The last hearing?
Well, it depends, right.
The last hearing could be afamily maintenance hearing,
right, where the court is sayingchild with one parent, they've
(26:37):
had at least this six months ofservices seems to be going well.
We can close the case now withwhat are called exit orders or
family law.
The other type of sort of finalhearing is called a 2-6 hearing
.
That's a hearing to determine adifferent permanent plan.
That's a hearing wherereunification efforts have been
unsuccessful or were bypassedentirely and the court is
(26:59):
looking at what is the bestpermanent plan for this child's
future.
mila (27:02):
Okay, let's get gritty Audience.
Q&a questions.
You ready?
Nick (27:06):
Yes, okay.
mila (27:07):
We have our first question from the audience.
Ready, yes, okay, we have ourfirst question from the audience
.
Nick (27:19):
I'm 11 months sober, but my ex keeps using my past
addiction to block custody.
What can I do?
This is a great question.
That's a huge accomplishmentand that should be celebrated,
and so there should be peopleinvolved in your life that are
supportive of that.
So there should be peopleinvolved in your life that are
supportive of that, and so agood start would be finding your
supports right and letting themknow.
Hey, this is something that I'mstruggling with right now.
The next should be that if youaren't working a program whether
(27:42):
it's like a 12-step program inNA or AA or smart recovery or
some faith-based recoveryservice if you're not working
some kind of program, you shouldbe working a program.
The reason is is the programsare done in languages that
courts are familiar with.
A lot of the judges in thiscounty, especially receive
(28:04):
trainings on what these programsare, how they work, what kind
of sort of benchmarks exist thatmake them effective, and so
there's a bit like a secretlanguage to refurbish, and if
you're working a program, youcan speak that language and the
judges will understand whatyou're saying.
Right, if you have a sponsor,if you're working steps, do you
(28:24):
go to meetings?
Are you somebody who has aservice commitment at those
meetings, right?
Do you have a higher power,right?
These are all somewhatfaith-based types of programs
and the idea behind it is thatyou are recovery is not
abstinence, right?
So if you are 11 months sober,right, that means that you
(28:47):
haven't consumed anything in 11months.
But are you actively working onyour recovery?
Or are you just abstinent?
Because if you're activelyworking recovery, then you've
got mountains of evidence topresent to the court about why
this person is manipulating yourpast using that.
Early.
Recovery is technically definedas three to five years, right?
(29:09):
So your first three to fiveyears of sobriety, you're still
going to kind of be under amicroscope.
Everyone's got a little bit ofa different story about what
helped them become sober.
mila (29:25):
And it gets better with time.
We are going to wrap up withNicholas's advice to parents who
are facing system involvement.
Nick (29:34):
What advice would you give .
Understand that what you saycan be against you.
Understand that the people thatare involved are primarily
concerned about one thing, andthat is your child's safety.
And if you don't have theability to articulate a fairly
clear plan how to keep yourchild safe, then I wouldn't talk
(29:55):
about it with anybody untilyou're ready to have that.
Ilona (29:56):
Thank you, and again, nick is an extremely talented
attorney.
He's with our firm, knows allthe ins and outs of juvenile
court systems, so if anybodyneeds advice, feel free to reach
out to him.
Nick (30:08):
Yeah, Thank you.
Thank you for having me advice.
Ilona (30:11):
feel free to reach out to him.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Don't miss next week, where wesit down with a TikTok lawyer
himself, ryan Steigart, and lookat the intersection of social
media and legal rights.
So Alona and I are going to bring up situations and
you're going to tell us if it'sa red flag or a green flag and
why.
Nick (00:07):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila (00:10):
So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody
on day one.
Nick (00:16):
That's a red flag.
Ilona (00:28):
Welcome back to the Glamorous Grind.
We're kicking off season twowith a powerful episode about
the hidden costs of family law.
Not just the financial ones,but the emotional toll, the
custody battles and what happenswhen Child Welfare Services,
now known as Child and FamilyWellbeing steps into your life
services, now known as child andfamily well-being, steps into
your life.
