Lunch & A Divorce Lawyer LIVE with Attorney Peter Olson and Attorney Jennifer Lavin

THIS MONTH:

This month we're talking with Family Law Attorney Jennifer Lavin about her advocacy of kids in divorce and child custody cases. Here's a chance to learn exactly how/what she does to protect children in high conflict cases. Judges trust HER and you can too.

Learn more about Attorney Jennifer Lavin: https://lavinfamilylaw.com/

Peter: Hi! Welcome back to Third Thursday Lunch & A Divorce Lawyer. I am attorney Peter Olsen, Chicago Family Law Group. Thanks again for joining us this month.  I am really super thankful and excited to have Attorney Jennifer Lavin with us this month.

Peter:  How are you doing Jennifer?

Jennifer:  Very well, thank you so much for having me peter.

Peter:  Jennifer, why don't I just ask you the open question, so what do you do? 

Jennifer:  I am a solo divorce and family law attorney and I practice in primarily Cook County but also some other suburban counties around the major metropolitan Chicago area and I am a true solo in the sense that at least at this time I don't have a staff. So I’m a one-woman show.

Jennifer:  Gives you some good flexibility sometimes.  I’ve been there at times in my career.  I have some nostalgia for it and not so much.  You're practicing in family law.  What's a little bit of background in terms of how long you have been doing this, just some nuts and bolts on your history, why you got into it?

Jennifer:  I was a college professor for a very long time before I changed careers as a byproduct of my own divorce.  I wound up deciding to go to law school as a second career.  I had contemplated it primarily when I was in college because I was a political science major then and the question almost always becomes with a political science major, “should I go to law school?” I didn't have a valid reason to go at that point because I wasn't sure what I would practice if I went to law school.  Is it corporate law and what is that?  And if I don't know what that is and why I’m going to law school, I probably shouldn't go to law school.  So, what wound up happening is I wound up going to graduate school for political science and gender studies here in Chicago.  I studied at the University of Illinois in Chicago which is how I moved here. 

I’m originally from Iowa but I moved here in 1994 to do that, and ultimately, I was previously married and wound up getting divorced during the total of my college professor career and time there.  It inspired me, I was already thinking about changing careers but I wanted to use the same skill set that I already had in academia in terms of research, writing, argument, all of those things.  It dawned on me that I was actually also very interested as a litigant in my own case because all of these things were tailing at the same time.   I had a lot of court time unfortunately because my case was a sort of outlier and took a while to get done, but at the same time in that observation of court, I started to become intrigued in the process.  I thought maybe this would be something that I might like to think about doing as a second career that would capitalize on all of those academic skills that I had and also focus on helping people maybe in a different way. 

So the stars aligned, I wound up taking the LSAT.  I applied to Chicago Schools and I wound up going to Chicago-Kent College of Law starting in 2009.  I graduated in 2012 and I’ve been out for 2012 almost 10 years now.

Peter:  Well and always doing family law?

Jennifer:  Always family law, that was the whole reason for my admission.  I said in my statement of purpose in my essay, I want to do family law.  If that's not something you want, then don't accept me, because that's the only reason I want to go to law school.  I had the good fortune of having the focus and ability to dovetail everything that I did then when I had electives and I had opportunities to do an externship with one of our domestic relations judges, I worked in the Family Law Clinic.  Once you know what you want to do, it's almost analogous to having your college major figured out so you can do all the things to bolster that while you're in school.  I took as much family law as I could get my hands on and wound up having an ability to really focus on that the whole time.

Peter:  That's cool.  Right from the start, I sort of drifted into family law whereas, the personal connection, I think it is meaningful and very meaningful to a prospective client as well.  Surely, as a family law attorney, it ain't all just right to leak the legal stuff.  It's sharing some personal experiences.  It's a whole thing.  It's a personal problem with a legal element or something.  I feel like some legal consultant once said to me, “people come to you with paraspinal problems that just happen to have a legal component, therefore they need a lawyer or something like that.”

