Affordable Family Law Attorney Chico Oroville

Affordable Family Law Attorney Chico Oroville

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Does Family Law Involve "Winning" or is that Just Nonsense?

Seriously, don't believe for a minute that there is no winning or losing. Clients don't hire attorneys to lose their cases.

Sometimes clients want to spend money to make their spouse or the other party or participants lives a living hell, and money is not an object?  Or some may just want to get back at another, but at same time, try to get their own rights straightened out?

A good attorney will always ask clients what their goal is, what are they trying to get, what is motivating them, and can they afford to do more, less or inbetween; is there a possibility the other party will have to help pay fees?  Is there something the other party did that deserves the scrutiny of the Court?  Or have things just gone bad due to some turn of events?  Did one person commit a series of lies?  Are the kids being coached to lie about you? Is the difficulty of the cased based upon money, or people who are working to de-rail your efforts? Is one party guilty of severe actions that were set up purposely to ruin all the finances?  Was a secret source of income hidden? Or more than several sources?  Did a family member target you purposely to be difficult?

IN both family law, criminal and even regular civil cases, there are nearly ALWAYS participants that lie.  Nearly always.

And if there are financial issues, we seldom see everyone tell the truth or disclose everything correctly.  A good attorney will know what to look for or hunt down, especially if he/she has been out there as an attorney for decades. The experienced attorney will have a keen inquiry as to many, many things that are multi-faceted; the inexperienced attorney will lack that ability. In fact, attorneys lacking courtroom experience is seen in this editorial:

 Plaintiff Attorney Francis Malofiy During Closing Arguments: Day Six

Plaintiff Attorney Francis Malofiy During Closing Arguments: Day Six

"The judge was paying close attention to Malofiy, because, as I said, Malofiy makes lots of errors, because he is young," Edwards says. "Look, he got very far for this guy from Pennsylvania; he got to L.A. federal court on a huge trial. That in itself is quite a feat."

Actually, many attorneys are not court litigators. Some are, but many are there only to avoid Court. Surprised?  Don't be.

Most criminal attorneys are used to actual litigation. Even high stakes civil litigation involves a lot of motion practice, and tentative rulings.

If a family law attorney has not done trials, then don't pick one that has not done trials. It is only by doing the trials that one can become good at it. Arguing an issue for five minutes is not trial work. Law and motion is not a trial.

A truly  honest attorney that can read people well, communicate, and yet understand a client who has not simply spelled out everything, is to be desired.  The ability to talk to clients on a personal level but with professional skill is highly desirable.  Most attorneys are very businesslike because they believe clients seek out that quality. Clients in a business may want that-- but in Family Law, most clients are not running businesses. Even if they are, they usually have financial people (accountant, tax person, financial planner,etc.) An attorney needs to listen very closely to clients so that he/she can steer the case properly.  If you find that your attorney is more interested in watching the time clock, or talking about non issues, you should probably get a different attorney. Just saying.
[Previously posted in 2017 on same site by atty]

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Sad Truth About Domestic Violence Restraining Orders California

IF someone files one on YOU--- the legal rules are already against you.

In fact if you can't defend against it, it's almost automatic that the same order will be lodged against you in 3 years, for the same thing. Oh, you say you didn't do anything new to bring a new DV restraining order?

 LOL-- you don't need to have done much.

According to the newest case published in California this year, First Appellate District, all the person bringing the DV has to do, without a showing of any further abuse since the issuance of the original order, is to file another DV TRO, even without any proof of any abuse during the last time it was issued.

According to the new case, the filer only needs to simply claim 
he/she has a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.

And according to the case, phone calls or texts can do this. Also in the case, the person filing the DV attested that the ex had abused her children, even if not her....that the ex claimed "children pay the consequences."

Well that one sentence alone probably would generate a new DV TRO, but the fact is even if that was not the case, the published case seemingly indicates that the facts of each case are not only super important, they are critical to begin with.

Many DV TROs  do not come close to meeting the standard required even for a new DV TRO but they are routinely granted.

Whether or not they would be "re-granted" after 3 or 5 years, is another question.  If you are in this boat and one is "re-granted" against you, get legal help, especially if you are trying to gain more custody or visitation.  Attorney herein handles both family law and criminal defense and a DV TRO defense pretty much requires one who does criminal defense work.

restraining order california
restraining order rules
restraining order process
domestic violence restraining order
fighting a restraining order

Friday, August 17, 2018

When Visitation or Parenting Hits a Snag?

