I had written about my parent’s petition to visit with my son in a previous post. Therein I had described that my parents were wishing to visit with my son, and I was opposed to this.
This case with my parents that was regarding my son, was after my own custody/visitation case regarding my son, and also after much of my support proceeding; so this “appointment of standby-council”, had been well established by the court by this time as they had already appointed standby council to me twice. Because of this, it isn’t surprising to see that they had appointed standby-council to me again a third time, with this new proceeding.
Now, according to uslegal.com, standby-council serves the purpose to (among other things) “allow the trial to proceed without the undue delays likely to arise when a layman presents his own case” and now my question is, how is it that these “undue delays” are so insignificant that they may be circumvented, but this same circumvention cannot be set fourth directly through any action of the court?
The way a courtroom works, is that the parties develop a record of facts, and then they use that record to ask for things. The judge then decides if what their asking for it supported by the facts on the record of the proceeding and also, if the law allows the court the power to grant the action(s) sought.
If a party asks the court to “allow the trial to proceed without the undue delays likely to arise when a layman presents his own case”, and the court can’t do that; how can it be considered that any action by the standby-council could then ‘allow the trial to proceed’?
In other words, if these same “undue delays” are inappropriate, or interfere with justice, then the court can “allow the trial to proceed” without these same “undue delays” because, if it can be considered that the court has the power to appoint standby-council to that same effect, then how can it be considered that the court does not have the power to “allow the trial to proceed” without the “undue delays”? When the court appoints standby-council, this is what they’re doing.
The only explanation which makes sense to me, is that this standby-council circumvents obstacles which were put in place to protect people from their government. The court appoints this standby-council, and then the standby-council says something like “there might be a possibility that this party is a bad father”, even though there isn’t anything on the record or otherwise, that supports that; And then because that same representation was made behalf of that party by an attorney which represents them, the law then allows “the trial to proceed”, in spite of the fact that the law does not allow it. What other effect could it be considered that the appointment of standby-council has?
I would love to hear a cohesive argument which explains how standby-council is just, and does something good, as I cannot think of such an argument myself and further, I can not believe that such a consideration could exist legitimately.
In closing, throughout my matters, I had come to recognize what I would characterize to myself as “the opposite day statue”. The court would recognize that the facts support a certain cause for action but then, they would then find that “today is opposite day”; so what the court would then do is instead the opposite…
This standby-council seems to be the most concise form of “the opposite day statue” which was applied, and because there’s no law against it, I suppose it’s perfectly legal.