Jennifer:  There's a certain credibility that comes with having the background that potentially that I do and it's not to say that you have to have been divorced to be a good and excellent divorce law professional, you don't.  For example, the fact that my parents were divorced when I was a kid, I come at this in that respect knowing what that looks like and feels like and I’m a Child Representative Guardian Ad Litem cases where I advocate for the children of parents who are in divorce and family law disputes.  I have that perspective as a child in those circumstances and I know that piece of it personally.  I also know the piece of it personally that comes from having been a litigant.  I know how not-fun it is to do your financial affidavit.  I had to do my own and so all of those things I can say, I don't focus on my own experience that much but people know that I have it and I think it's an extra layer sometimes that adds in a way a sense of not that I’m a better lawyer but I have an emotional connection in a different way potentially because I’ve been there.  But as we know every case is different, every family is different and I tell people all the time divorces are like snowflakes.  Yes, you're all snowflakes but you're all different. 

At the same time, I encourage people to stay in their lane, not compare notes and say, “well you know my sister's aunt and that person got this in the divorce and that's what I want”  Ultimately, we're going to have different facts and different fact patterns for every family but having the nucleus of the experience that I do and having a life experience that I do, I think coming to this professional decision now made all the difference because I’ve been through all of the things that I have that have added personally to what I do professionally.

Peter:  So my practice, here are maybe two or three things I would do because I think you're different.  If you were my direct competitor, I wouldn't have you out there at 3rd Thursday Lunch & A Divorce Lawyer, but I’m kidding.  I think there's enough business for everybody.  I always tell people my opinion, but there are plenty of good family law attorneys out there.  You just don't want the person who's like doing real estate closings and bankruptcy and six other things.  Some people want this personality. Some people like chocolate ice creams, some people like vanilla ice cream and they're both good ice creams.  Some people like chocolate and some people like vanilla.  I’m really doing all Chicago Family Law Group does, we really do three things.  We represent litigants in divorces, in unmarried parentage or custody cases and then I suppose you would say there's a lot of post-decree or post-judgment litigation.  Your practice is different though, how so, give me a little nugget?  I’m a family law attorney and so are you, so what are you doing though in Jennifer Lavin Family Law definition?

Jennifer:  Well and it's taken on a very different tack for me too because I started out primarily doing litigation and I did that as a law clerk before I became licensed.  I did it as an associate.  I wound up starting my own practice, starting out doing most of the litigated matters but at the same time, I always knew that I had the demeanor of a person who wants to do alternative dispute resolution, who believes in settling my cases.  I’m not trying to go down the runway to trial, it's quite the opposite.  My trial record is very very small, it's rare but at the same time, I’ve done it.  I have the skills to do it, but at the same time I have the practicality that comes from, you'd rather spend those funds almost anywhere else than on litigation.  So, the fact of the matter is I’ve gone a different direction in a few ways.

The first thing that I did to diversify my practice was to take mediation training, that was something that I wanted to do.  I became a mediator first.  I also then used that as the springboard to my collaborative law training which is another skill that I have and I do collaborative law cases which are intended to keep you out of court the whole time except for the one court appearance you need to essentially prove or finalize your case.  So, that is a team approach and I did that training as an add-on to my mediation training because you actually have to be a mediator to be a collaborative attorney. 

Then against the grain of all of this, I’m also doing Child Representative Guardian Ad Litem work which was starting around the same time as I was starting mediation and Collaborative Law Training too.  So, in those matters, I actually advocate for the kids.  I’m not advocating for either parent, I’m advocating for the children's best interest.  That has taken on the lion's share of my practice now because I really do enjoy it and the cases that I’m becoming appointed on, are coming from judges, they're coming from family law attorney colleagues like yourself, who potentially they don't do that work, they need someone who does and I’m on the Cook County Approved List for people who do that work. 