Nick (00:47):
We're joined by an incredible guest who's been in
the trenches with high conflictcases and knows how to fight
smart, it's her nicholas moorethanks for having me tell us
about your experience withjuvenile court so when a case
gets filed against a parent umwell, really, a case is filed
concerning the welfare of achild the parents, both of them
are entitled to counsel.
Ilona (01:08):
So that our viewers understand there's family court
and then there's juvenile court.
The types of cases that end upin juvenile court is where one
or both parents may be losingcustody and the child may
potentially become the ward ofthe court.
And in family court it'sdifferent.
Anyone who has a paternity case, a divorce case or arguing over
(01:29):
their children without therebeing any concerns about their
safety necessarily can go tofamily court and open up a
petition Domestic violence ordrugs are generally the two big
types of cases that end up injuvenile court.
What percentage of cases thatyou've dealt with?
You would say dealt withphysical abuse versus emotional,
although obviously, if there'sphysical abuse, emotional abuse
(01:52):
is part of it.
Nick (01:53):
For the most part, domestic violence cases involve
some serious allegations ofphysical violence that occur in
front of the child, and thereare occasionally child abuse
cases as well that deal with thephysical violence to the child
occasionally child abuse casesas well that deal with physical
violence to the child.
Ilona (02:06):
The way that a case gets reported to child welfare
services is either someone callsin and makes a report that's
often anonymous or it would be amandatory reporter who is a
doctor, a therapist, a teacher.
There are a number of mandatoryreporters that if they hear
about any sort of abuse theyhave to report it to child
(02:26):
welfare services.
Now let's go back to how thingsend up from family court and
juvenile.
So either for the parties whoare never in family court before
and there was an incident, orit was in family court already
and something happens and childwelfare services gets involved
and then they take action, filea petition in juvenile court and
(02:50):
at that point any family law orcustody proceeding that's
pending in family court isprobably on hold until things
are resolved in juvenile courtinvolves restraining order that
just keep getting dismissed atthe temporary restraining order
stage and then new allegationsof violence or abuse are made
(03:12):
and at that point the governmentis essentially considering the
parent non-protective orcodependent.
Nick (03:18):
They say here's our documented history of violence.
We have this from the familycourt file.
Here's a new allegation thatwas raised in a new temporary
restraining order.
We know that this has happenedbefore on multiple occasions.
The child is at risk.
We don't believe that thisperson is going to follow
through with this restrainingorder and so they'll remove the
case from family court tojuvenile court.
mila (03:39):
Those processes are in place to assist with, maybe,
spouses or partners who are notstrong enough to walk away on
their own kind of forces, forcestheir hand that's a good way to
describe it the average victimof domestic violence.
Nick (03:57):
It takes them seven attempts to leave and that's not
seven plans, that's not seventimes that they've written out
their goals in terms of end upin the system.
I'm constantly trying to figureout the right combination of
(04:36):
words to express the urgency ofthe situation and my sincere
desire to put them into a placeof safety so they don't have to
worry about the legalconsequences of it.
And I think it's a realcase-by-case and personal basis
where it gets a struggle toexplain to people, because you
are essentially trying to get aperson to conceptualize the
(05:01):
death of an idea, right, whichis the idea that I'm going to
raise this child with somebodyelse.
We're going to be a familytogether, right?
And if they're not willing toaccept that, not only is it a
distinct possibility that thatmay not happen, but there will
be severe consequences unlessthey take immediate action.
It's a really hard thing for aperson to process.
Ilona (05:23):
What are different types of cases that are dealt with in
juvenile court?
Nick (05:27):
Sure, the most common is drug and alcohol dependency.
That's where at least oneparent has a serious addiction
issue that requires the child tobe removed because the drug use
has placed the child at riskeither of exposure, or there has
been some positive exposure tothe child, or it results in the
child being placed in dangeroussituations.
mila (05:48):
What does exposure mean?
Does that just mean they'rearound the parent when they're
on drugs or alcohol?
Nick (05:53):
Testing positive for drug zero.
mila (05:56):
The child.
Nick (05:57):
Yes Wow.
mila (05:58):
So what about?
You know, because drugs couldbe illegal, but alcohol is
obviously legal.
What point would alcohol abusebe considered enough to move
into the juvenile court system,like if, for example, a parent
is an alcoholic but there's nophysical abuse, there's no
physical violence.