Sometimes parents are placed on "supervised" visitation...while this is not the end of visitation, it surely costs time and money and does lessen one's time with the kids.

According to the law:

The public policy of the state of California is to protect the best interest of children whose parents have a custody or visitation matter in family court. Sometimes, based on issues of protection and safety, a judge will order that a child only have contact with a parent when a neutral third person is present during the visitation. This type of third-person visitation arrangement is often called “supervised visitation.”

How does a parent get out of supervised visits and back to normal visitation?

For most parents, it is a process that will take time, patience and desire.  It does not go quickly but if the parent is doing it correctly, the agency supervisor will make good notations on how well you did and you may gain more time as the reports are good, credible and supportive.  If they are not good, then you will have an issue and should work on it ASAP. 
Read the Custody and Domestic Violence section for information and help if you have experienced domestic violence and are dealing with custody and visitation issues....

Also, be very aware that attorney has seen cases which end up being swept under the rung because the court is very busy and just assigns messy cases (quite often) to add attorneys to help both sides, but what actually can happen is that failure to READ the entire file with a fine tooth comb can mean the attorneys don't even see or FIND out that one party did have a TRO or DV order which was wrongly dropped, OR they don't realize that fake proof of service was used over and over???  These facts are key because lack of ACTUAL personal service is FRAUD if it was done purposely??  And attorney herein has seen such things done.  It takes awhile to see how it happened, but a fake proof of service can be proven by the person who never got served. It's not the easiest thing to do, but it can be done.

When you kids get taken because you didn't appear at a hearing, and you didn't have notice, you better run to an attorney who has some criminal law background/family law, it's faster in attorney's opinion. (Attorney of this blog has both family/criminal/civil experience in the law...)  
[Previously published in 2016 by attorney herein]

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Family Law Litigation Affordable Legal Help

Honest, down to earth Affordable Legal Help.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Should You Talk to CPS? Read This.... from Texas attorney Chris Branson..............CPS is just as bad in most states...........

excerpt from attorney Branson's site......................

Most of the time, the caseworker wants to keep you in the dark as to what you have been accused of, despite being required by federal and state law to tell you details of the accusation at her first contact with you. 
Don’t settle for the answer of “abuse” or “neglect”. Those are categories, not details. You are entitled to know what specific acts you are accused of committing.
It is imperative that you not submit to a CPS interrogation before talking to your attorney. 
It is natural that innocent parents who have nothing to hide want to explain everything so that a reasonable person can see that there’s no problem here. 
But CPS agents are not reasonable. To them, the accusation IS the evidence against you. That caseworker is there to find evidence to support what she already believes to be true – that you abused your child.

If you say nothing to them, you have taken away their greatest weapon, which is their ability to twist your words

Attorney herein suggests that you not blurt out anything. If you do not admit or deny things, they will have to lie and say you actually said something.

Many attorneys won't work on CPS or dependency cases these days due to the way CPS handles things.  CPS cases should be handled like criminal defense cases---don't volunteer information without knowing what is really going on; if in doubt, do not say it.

IN fact, CPS is much like animal rights extremists--they want to take kids and animals away from anyone they can.................

Sacramento family fights seizure of child by CPS

Sacramento family fights seizure of child by CPS

Tortured Teen Represented By Demas Law Group Awarded $4 Million

Sacramento County agrees to pay massive settlement for failure to protect a teenager tormented by his caregiver until his brave escape
23 Jul, 2015, 12:00 ET from Demas Law Group, P.C.