Then there's another sort of corollary to my practice area too which is called Parenting Coordination.  That is something that also revolves around alternative dispute resolution.  You have to be a mediator to be a parenting coordinator as well, but what I do in those cases, I work with the parents primarily.  I really don't have any interfaces at all if any with the children, but I’m helping the parents to implement and also interpret their parenting plans.  So, if there's a dispute after everyone else is gone from the case, no more Child Representative Guardian Ad Litem, the attorneys are gone perhaps and there are disputes about parenting issues that are pertinent for me to help with then I can help resolve those as a parenting coordinator by making recommendations as well.

So, in all of those other ways, my practice has grown in such a way that litigation is really now the vast minority of what I do instead of the majority.

Peter:  I consider you like a Rockstar on the Cook County Child's Representative List, which I’m on but it hasn't really been something that I’ve really tried to grow that much.  But I’m just saying I’m connected with those people.  These were two things that stood out to me.  Number 1, I think maybe the November monthly program CLE that the chief judge puts on, you were one of the panelists so therefore you're a Rockstar.  Then I know I was sitting in a courtroom in the last couple of months where it's like, “Oh yes Jennifer Lavin, she does a great job, I’m going to appoint her.”  I think I mentioned which judge that was.  I just knew you from name only, we're in a little group of other attorneys but that's when I’m like, “Oh I’m gonna start putting you on our internal list of child's rep guardian ad litem and parenting coordinators that we like because there's a vast continuum of quality and I’m not sure it is really consistent with who gets appointed the most.  At least in my experience.

Jennifer:  Well, first of all, thank you.  It's highly praised and I feel like it's a wonderful compliment to have the referrals that I do, both from judges and from colleagues because that's essentially what happens because some judges will decide that for parents but then some judges will entertain recommendations.  That's where attorneys have input on the person who might be appointed in these roles.  I take it very seriously in terms of the work that I do and it's something that is highly praised to me but it is also I think the highest professional compliment when those cases come to me as a result of a judge and/or council deciding to choose to work with me.  I am very appreciative of the appointments that I’m receiving in that regard because ultimately I really do, I have a passion for this work and I’m realizing at least all signs right now are starting to point that I’m really good at it too.  Hopefully, that means that I’m helping a lot of kids and ultimately that's what I love the most about the work that I do in those capacities.

Peter:  That's great.  I think about myself or like we have half a dozen staff at our firm. When you really are going around the room, sometimes we'll do our best wins or something at the start of a monthly staff meeting.  You really want to give people that sense of accomplishment and I feel like for us in the family law space, even our non-attorney staff, it's like when you can really just say, I had lunch with this former client and her daughter who's now a freshman at the University of Chicago.  We helped take care of the parenting issues and protect this daughter five or six years ago and now she's like a freshman at a world-class university, that's meaningful.  That's legitimately meaningful, I’m sure you get a lot of that.

It's great when you do because I love to just connect when you can connect with that former client two to five years hence because it's almost like where you see the fruit of your labors or something, whatever analogy you want to use, almost more than the real-time.

Jennifer:  Right, and it doesn't always happen but when it does, it's really rewarding.  Last week, I had a call from a parent in a case that I concluded probably two and a half years ago now.  It went all the way to trial, so it wasn't easily resolved but we got it done and I was guardian ad litem in that case.  I got a call from this parent for a completely different reason, just to see if I had a document that was one of the final orders and ultimately wound up talking about the kids and they're both in high school and doing great and all the things.  I got a really nice thank you from that particular parent.  It wasn't the point of the call but it just happened that way and it really made my month because ultimately sometimes you are in this case for a short amount of time relatively speaking and your book ends and you're not supposed to be there forever.  You don't want to have to be in litigation that long.  So, the goal is to work myself out of a job and I almost always do, but the fact of the matter is I never know sometimes because people go off into the world and I don't know what happens.  But in this particular case, I got an update which was really refreshing.