Just get strong.
(06:18):
Is that enough?
Nick (06:20):
Yeah, it is enough and there's not a bright line.
So, like there's no particularline that can be crossed with
alcohol, that puts you injuvenile court.
The heuristic is essentially,is your alcohol use creating
unsafe situations for a child?
So we'll see it in DUI caseswhere there's a child in the car
, in certain cases where alcoholis contributing to other types
(06:44):
of unsafe behavior and that canlook like parent day drinking
and falling asleep while they'resupposed to be at home watching
the child, and the child orchildren are spending several
hours unsupervised and they'repassed out on the couch.
By the time a case reachesjuvenile court, the court is
slowing everything down andsaying that everything's going
to be analyzed and there's aprocess for that.
(07:06):
So juvenile court hasdependency and delinquency.
Dependency is when there's ahealth and safety risk
identified for a child.
Delinquency is when the childis committed a crime.
The adage is that everything achild says in juvenile
delinquency is not believed, buteverything a child says in
juvenile dependency is believed.
mila (07:23):
That's so hard because kids I mean their imaginations
run wild.
I mean you know you have three.
Ilona (07:30):
And they can be coached.
One of the things that theFamily Court Services and the
mediators look for when theyinterview the children if they
do that in any specific case iswhether the child is coached.
And the way that parents oftencoach a child is by telling them
what to say, by preparing themin advance, by scaring them
they're not going to see them orbad-mouthing the other parent.
(07:52):
They understand what answersyou probably want to hear and
they're going to tell you whatyou want to hear.
I mean, how often has that comeup in juvenile court, where the
evidence elicited by one parentagainst the other through video
of the child been used.
Nick (08:07):
It's a great question because, well, first, the
dynamic is not really one parentagainst the other, it's really
the state against both of theparents at the time that it
reaches the juvenile court.
So the court is really lessconcerned with what one
particular parent thinks is theright idea, as opposed to just
holistically what is the rightapproach for the situation.
mila (08:29):
So, nick, coming from a different background, that's not
in family law.
This is all very interesting tome.
How did you get started in thisfield?
By accident?
Tell us about that.
Nick (08:41):
I wasn't really sure what type of law I wanted to practice
.
Coming out of law school I wasreally interested in white
collar criminal defense and Iwas fortunate to have an
opportunity where a greatcriminal defense attorney was a
mentor to me, brought me alongfor several big trials at the
very beginning of my career,helped me establish my own
practice by referring me cases.
(09:02):
But I knew that I needed tofind other ways to get into a
courtroom, and so domesticviolence restraining orders
really were that kind of firstopportunity to litigate,
something that's very similar tothe criminal realm, albeit in
family court.
And I was fortunate enough thatwhen I was first starting out I
needed some office space andthere was an opportunity to be
(09:24):
co-located with a victims'advocacy organization who said
we'll give you a great deal onoffice space if you're willing
to do pro bono hours to helpdomestic violence victims.
And so the opportunitypresented itself and I just sort
of started doing it and lookingback, you know, sort of more
than a decade later, it's whatI'll be doing for the rest of my
life, is this?
mila (09:45):
easy.
Yeah, you seem very passionateabout it and we've had a few
consults together on DV victims.
You know where we kind ofcombine the family law
perspective and the personalinjury side of DV.
And you're very good withclients.
You're a great communicator,you have incredible empathy.
So how did that happen?
Nick (10:11):
Like what's your background?
Yeah, I think the reason Istuck with it, as opposed to
like looking for a differentarea of law, was that there's
real tangible success whenyou're doing domestic violence
cases, and that success isgenerally you have a victim that
is afraid that their storyisn't going to be told well,
that their story isn't going tobe told well, that their voice
isn't going to be heard, thattheir concerns aren't valid.
All of these things are in themind of a person who's wondering
(10:33):
should I even go forward withthis?
One of my favorite closings togive in a domestic violence case
is that, at the end of the day,victims know that some lawyer
is going to stand up in acourtroom right and, with a
smile on their face, say victims, don't do that, victims don't
do that, victims don't do that.
And it's a really important, Ithink, argument for everyone to
(10:54):
hear, which is that a lot oflawyers are hardwired to think
that way, and if you know thatthat's going to be their
approach to the case, well thenyou know.