SACRAMENTO, Calif.July 23, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- The teenage boy who made national headlines after escaping horrific abuse by his caregiver will receive $4 million in a settlement with Sacramento County on behalf of Child Protective Services (Superior Court of The State of CaliforniaKyle Doe vs. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Sacramento County, et al., Case #34-2011-00101330).
Child Protective Services (CPS) social workers were accused of repeatedly breaking the law and violating protocol as they failed to protect Kyle, who was imprisoned, tortured and starved for seven years by his caregiver, first in Sacramento County and later in Tracy (Kyle's full name is being withheld because he was the victim of abuse as a minor).
"It's not just justice for me," Kyle said about the outcome of the case. "It's for other kids all over who struggle just like me."
CPS left Kyle in the care of a woman who was not a relative and never had custody, according to the lawsuit filed by attorney John N. Demas of Sacramento (please see below for a detailed list of CPS violations). CPS records also reveal nine separate abuse reports from teachers and neighbors, yet social workers failed to take action to protect Kyle. CPS failed to follow State mandates and their own policies and procedures, and left Kyle with a caretaker who brutalized and nearly killed him. He suffered immensely until his brave escape in 2008 from a home in Tracy to a nearby health club.  Kyle required skin graft surgery and spent ten days in the hospital. His tragic story drew widespread media attention and demands for CPS reform and accountability.
"This could be the biggest CPS settlement paid out in the state of California, which reveals just how poorly they handled Kyle's tragic case," said attorney John Demas, founder of the Demas Law Group. "We can only hope this lawsuit will bring changes to CPS. Our fear is that there are other 'Kyles' out there, suffering abuse that no child should ever endure."
Sacramento County attorneys tried repeatedly to have this case thrown out in an effort to dodge any responsibility for what happened to Kyle, according to Demas. Their legal tactics were rejected by the court, and Kyle prevailed after a four-year battle.
"We hope that the settlement spurs changes at CPS and sends a message that you have to follow the law and can't cut corners when it comes to protecting children," said Demas.
"The County did everything they could to win," said Kyle's aunt, Sydney Perry, who has served as his caretaker since his escape. "I'm just so grateful that Mr. Demas fought so hard for Kyle and held CPS accountable. Justice was served for Kyle."
As for the criminal case, Kyle's caregiver, Caren Ramirez, and her friends Michael SchumacherKelly Lau and Anthony Waiters are serving prison sentences for their participation in the abuse. Remarkably, Kyle does not express ill will towards the captors who relentlessly tortured him.
"I wish them the best with where they are at in life," Kyle said. "I hope they find their peace."
Kyle's story is now one of inspiration, as he recovers from his painful past and tries to piece his life together. After missing most of elementary, junior high and high school because his caregiver kept him home to conceal injuries, Kyle worked hard after his escape to graduate from high school. He is now a college student and football player. Kyle is eager to move on with his life.
"I'm doing great, I feel better than ever," said Kyle. "I'm healthy. I have a roof over my head. I have friends and I have family that love me. I'm happy with where I'm at right now."
Timeline and CPS Violations
The timeline below was derived from a collection of documents tracking CPS's handling of the case involving Kyle and his half-brother.
May 23, 2001: CPS receives a call that Kyle's birth mother has left Kyle and his half-brother with a family friend, Caren Ramirez. Kyle is 8 years old at the time. CPS investigates and closes the referral as "inconclusive," despite failing to contact Kyle's birth mother, as required by law. Instead, CPS accepts a one-page, hand-written note from Ramirez, allegedly written by the birth mother, giving her custody of Kyle.  The note is notarized, but it is Ramirez's signature that is attested to, not Kyle's mother.
April 22, 2002: CPS receives a report of Ramirez neglecting Kyle and his half-brother, and using inappropriate discipline (The half-brother was allegedly dropped off barefoot in Del Paso Heights and told to find his way home to Carmichael in the rain; both boys were also bringing cookies to school in place of lunch.) The half-brother is reported to have blisters on his feet, but Ramirez explains that they are from rollerblading without socks. CPS fails to contact the birth mother as required, and closes the referral as "unfounded," essentially labeling the allegations as false. In fact, CPS ends up assisting Ramirez by contacting the Social Security Administration and local welfare office and falsely confirming that the boys are "rightfully in Ramirez's custody" and that "Ramirez possesses a notarized note granting her custody." Ramirez starts claiming she is their aunt.
Feb. 11, 2003: CPS receives another referral regarding abuse of the boys by Ramirez, this time alleging that she smacked the half-brother in the face and that sounds of physical abuse (hitting) were heard coming from her apartment. CPS fails to investigate and closes the referral because no bruises were observed on the children. CPS fails to report the abuse to law enforcement and fails to determine if the children were at risk or in need of services as required by law. CPS documents following the referral state that "… the boys are safe and doing well in Aunt Caren's home. No evidence of abuse or neglect. The children are safe in this home. They have a chance to make something of their lives with Caren's influence.  She is a strong taskmaster."