Peter:  Last few years, I remember it was actually from a legal consultant, on how to run your law firm better.  It had really suggested to me to stay in touch with your former clients, really pretty aggressively in the sense of there's more business to be had there and as a referral type situation and those are very true statements, but I’m not so sure like the biggest like this feels good, like the aspect of it is really when you get the reconnection with the person who says, “Hey you changed the trajectory of my kid's life”  That really feels good, even better than some of the repeat business referral stuff.  I’ve really appreciated making that a habit in what I do and that was a side benefit that I didn't even necessarily realize was going to be a part of it.

Jennifer:  Sure, and that's where I think sometimes the seeds of all of the ways we plant them happens.  You are in these people's lives for the duration but then they know people and those people know people, and six degrees of separation later here you have this referral base that's happened.  I’m to the point now and I say this with the absolute marvel that I don't even know everybody who's referring to me anymore.  Sometimes there are sort of word spreads like wildfire and it happens on social media now in ways too that if you get mentioned in a mom's group or something like that.  Sometimes I don't even have the six degrees of separation to be able to say thank you anymore because I really don't know.  But that's I guess a compliment in a way too and also a testament to how we're working in the world beyond the pandemic to be able to reach out and connect with people. 

Peter:  I don't want to abuse your time and keep you too long here, but how about we talk a little bit about, just a little more in-depth on what it looks like for you and maybe a couple of nuggets. I think this audience isn't necessarily lawyers only, but I’m going to say you're representing a child in a case and we'll distinguish it from parenting coordination.  I have a case in court tomorrow, this is true.  We have a temporary parenting order entered and parties were referred to mediation and we got the thing back that says, “no agreement”.  So then at least typically I find that's when a court then will appoint an attorney to represent the child's interest, whether it is a guardian ad litem or a child's rep, who might be you.  I guess based on your practice, I’m not saying specifically about this case.  You get that appointment order tomorrow, what are some of the things you're doing in that role, like really near term once you're appointed.  I’m just curious about our audience.

Jennifer:  One of the things I think is to triage what the issues are because sometimes I get appointed in these cases on a really quick turnaround time because there's an emergency, and that is usually an endangerment issue of a child in some way.  So, I have that happen on a fairly frequent basis actually because there are often those cases in family law where we have to do something right now.  It's not a long-term issue of what are we going to decide on who's going to have decision making and what's the parenting schedule going to look like in the big picture.  We have short-run issues right now that are really time-sensitive and important. They can sometimes be about physical endangerment, they can sometimes be about decision-making, for example, school enrollment, vaccination.  These are all things that are very contemporary issues with COVID, what are we going to do about vaccines now that we have them for everybody down to five years old, what are we going to do.  So those are some contemporary issues that often happen on a more time-sensitive basis.  For those cases, I have to dive in sometimes really quickly.  Sometimes judges will ask me to do a very expedient investigation because we have a really short turnaround because we have to have an answer at least on a preliminary finding of abuse if something is going on really quickly.  And maybe that's to change possession of a child, maybe that's to enroll a child in school, maybe it's to make the decision about vaccination, what are we going to do. 

So, those are sometimes the more hot button issues that I have to work quickly but sometimes I’m in cases because there's a longer range series of goals and they don't have an agreement between the parents on the bigger picture issues which are still part and parcel of what I just talked about, decision making in the parenting schedule but we maybe have more time.  It's not necessarily that I have two weeks to do an investigation because we have to know right now what the answer needs to be on a short-run basis.  For those cases, maybe I’m going to be able to take a little bit more of an introductory attack, but almost always what happens, it's on a compressed timeline or not, I’m going to be talking to the attorneys in the case.  I typically want to do that first because I want to get their shorthand, the sort of lay of the landscape about what's going on, what are the active issues, what are the things we need to deal with right now, what might be able to wait a little bit, we're not going to ignore those issues but maybe what's less time-sensitive and then I want to immediately meet with the parents next.  Typically, I will want to meet with both parents.  I do those individually because I want to get each parent's perspective on what the issues are and I’m meeting with everybody on zoom.  I haven't done an in-person meeting in almost two years and I’ve only had one court appearance in person in this timeframe, so that's been in-person.