You just got to help them telltheir story in a way that makes
them feel confident that they'rebeing hurt, because judges
aren't going to believe that.
Well, victims don't do that,because we know there's no such
thing as a perfect victim, and Ithink we're finally at a place
(11:16):
in society where we understandthat victims don't behave
rationally.
There's no right way to respondto a safety concern.
We all think we know what wewould do in the moment.
The truth is, when faced withthose moments, most people
freeze or flake care, um, butoccasionally you get a victim
(11:39):
that fights back and the otherperson will say, well, that's
the abuser, right there.
Do you see the scratches, youknow, on this person's arm?
Well, of course, there arescratches on this person's arm
that were strangling, right?
What are you going to do whenyou're going to claw back, right
, if you have somebody layinghands on you?
And so you know, a lot ofpeople are sort of locked in
this mindset of, well, victimsdon't do that, and if there's
(12:04):
one important message for anyonewho's a victim to hear is that
is your reaction to the abuseisn't relevant, okay, and if
they want to make it relevant,then they're arguing the case
the wrong way.
What's important is whether ornot something happened.
mila (12:19):
And I think a lot of times , especially in cases with
children, when there's domesticviolence, what people fail to
take into account is it's veryeasy to judge someone for
staying with their abuser, right, oh, how could you.
But I think a lot of peopleI've seen, I've met and spoken
with at least thought that theywere doing the best thing for
(12:41):
their child.
Oh, I don't want to get police,I don't want to make their dad
out to be this terrible guy andarrested and make a big deal out
of this, Like it's probably OK.
And you know, for someone likeyou or I who are third party, we
see this and we're like, oh myGod, how could you have stayed?
But for them, that was theirlife.
Nick (13:09):
And and we're like, oh my God, how could you have stayed?
But for them that was theirlife and it wasn't anything
crazy.
It was hard for them to seebeyond that.
Statistics say my child isgoing to have a worse outcome.
All right, if I leave thisperson and we're in a lower
socioeconomic status because ofit.
Statistics say my child isgoing to have a worse outcome,
(13:31):
depending what statistics theyread, because that's also
arguable.
Yes, of course, of course, but Ithink, generally speaking,
right, what we understand isthat, you know, children of
single parent households willsome, I think, by and large have
lower educational outcomes,lower socioeconomic outcomes.
Ilona (13:53):
We don't fit neatly in the boxes for our lives right
causes severe damage to theemotional well-being of the
children.
Their confidence level, theirsuccess in the future is
impacted.
Everything is impacted and Ithink it's worse than just being
raised by one parent who canprovide you a stable, happy home
.
That's better for the child,that they can live in a calm
(14:18):
environment.
That's happy, even if they havelimited visitation with other
parents, versus living in ahouse where the parents are
fighting, arguing in front ofthem, screaming, hurting each
other.
That will mess you up for life.
Nick (14:30):
This goes to Mila's point, though, where, like that's, the
mindset of the person is likewell, I'm afraid that life will
be more difficult this way,because this happens rarely,
right, this only happens when hedrinks, or this only happens
when you know.
So it's intermittent, right,it's not a daily thing.
But you're absolutely rightthat it's much better for a kid
to grow up in a home free ofviolence, because one of the
(14:50):
things that we know is thatpeople who perpetrate the
violence grew up in a home withviolence, right?
So that child that you'reraising in a violent home is
going to grow up to be a violentchild.
Ilona (15:02):
The reality is you never deserve for someone else to put
your hands on you or your childand if it happened once, it will
happen again.
I've seen that in family law.
That happened to me once inpersonal life and I ended up my
marriage after four monthsbecause of that, because I knew
that if it happened once, if ithappened twice, it is going to
(15:24):
happen again, because it happensto women, it happens to men,
and to then have a family withsomeone or continue on is
inviting more problems into yourlife, inviting court disputes
in family court or juvenilecourt in the future.
So if you can get out of anabusive relationship early on
when you see red flags, do it,but when people are in that
(15:48):
situation, they don't see that.
mila (15:50):
I think, especially a lot of times, if you know there's a
codependency, whether it'sfinancial or otherwise, someone
can't even fathom their lifewithout this other person who
they depend on.
