UVU’S LEGAL STUDIES PROGRAM TO SPONSOR FREE LEGAL CLINIC

Through a joint effort between Utah Valley University’s Legal Studies Program and the local legal community, those in need of legal services will be able to receive free legal advice at a clinic scheduled for Oct. 25 in the UVU Library.

“This is an important service for the low income or middle income in the community who cannot afford an attorney,” said Jill Jasperson, associate director of UVU’s Center for the Study of Ethics. “It is designed to help them with their legal issues and problems.”

The legal consultation clinic, set from 6-8:30 p.m. in the Timpanogos Room on the fourth floor of the UVU Library, is in conjunction with National Pro Bono Week. Attorneys with varying expertise – including family law, employment law, civil rights, commercial law, contracts law, disability law, landlord-tenant law, criminal law, personal injury law, bankruptcy, commercial law, immigration law and estate planning – will be available to provide legal advice and guidance on most every legal issue.

“All UVU faculty, staff and students are invited, along with anyone in the Utah County area who might have a legal issue and a need for legal guidance,” Jasperson said. “All of the legal services will be donated from the local legal community.”

Participants need to bring all documentation necessary to explain and assist in their cases. The brief consultations, with an attorney and paralegal student present, will take place in a private room. A notary public will also be available. Services are rendered on a first-come, first-serve basis. Depending on demand, there might be a short waiting period. Parking is available in the lot L-7, north of the Library.

“At the past two clinics, we’re estimating that more than $30,000 worth of legal services were rendered by the local legal community,” Jasperson said.

The clinic is also sponsored by the Woodbury School of Business, the UVU Center for the Study of Ethics, Utah Community Credit Union and the Central Utah Bar Association.
For more information contact the UVU Legal Studies Office at 801-863-8134, or Mike Rigert, UVU communications manager at 801-863-6807.

About UVU
Utah Valley University is located in Orem, Utah, and is home to nearly 33,000 students. UVU began as a vocational school during World War II, and in the seven decades since has evolved into a technical school, community college, state college and, finally, a comprehensive regional teaching university. UVU is one of Utah’s largest institutions of higher learning and offers programs ranging from career training to high-demand master degrees, with emphasis on undergraduate education.

The opposing party-parent claimed that my client-parent, allegedly based on information provided by my client, was going to have the young children walking to school on very large and dangerous roads to and from school and that the parties’ young children would be left alone at home before and after school because of my client’s work schedule, leaving home and arriving home without any adult present in the children’s primary residence.  The opposing party-parent’s allegations were completely unfounded, based on assumptions on hearsay, without any personal knowledge of any kind of evidence, admissible or otherwise, to present to the court.

The fact was that my client-parent had not informed the opposing party parent of my client-parent’s enrollment of the parties’ children in their new school, how the parties’ children would or would not be transported to school, or what my client-parent’s work schedule was going to be or how my client-parent’s work schedule would line-up with the parties’ children’s school schedule.  My client-parent had already arranged a work schedule allow daily accompanying of the parties’ children to school from their home and from school to their home, providing full-time personal, parental care for the parties’ children before and after school.  The opposing party-parent’s claims regarding my client-parent’s alleged intended plans for the parties’ children based on the opposing party-parent’s conversation(s) with my client-parent were simply untrue, as there had been no such alleged conversations.

While there was no merit to the opposing party-parent’s claim and the relief sought by the opposing party-parent was denied, the court did not award my client-parent attorney fees.  What?

The judge began his ruling by stating, “This is an expensive way to have a conversation.”  In the end, the judge’s ruling to not award my client-parent attorney fees even though the opposing party’s claim was meritless and the TRO was denied was based on the court’s finding that my client-parent (by my client-parent’s admission) had not informed the opposing party-parent of: my client-parent’s registration of the parties’ young children in the “new” local school; how the parties’ children were going to be transported to school; that my client-parent would be providing personal, parental care at all times for the parties’ young children daily before and after school, or; what my client-parent’s daily work schedule was going to be to accommodate my client-parent’s ability to provide that personal, parental care for the parties’ young children.

So what is the lesson learned?
In a divorce/post-divorce situation where there is a minor child(ren) of the two divorcing/divorced parties, as a divorcing/divorced co-parent, you must (absent other intervening factors or orders) learn to communicate with your co-parent, your child(ren)’s other parent.  It is always best if parent-parties can get along and communicate civilly via telephone, e-mail, or text.  However, if you feel your co-parent is difficult or uncivil, you MUST communicate in writing (keep a copy for yourself of everything you send).  I prefer my clients communicate with their co-parent via e-mail, my next choice is traditional U.S. Mail, and I hate cell phone texts (these are really hard to capture and introduce as evidence to the court).

The key here is that you MUST communicate.  After the experience I have shared above, I recommended that my client-parent that my client-parent communicate in writing to the opposing party/co-parent regarding the parties’ children at least every 1-2 weeks, giving updates on activities, events, etc.  Putting all communications in writing (and keeping a copy) creates a record of communication that documents your good faith efforts to share information with your co-parent.  All other things being equal, had my client-parent communicated in writing to the opposing party/co-parent, my client-parent would have been awarded attorney fees or, even better, we wouldn’t even have been in court in the first place.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this blog to become a helpful dialogue and resource.

When considering whether or not to contest parts of a divorce, you must consider the costs, and know that litigating and contesting divorce is expensive, even if you are right.  A good legal advisor with let you know what the likely outcomes of your case is.

CHILDREN’S BILL OF RIGHTS

• The right not to be asked to “choose sides” between their parents.
• The right not to be told the details of a bitter, nasty divorce.
• The right not to be told “bad things” about the other parent’s personality or character.
• The right to privacy when talking to either parent on the phone.
• The right not to be cross-examined by one parent after visiting or talking with the other.
• The right not to be asked to be a messenger from one parent to another.
• The right not to be asked by one parent to tell the other parent untruths.
• The right not to be used as a confidant regarding the divorce proceedings by one parent or another.
• The right to express feelings, whatever those feelings may be.
• The right to choose not to express certain feelings.
• The right to be protected from parental warfare.
• The right not to be made to feel guilty about loving both parents.

This Children’s Bill of Rights was developed by a member of the Utah judiciary.