So almost everything is on zoom, but then I’m going to meet the kids.  Sometimes there is more than one child, so I’m going to have different meetings with each of the kids individually.  As far as that goes, those are the first people I want to talk to because these are the immediate players in the family, but one of the next things I'll ask, are their issues about the children such that I need to speak with what we call collaterals which are people like doctors, teachers, therapists, any other relatives that might have relevant information sometimes about specific issues, and as needed I will talk to those other people too as part of my investigation.  Now, sometimes it takes multiple court appearances to be able to get through my investigation because if there's a really big ultimate issue, for example, I have a relocation case right now that's going to take time because it's a relocation case with one child who has very intricate medical needs as well.  So, I’m talking to a lot of professionals in this case about what potentially the counterpoints are of parent A's position and parent B's position about where children should live. 

So, sometimes it takes a little bit longer to get through all of it because there are so many people that I need to speak with but some of the cases are shorter because I don't have to talk to too many collaterals and I can just get to the core of the issue and work a little bit more quickly to resolve everything.  But, what I do is typically I’m going to want to have those meetings, I’m talking to attorneys a lot too in the midst of all of this and making short-run recommendations to the families if other intermediate issues crop up, but I'll often want to have a settlement conference eventually with the parents and the council too to try to see what we can do to work through issues but I often make recommendations before and after that as well.  I’m trying to get the spirit of co-parenting going from day one.  I’m here to make recommendations because there's not an agreement or they wouldn't need me, but at the same time, I want to try to foster a spirit of co-parenting that's going to go beyond when all of these attorneys and the judge are no longer in your lives, what are you going to do?  You're going to have to talk to each other, you're going to have to make decisions together, hopefully, you can do that without the professionals.  I try to model that from the beginning when I’m in a case.

Peter:  That's great, I like that term co-parenting kind of mindset from the start and the judge will also use it to have something in our courtroom, you guys are in this through your kid.

Jennifer:  One other thing I say to almost every parent is that it's not that you are going to co-parent, that's a given.  It's not whether you're going to do this, it's actually how.  So, you choose how that's going to go.  Is it going to be through litigation and having to pay all these people to tell you what to do or are you going to be able to find the wherewithal between the both of you to be able to work together in the spirit of civility to essentially raise your kids?  That's a long runway for a lot of people because you come into a divorce case or a family law matter with young kids, and it's maybe 10 plus years of this.  Hopefully, you're going to do that outside of court but we have to give you the tools to be able to learn how.

Peter:  In that court-appointed role, child's rep, guardian ad litem, a particular challenge that you deal with in terms of like, “Hey here are some cases that really I can get into and go smoothly versus the ones maybe that are a little more challenging.  Any pointers for the layperson who might be going through a case, what really makes the difference to get this just to a good and fair resolution versus like in court for four years type of a situation?

Jennifer:  I think that the parents who are the most successful in this process, even with a child rep GAL, are the one's side that want to put their children ahead of their own disagreements with each other.  This is not necessarily easy for people.  It's not necessarily an inherent goal that they come into these cases with, but at the end of the day, people don't change unless it gets bad enough.  Ultimately, it has to get bad enough sometimes from a perspective of cost from time, it's going to cost you a lot of money to fight this out and go all the way down the runway to trial.  It's going to take you a lot of time.  It's going to cost your family in terms of collateral damage to go all the way down the runway to trial because when you do that, it's the scorched earth syndrome that almost always means you're so positional at that point that you're not going to be able to mend fences. 