And that's why I think it's agood time to talk about really
quickly that there are servicesavailable for people women or
(16:11):
men who don't have money, don'thave jobs and are being abused,
and we actually arecollaborating with one currently
(16:37):
, one Safe Place, or the NorthCounty Justice Center, which is
a center where women get medicalservices.
I mean, it's crazy the servicesthat are available for free to
help in those particularsituations where people don't
have the funds or the financesor they're dependent on a person
who's abusing them person whois abusing them, absolutely,
(17:01):
really proud of our firm'scollaboration with One Safe
Place.
Nick (17:03):
It's really exciting.
The idea is that before placeslike the Family Justice Center
existed and this goes back toabout 2002, when the Downtown
Family Justice Center was firststarted if a victim wanted to
make use of county services,they would have to travel all
around the county right and, ifthey didn't have a car, by
public transit it could be a twoor three day affair to get to
(17:25):
all the different serviceproviders.
They have to retell their storyat each provider, and so the
idea was started back in 2002,2003 by Casey Quinn, when he was
the city attorney here, that weought to create just a one-stop
shop for people to tell theirstory one time and receive all
the services they need.
mila (17:45):
Okay, so let's play red flag, green flag.
So Alona and I are going tobring up situations and you're
going to tell us if it's a redflag or a green flag and why.
Nick (17:55):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
mila (17:58):
Okay, we should have a beige flag maybe.
Nick (17:59):
Beige.
mila (18:00):
So the first one is if a partner says I want full custody
on day one.
Nick (18:05):
That's a red flag.
mila (18:07):
Why is it a red flag?
Nick (18:09):
Well, the law in California says that it's in
children's best interest to havefrequent, continuous contact
with both parents, and so thefamily court and even the
juvenile court is going tocreate paths for both parents to
be involved in a child's life,and so full custody.
People have this idea in theirmind that it means that this
other parent doesn't get theopportunity to be involved at
(18:30):
all, and if that's their mindset, going in and some reframing
needs to happen in order toproperly set their expectations.
mila (18:38):
How would you recommend that someone acts if their
partner says I want full custodyon day one of the announcement
of the divorce?
Nick (18:46):
Well, try and explain to them what the law says and what
the law is going to do, which isgoing to give their partner a
path or an opportunity to be anactive parent in the child's
life their children just on aspecific schedule and they don't
(19:12):
know that.
Ilona (19:13):
That doesn't mean they're getting full custody.
They're going to have primarycustody and the other parent
will have the rights ofvisitation.
Nick (19:16):
It does indicate a desire for control over the situation.
mila (19:20):
I think.
I mean I don't practice infamily law, but I've seen a lot
of times where people will usecustody as a weapon against the
other spouse or ex-spouse orparent to, and they'll say that
just to hurt the other person.
Nick (19:36):
Absolutely.
Sometimes they'll be open aboutthat desire and sometimes it
might be borne out by the other.
Ilona (19:43):
What about going to child welfare services interview when
they knock on your door andleave a business card without
legal counsel interview when?
Nick (19:50):
they knock on your door and leave a business cart
without legal counsel Huge redflag why, anytime you're dealing
with the government, they'regoing to tell you things such as
we just need to hear your sideof the story, give us your
version so we can write it up infavor of you and be done with
it, because I just need to talkto you and then write this down
and it'll be okay.
And the reality is thateverything you say, they'll find
(20:13):
a way to use against you ifthey feel like there's a risk to
the child, even if that riskseems very minimal.
Right, you'll see this withpolice.
You'll see this with childwelfare services.
Talk to an attorney first, butunderstand that you're under no
obligation to talk to them.
mila (20:31):
I would assume it's extremely emotional.
When you're emotional, you'renot rational.
That's inevitable.
You could be giving a statementbecause it's innate, I think,
to want to tell your side of thestory and want to tell everyone
you didn't do anything wrong.
And very important to take astep back and remember that,
even with the best intentions,you could accidentally misstate
(20:55):
something that later will beused to you know, make you out
to be a liar.
Ilona (21:01):
I mean you could be asked by a child welfare service
worker do you ever drink?