March 7, 2003: CPS receives another referral of neglect and designates the referral as appropriate for a ten-day response, but do not investigate until twenty days later, in violation of State law.
June 24, 2003: CPS receives another report, this time from a teacher, describing Kyle as appearing very thin and jaundiced, losing patches of hair, with broken teeth and rarely bringing a lunch to school. CPS accepts Ramirez's explanation that hair loss is from a genetic condition (i.e. that "he's always had issues with thinning"), that he eats lunch earlier in the day, and that he is on medication that makes him hungry. CPS declares the allegations made in the report as unfounded, and fails to contact or give feedback to the mandated reporter (teacher) as required by law.
July 28, 2004: Kyle's half-brother is picked up by the police outside a local hospital, and gets placed temporarily in protective custody. However, Kyle remains at Ramirez's home. A CPS document acknowledges that "...without placement, one or more children will be likely to be in danger of immediate serious harm." CPS requests, however, that Ramirez be allowed to provide written consent for the voluntary removal of the half-brother from custody and to consent to family services for Kyle. State law requires that consent must be from the parent or guardian only. CPS fails to contact the birth mother as required. Had they contacted her, the mother would have demanded her children back based on a referral of this very issue shortly thereafter (see October 9, 2004 referral).
October 9, 2004: While Ramirez is receiving family maintenance services for Kyle and his half-brother, a referral is made by a nurse that the birth mother is reporting that a woman by the name of Caren Ramirez "took her children away from her a few years ago and won't give them back." CPS deems the mother's request for help in recovering her children not worthy of an investigation and closes the referral without conducting an investigation. No effort to contact or locate the mother is made as required by law. CPS also fails to report the kidnapping allegations to law enforcement as required, and never explains the reason the referral was closed.
Sept. 20, 2005: Kyle's half-brother is taken into protective custody due to physical abuse by Ramirez. He tells CPS that Kyle has also been abused by Caren for years, and CPS describes what has happened to Kyle as "seven years of ... physical torture, abuse and denial of the basic necessities of life." However, CPS does nothing for 15 days and by the time they begin investigating, Ramirez is in hiding. CPS fails to investigate the report in a timely manner, fails to report the allegations to law enforcement, and does not file a missing person report for Kyle.
March 28, 2006: A felony warrant for child abuse is issued for Ramirez, stemming from the alleged beatings of the half-brother. She isn't located and arrested until a year later.
May 30, 2006Sacramento County Sheriff officers respond to a report regarding Ramirez's abuse of Kyle. The call is made by Ramirez's daughter, who discloses Kyle's abuse by Ramirez and confirms there is no familial relationship between Kyle and Ramirez. Kyle tells the officers about how he was beaten with a martial arts stick several times, and the officers note severe bruising across Kyle's back, legs, and buttocks, as well as a split lip. Photographs confirm Kyle's injuries. The Sheriff's office then calls the CPS hotline to report the abuse, and ask CPS if Kyle should be brought into protective custody. CPS fails to make any record of the call. Instead, CPS tells the officer to make a placement decision about Kyle. Kyle is left with Ramirez's daughter, who promptly returns him to Ramirez. Sacramento Sheriff officers do not transmit a written report of the abuse to CPS within 36 hours as required by law. A referral for child abuse by law enforcement was not opened until 11 months later (March 2007) when the allegations are finally reviewed by a Detective in the Sheriff's office.
April 11, 2007: Ramirez is finally arrested and Kyle is placed into protective custody at the Sacramento Receiving Home. His case is assigned to a social worker with less than three months experience. CPS recommends that Ramirez have telephone access to Kyle, despite not completing an assessment regarding Ramirez's history with CPS, drug abuse or her actual relationship with Kyle. CPS allows Ramirez's daughter visitation rights. Despite wanting to stay at the Receiving Home, Kyle acquiesces to the urgings of Ramirez to leave. He leaves the receiving home the day of his court hearing as instructed by Ramirez, and returns to Ramirez who eventually takes him to Tracy.
December 1, 2008: Kyle escapes from a home in Tracy and flees to a nearby health club. He reports that he'd been chained inside a fireplace, beaten, burned and starved. He is hospitalized for 10 days for skin graft surgery.
January 7, 2009: Confirmation is made that Kyle's birth mother died in 2008. Kyle is placed in the care of an aunt and uncle, with whom he lives today, while attending school and continuing his recovery.
About John N. Demas and Demas Law Group, PC
Demas Law Group is one of Sacramento's leading personal injury firms.
The firm represents individuals and families injured in automobile and premises
liability accidents, as well as those harmed by dangerous and defective products
throughout California.  John N. Demas is the founding partner of Demas Law Group,
P.C., and has been representing injured victims for over twenty years. He has
extensive trial experience with several multi-million dollar verdicts, and has been
selected by his peers as a Northern California Super Lawyer every year since 2009.
In 2014 and 2015, he was also named a Top 100 Attorney for Northern California,
and made the Top 25 List of Sacramento Lawyers.  More information can be
found at
CONTACT:  John N. Demas, 916-444-0100Logo -
SOURCE Demas Law Group, P.C.