So one of the things that I often instill in people is very early on, this is where you're going from here if we can't figure this out and if I’m making recommendations and they aren't accepted, this is the reality testing of what happens to you.  Knowing that sometimes people are able to come around and I can move the needle because then sometimes people lay down their swords and decide that they're willing to cooperate a little bit more and I can usually get it done, but sometimes where you have those recalcitrant personalities and sometimes that's because of maybe it's a substance use issue, maybe it's a mental health issue.  There could be other variables here that I can't control, that are literally limiting somebody's ability to be reasonable.  In those cases, sometimes it's harder because I can't reach people in a way that you would otherwise assume that they are rationally able to respond.  So for that, sometimes those are the cases that do have to be litigated because for whatever reason, they're not willing or able to respond to the other more alternative dispute resolution tactics that I'll always try but even to my own recommendations too as a guardian ad litem or a child rep for example.

Peter: Yes, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole too much farther because I actually do want to talk about some parenting coordination with you.  I feel like I’m not so sure, we were just talking about the best sense of accomplishment, the best experience.  To me, the worst situation is when you're sitting in a courtroom. I feel like it's not too many of my cases and probably not too many of yours but it's like, you'll see parents who've been just litigating forever and oftentimes you'll see this.  I don't think you'll see.  It's like they're fighting at a certain point about like therapists for the child.  In a lot of ways, their choices and their recalcitrance and not putting the kid's best interest first and X number of years down the line, I’m sitting in a courtroom watching people debate who should be our kid's therapist. That's a little bit too short or too simple about it, but I really do hate it when you see it because you see that more a good amount and it's really sad to me is sad.

Jennifer:  I think the bottom line is it's a control issue.  Almost all of the things in terms of the examples we could provide about that if it's a therapist or whatever else, it's almost always the common denominator is controlled because one parent wants one thing and the other parent wants the other thing and sometimes they're at odds just so that the other parent doesn't get what they want.  Ultimately that's unfortunate at best because the kids become the collateral damage in the middle, but one of the things that I always explain to people along the way looks:

The fact of the matter is you can't agree, won't agree, or both, that's how you got me as a child rep or guardian ad litem.  I’m here to make recommendations.  If that doesn't solve it for you, then the judge is going to eventually make rulings happen after a hearing or a trial.  Either way, you are losing control here, you are not gaining it.  So, the more that you want to throw down your sword and fight about this, the more that you are going to have all of these other people come into your lives and essentially tell you what you are going to do.  Not me as the judge, I’m not a judge but I can make recommendations but the judge is ultimately going to tell you what you are going to do.  And is that what you want?  You have the most chance of it here, actually even more so in mediation but you can't do that because mediation essentially failed or you wouldn't get to the child representative guardian ad litem.  The mediation didn't work, you had the most control there.  You still have some control here if we can manage to do that, but if I’m making recommendations, the judge is probably going to weigh those pretty heavily, and then ultimately if you don't want to accept those recommendations, the judge is going to make rulings and tell you.  So how do you want to do it?

Peter:  We've been talking a little bit about these roles, I’m not trying to be all legal or not too un-legal about it, your client in a sense is the minor child going through a case.  We've also talked about this different role that's called parenting coordination or a parenting coordinator. What's the definition of that role?  It hasn't been there that long.  I’m showing my age a little bit but I remember when that rule came out, it's about a decade or maybe even a little less.