Yeah, don't lie about that.
If you ever drink, evensocially, say yes, because the
moment you say no, most likelythey're going to doubt the rest
of what you said.
But if you're asked did youdrink on any specific occasion,
then that's a different questionRed flag or green flag Keeping
(21:24):
a shared bank account openduring separation.
Nick (21:28):
Oh, that's a red flag Right open during separation.
Oh that's a red flag.
Go ahead Well, becausesomething is going to happen
that's going to cause someproblems with this account at
some point in the future.
Somebody's going to make someexpenditure that becomes the
source of some degree ofconflict, the sooner you can, I
(21:49):
think, clearly account for whatcould be community or separate
property from the outset of thecase and have some clear
boundaries.
That limits the disagreementsthat will happen in the future
equal, you know for both parties.
mila (22:00):
But once you separate, does the community part, does
the community property separate?
Yeah, Immediately Do you haveto file anything?
Nick (22:19):
The property itself doesn't separate, but the idea
that the property earned duringthe time period after separation
is that it now becomes separate.
Ilona (22:29):
Acquisition rule.
If something was acquiredduring the marriage or while the
parties are together, then it'spresumed to be community
property.
If it's acquired after date ofseparation, then it's presumed
to be separate property.
But it's just a presumption.
Presumption can be overcome byevidence that's presented.
During period of separation youpurchase something, although it
(22:52):
is presumed to be separateproperty.
If you use community money fromjoint account to purchase it,
then you'll probably overcomethe presumption that it's
separate property.
mila (22:59):
So is the date of separation a date when something
is filed or submitted, or is itjust when you decide that
you're being?
Nick (23:06):
separated.
It depends.
I mean it is looked at in termsof objective factors, but
sometimes the parties willdisagree as to when the
separation happened.
Living together can be messy,especially with somebody that
you love and you built a lifewith, and there might be brief
periods of love or romance,right, that could then be used
to argue oh, we weren'tseparated, this was a
reconciliation that happened.
Ilona (23:25):
There has to be mutual meeting of the minds and it's
clear to both parties that themarriage is over.
So if you want to be sure thatyour finances are separate, you
send a text message about it.
You don't text about how youlove each other and you may get
back together.
There has to be clear, definite, hey, it's over.
And if you're continuing tolive together for financial
(23:47):
reasons, than if arguing overdate of separation in family
court later, questions you'll beasked by the attorneys in
deposition or trial will be wereyou having sex still together?
And one may say, yeah, we stillslept together and I have
pictures, or I have photos.
Or we slept on Christmas orwhatever may have happened.
That's relevant.
(24:07):
Have you been going toconjoined therapy together?
Try to save their relationship?
If you have a text message it'sover, but you're going to
conjoined therapy or triedtherapy to save their
relationship, then you're notseparated.
That'll be strong evidenceagainst your date of separation.
mila (24:21):
When should you open a separate bank account and close
a joint account?
Nick (24:26):
I think when you are fearful that the end really is
here is probably the best timeto do it.
Like, if you have that fearthat it might be over, that's
probably the time to starttaking it.
mila (24:36):
And it'll definitely be over.
Ilona (24:41):
So what's the process once the parties end up in
juvenile court?
Nick (24:46):
So the first hearing is an arraignment or detention
hearing.
Arraignment's just the fancyword for your first appearance
in court where you're answeringan allegation made by a
government.
Is there enough to kind of kickoff this case to make some
temporary orders the next threeweeks, because another hearing
will be set within three weeksof that detention?
Ilona (25:05):
At that hearing they have a choice to place the child
with a foster family or with oneof the two parents, if one of
the two is capable and safe tobe with right Correct.
Nick (25:17):
Or relative.
And what happens three weekslater at the next hearing.
What is that hearing called?
It's called the Jurisdictionand Disposition Hearing.
That is where the court isanswering the question of
jurisdiction, which is is thiscourt the appropriate court to
make orders?
Ilona (25:30):
And if it's not, then it will be family court, correct.
Nick (25:32):
No, if it's not the case, should just be dismissed.
At that point the question atdisposition becomes what are we
doing about a juveniledependency case?
And there are three potentialoutcomes.