Jennifer:  There's actually a local rule in Cook County that gives me the scope and authority.  Ultimately, there's a scope and authority that we're granted as parenting coordinators but essentially it's again more alternative dispute resolution outside of court with the description and I borrow this from a colleague who's also a parenting coordinator as well.  You might know, Gayle Pedros.  I'll just give her credit.  She says that parenting coordination is mediation with teeth and I say that because as a mediator, I can't make any kind of recommendation.  I’m neutral as a mediator.  For example, I’m here to facilitate your agreements that you're reaching with each other as co-parents and potentially spouses or not, if you're married or not but ultimately as a mediator, I don't make recommendations.  I’m neutral but as a parenting coordinator, I am a mediator helping you to try to work through your disputes alternatively outside of the court process but I can make recommendations.  I can do that within the scope and authority that I’m given as a parenting coordinator by our local rule.  Now there's a state statute that's hopefully in process and we'll hopefully get through sooner rather than later that will hopefully grant statewide authority to parenting coordinators so that it's not just a county-driven process, but that hasn't happened yet but here in Cook County, you have some authority on that local rule. 

Ultimately, what I mean is that for example, if there's a parenting plan in place or we're getting to one, sometimes pre-decree or post-decree whenever the parenting coordinator is appointed, I tend to see it more post-decree after the judgment has been entered, but I’m here to help those parents with interpreting and implementing their parenting plans.  If there's a dispute about, for example, let's say they want to swap parenting time and what does their judgment say about that, I might be called upon to help interpret what that means and what their ultimate resolution of the issue should be.  One of the things that I can't do is recommend anything that would permanently modify the court orders that people already have because that's a judicial authority.  I don't issue court orders, a judge does that and I can't modify their court orders because the judge does that too, but I can also potentially help them to mediate things where they might reach an agreement that might result than in their attorneys or former council drafting an agreed order that modifies what they already have because they've come to their own agreement about it and then they're just submitting that to the court for approval.  But on my own recommendation, I can't make any recommendations that would permanently modify what they have.  But one of the things that we can do is work within the four corners of their agreement and figure out how to work with what they've got and what might be in the kids best interest, ultimately in terms of making those temporary changes to the parenting time or to if it's a decision-making issue that they want to agree to, for example.

Peter:  I like your phraseology, mediation with teeth.  When I explain the role, I think I'll call you a bit of an arbitrator that might be inaccurate.

Jennifer:  But it's not altogether wrong because sometimes what happens and it depends on the order language appointing me, but sometimes what people will do is they'll say, listen, the parenting coordinator has final authority on these issues unless and until somebody wants to litigate.  So, that's where sometimes you need that stop-gap because for example, if you're trying to avoid litigation and mediation and you need a short-run issue resolved, I think the parenting coordinators are really effective because we are mediators but we also have that ability to make recommendations.  You're going to get in to see me or email me to get a result faster than you're even probably going to get a mediation, a consultation, or an appointment.  So, it's more expedited, it can be for those one-off issues that we just need you for this tiny little piece, and then we're going to go off and be fine for a while. 

I think sometimes what happens in those parenting coordinator cases, is they're very episodic.  Sometimes nothing happens for months or maybe ever.  I have some cases that I’ve never been called upon because they're getting along but in the cases where I’m needed, it technically could be as often or as little as they need me, but typically it's presenting an issue on a frequency of whatever the occurrence is so that it may be once every two or three months and then I don't hear from people again.  And unless they need me, I’m here but I’m the one who's being presented with those issues.  I don't go out and ask people voluntarily, how are you doing?  Do you need me?  They're the ones coming to me.  So when they do, it can be more variable, it's not always a frequent scenario, but sometimes there are more frequent cases where they need me more often.

Peter:  I’m going to try to land this interview and land this plane in the next five minutes.  Here's a two-part question, and then I’m just going to ask a little bit more about what your practice looks like and kind of what you're looking for in terms of clients and staff and where people can find you but here's my substantive question on parenting coordinator, two parts.

Is there a generic case you say is the type of case that should be a parenting coordinator type case?  And the bullet underneath it or a compound question is

Should I be having parenting coordinator language in more allocation judgments than I do?  Because I feel like why not put it in there, what do you think on both of those questions together? They are totally unrelated.