Either it's going to be afamily maintenance case, which
means the child or children areplaced with one or both of the
parents.
If the child is not placed witheither parent but is placed
with a relative or a fosterparent, then the parents may be
(25:54):
offered something called familyreunification services, which
would be essentially the sametypes of services as family
maintenance services.
Reunification just describesthat the child's out of the home
, and these are again servicesdesigned to remedy the reason
for why the child came intocourt.
The third outcome is bypass andthat's the outcome you want to
avoid, and that means that thecourt system is determined that
(26:15):
it is not in the child's bestinterest for reunification
services to be offered to theparents.
Those are most likely drugcases, where addiction has been
so prevalent during the parent'slife that they've lost multiple
children throughout theiraddiction.
What's the last hearing?
The last hearing?
Well, it depends, right.
The last hearing could be afamily maintenance hearing,
right, where the court is sayingchild with one parent, they've
(26:37):
had at least this six months ofservices seems to be going well.
We can close the case now withwhat are called exit orders or
family law.
The other type of sort of finalhearing is called a 2-6 hearing
.
That's a hearing to determine adifferent permanent plan.
That's a hearing wherereunification efforts have been
unsuccessful or were bypassedentirely and the court is
(26:59):
looking at what is the bestpermanent plan for this child's
future.
mila (27:02):
Okay, let's get gritty Audience.
Q&a questions.
You ready?
Nick (27:06):
Yes, okay.
mila (27:07):
We have our first question from the audience.
Ready, yes, okay, we have ourfirst question from the audience
.
Nick (27:19):
I'm 11 months sober, but my ex keeps using my past
addiction to block custody.
What can I do?
This is a great question.
That's a huge accomplishmentand that should be celebrated,
and so there should be peopleinvolved in your life that are
supportive of that.
So there should be peopleinvolved in your life that are
supportive of that, and so agood start would be finding your
supports right and letting themknow.
Hey, this is something that I'mstruggling with right now.
The next should be that if youaren't working a program whether
(27:42):
it's like a 12-step program inNA or AA or smart recovery or
some faith-based recoveryservice if you're not working
some kind of program, you shouldbe working a program.
The reason is is the programsare done in languages that
courts are familiar with.
A lot of the judges in thiscounty, especially receive
(28:04):
trainings on what these programsare, how they work, what kind
of sort of benchmarks exist thatmake them effective, and so
there's a bit like a secretlanguage to refurbish, and if
you're working a program, youcan speak that language and the
judges will understand whatyou're saying.
Right, if you have a sponsor,if you're working steps, do you
(28:24):
go to meetings?
Are you somebody who has aservice commitment at those
meetings, right?
Do you have a higher power,right?
These are all somewhatfaith-based types of programs
and the idea behind it is thatyou are recovery is not
abstinence, right?
So if you are 11 months sober,right, that means that you
(28:47):
haven't consumed anything in 11months.
But are you actively working onyour recovery?
Or are you just abstinent?
Because if you're activelyworking recovery, then you've
got mountains of evidence topresent to the court about why
this person is manipulating yourpast using that.
Early.
Recovery is technically definedas three to five years, right?
(29:09):
So your first three to fiveyears of sobriety, you're still
going to kind of be under amicroscope.
Everyone's got a little bit ofa different story about what
helped them become sober.
mila (29:25):
And it gets better with time.
We are going to wrap up withNicholas's advice to parents who
are facing system involvement.
Nick (29:34):
What advice would you give .
Understand that what you saycan be against you.
Understand that the people thatare involved are primarily
concerned about one thing, andthat is your child's safety.
And if you don't have theability to articulate a fairly
clear plan how to keep yourchild safe, then I wouldn't talk
(29:55):
about it with anybody untilyou're ready to have that.
Ilona (29:56):
Thank you, and again, nick is an extremely talented
attorney.
He's with our firm, knows allthe ins and outs of juvenile
court systems, so if anybodyneeds advice, feel free to reach
out to him.
Nick (30:08):
Yeah, Thank you.
Thank you for having me advice.
Ilona (30:11):
feel free to reach out to him.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Don't miss next week, where wesit down with a TikTok lawyer
himself, ryan Steigart, and lookat the intersection of social
media and legal rights.
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.