Jennifer:  Let me take the second part first though because either you have to agree to a parenting coordinator or the judge has to order it.  You can do it by agreement and you can put that in an allocation judgment and you might even name the person whom you want to have appointed.  I think that's great because sometimes the reason for that is because you know.  For example, there have already potentially been conflicts along the way for this particular theory, and all signs point to there's probably going to be a reason why they're still going to need help after the judgment for the parenting plan has been entered.  There could be very valid reasons because maybe there has been a child representative or a guardian ad litem already involved who's been heavily utilized but doesn't want to have to still be on the potential recurring appointment indefinitely and a way to hand that off potentially is to assign a parenting coordinator who can come in to take over after the two attorneys potentially and the guardian ad litem or child rep are gone and be one person to help resolve the disputes going forward that both parents would then utilize.  That's something you can do by agreement or the court can order it.

But at the same time what kind of case is right for parenting coordination.  I think are those cases where there are lots and lots of recurring communication issues for parents, there are potentially the landmines that you know they're going to fall into.  We do as much to try to avoid these things in allocation judgments as we can because we know that parents are often going to have contested issues even after the judgment has been entered.  But one of the things I would say is if you know that this case has been on your caseload a long time and it's been heavily contested and it's been into the weeds on these issues because we can't agree that it's Tuesday, that's probably going to be a case where you need a parenting coordinator.  It's probably a good idea because then at least there's a backstop.  They have a resource and sometimes that's its own comfort for parents because they don't have to use me unless and until one person brings an issue before me.

But at the same time if they do need me I’m there. Sometimes I think in the cases where I don't hear from people, it's a reassurance.  I know I have somebody there if I need it.  I don't have to go back to court and hire counsel again.  I don't have to run the risk of another child rep GAL being appointed to come in and do an investigation.  I have a more limited issue basis.  I have somebody who can help with it, hopefully, get us in and out and done and resolve these short-run issues faster and more economically than court.  Those are the kind of cases that typically are right for a parenting coordinator.  I think it's great and I think more judges are endorsing this which is wonderful to see because it helps keep people out of their courtrooms on post-decree matters which is to their benefit too.

Peter:  I know I have one case right now where I’ve been thinking about, “Hey we need a parenting coordinator.  I don't think you're not talking about fundamental issues of who's the majority type parent, house decision making, are we going to dramatically change parenting time but just every little smallish thing, pick up, drop off smallish communication.

Jennifer:  enrollment in extracurriculars, I want to do ballet class, and I want them to do piano.  These are the kinds of things where it's not even necessarily cost-benefit, worth it to go back to court. 

Peter:  That's what I mean, we're in court on this case and it's like I’m not going to name her name but I’m like a client.  You can't afford to have private attorneys battling on this for the duration of your child's minority.  Let's get a parenting coordinator here, and keep this out of court for the next eight years or so.

Jennifer:  It's as needed and ultimately the parents are sharing the fees and whatever proration, either they agree to or the court decides.  You have more of the sort of economical basis to do it, also the time basis to do it and also the length of time that people need because especially where you have young kids, this is a long window between now and 18 and if you meet us, we're here but at the same time if you don't, go along and prosper in terms of your co-parenting.  I love it when cases don't need me but at the same time when they do, I’m here.

Peter:  Jennifer thanks again for jumping on here.  If somebody wants to hire you when they need an excellent family law attorney, how can they reach you, and is there a particular kind of clientele you're looking for in your niche family law practice?

Jennifer:  Ultimately my practice has turned less and less high contested litigation just because I don't necessarily have the bandwidth with whatever else I’m doing, but when you have a case that lends itself maybe to more sort of alternative dispute resolution, whether it's in mediation or collaborative law, those are the kinds of cases that I’m probably best suited for, not necessarily the high conflict where it's heavy-heavy litigation just because I’ve got such a different caseload.  In terms of where to find me, my website is www.lavinfamilylaw.com and that's where you can find all of the things about me and how to reach me.  That would be the way to do it, I think.

And thank you again Peter for having me, it's been a lot of fun.