Our mission is to expose and remedy corruption in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. We assist, educate and enlighten families of the dead, the dying, the disabled and the aged to better understand their rights in order to protect themselves from the excesses of the Probate Court of Cook County. ProbateSharks.com is dedicated to networking the human element of people to people. We join together in reforming the corrupt Cook County Probate Court system.
Showing posts with label Pregnancy / Paternity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pregnancy / Paternity. Show all posts
Editor's note: Judge Kawamoto in the Probate Court of Cook County never was this lenient to Alice Gore's daughter after the daughter was denied visitation for months. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Lawyers ask for court continuances all the time, and sometimes their reasons are more legitimate than others (a death in the family versus something sports-related, like this Alabama football BCS Championship motion, this New Orleans Saints Super Bowl motion, or this LSU football BCS Championship motion).
Late last week, a Pennsylvania lawyer filed the mother of all continuance requests. Marc Daffner, who practices out of Pittsburgh, requested that one of his client’s preliminary hearings be postponed so that he’d be able to avoid his own imminent death.
Daffner’s wife, Randi, had just gone into labor, and he knew that she’d murder him if he was in court instead of by her side. Here’s the motion that Daffner submitted to the court:
(Photo via Adam Brandolph/Tribune-Review)
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Daffner’s motion for a continuance was granted because it was a “significant emergency.” Here’s more from the Trib:
“They say you need to be truthful to the court. I didn’t have a legal reason for the continuance, but that was the truth,” Daffner said as he drove from the hospital in Oakland to his Green Tree home to pick up clothing for his wife. “I got a new date, and the DA signed off on it.”
This story starts as a sperm bank horror story. A lesbian couple wanted to have a baby, and decided artificial insemination was the way to go. They pored over donor profiles, discussed with family and friends, and finally picked one specimen of biological material that was right for their family.
But the sperm bank sent over the wrong specimen, and didn’t figure out the mistake until the woman, Jennifer Cramblett, was well into her pregnancy. Terrible, right? The sperm bank apologized and gave her a refund, which probably doesn’t even scratch their legal liability. But the woman carried the baby to term and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl.
Now, two years later, Cramblett wants to sue. The sperm donor mixup really should be enough to support her claims for wrongful birth and breach of warranty. But Cramblett has added a surprising twist to her protestations of harm. It turns out that the incorrect donor was black. Cramblett now claims emotional distress because her family and town are too racially intolerant for her to raise a mixed-race daughter in their midst…
The Chicago Tribune reports on Cramblett’s “fears” and “anxieties” about raising her daughter:
Cramblett was raised around people with stereotypical attitudes about nonwhites, the lawsuit states, and did not know African-Americans until she attended college at the University of Akron…
She fears that her “all white and unconsciously insensitive family,” which has never been able to fully embrace Jennifer’s homosexuality, could have a negative effect on her daughter, according to the lawsuit.
“Though compelled to repress her individuality amongst family members, Payton’s differences are irrepressible, and Jennifer does not want Payton to feel stigmatized or unrecognized due simply to the circumstances of her birth,” the lawsuit states. “Jennifer’s stress and anxiety intensify when she envisions Payton entering an all-white school.”
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.. WELCOME TO THE SUCK, JENNIFER CRAMBLETT!!! It’s confusing, ain’t it, trying to figure out how to raise a non-white baby around all these crazy-ass white people. It is… EMOTIONALLY DISTRESSING!
Sorry, sorry, it’s just, you have to try to see it from my perspective. This woman is suing people because she’s being forced to live the life of every black parent in this country. This woman couldn’t last two years in the shoes that millions of African-Americans walk every day before crying uncle. A suit like this illustrates how completely freaking clueless some white people are about what it’s like to be black in America.
Let me highlight just one part of her complaint that is just a small window into how the other 14% live:
24. As just one example, getting a young daughter’s hair cut is not particularly stressful for most mothers, but to Jennifer it is not a routine matter, because Payton has hair typical of an African American girl. To get a decent cut, Jennifer must travel to a black neighborhood, far from where she lives, where she is obviously different in appearance, and not overtly welcome.
No, getting a young daughter’s hair cut is INCREDIBLY STRESSFUL for most mothers… most African-American mothers, at least. Go watch Chris Rock’s movie Good Hair to get just a glimpse of the contradictory and frustrating social messaging black women and their daughters have to deal with. When do you relax your young daughter’s hair, if at all? You know if you do it too young, the chemicals can damage the still fusing skull. And that’s living in a world where you are constantly worried that somebody is going to call your daughter “ugly” or “nappy” because her hair doesn’t come out of Norse myth.
And this lady is bitching about having to drive across town and have black people look at her.
Cramblett says that she used to live in a racially diverse town, Akron, but moved to someplace called Uniontown, which is not diverse because it had better schools. Now, her psychologist suggests that she move to a different town. The complaint also states: “Jennifer is well aware of the child psychology research and literature correlating intolerance and racism with reduced academic and psychological well-being of biracial children.”
YES. Sometimes, black parents have to make a whole different set of life choices just to avoid raising their kids in all-white communities. Do you know how long I looked for a racially diverse elementary school that also didn’t suck in an area I could borrow enough money to get into? WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT if racism were unacceptable in certain communities instead of having the mixed-race children be unacceptable!
Cramblett thinks her problem is the racial mismatch between her and her daughter. But her complaints are not really about the issues of raising a baby that doesn’t immediately look like the same race of the parent (a “problem” that every mixed-race couple has to overcome). Her issues are those that every parent of a non-white child has to deal with, regardless of the race of the parent. Diverse communities, good schools, racial antipathy from others, that’s just the world of raising a non-white baby.
Remember, this baby is still hers. It might be a shade darker than she anticipated, but genetically this baby is half hers and half some guy’s that she doesn’t know. She doesn’t have to raise the baby any differently than a “100% white” baby, but for the racism of those around her.
In essence, Cramblett isn’t suing because the sperm bank gave her the wrong sperm. She’s not even suing because she doesn’t like black babies. Cramblett is suing because the sperm bank turned her into a black person. They made her have to think and worry and stress like any other parent of a non-white child. The sperm bank took from her the white privilege that she thought was her birthright. Cramblett knows, just as well as I do, that her baby will be treated differently than a white baby. She just didn’t think she’d ever have to deal with it.
And, of course the sperm bank should pay for that. I hope they pay. Again, I’m inclined to think that simply mixing up donors would be enough to win this lawsuit; but since she brought race into it, I want to know what, precisely, we think it’s worth to go from being a parent of a white kid to being a parent of a non-white kid. How much economic loss are we willing to ring up for that? TELL ME. Then pay her. Then open up the f**king treasury and pay ever black mother the same goddamn price.
There’s a line in Remember the Titans (a great, saccharine, historically inaccurate movie) where the white guy is bitching at Denzel because his daughter was visiting when somebody threw a brick through Denzel’s window. Denzel tells the man that maybe he just got a glimpse into what his black daughters have to go through every day.
That’s how I feel about Jennifer Cramblett. I’m sorry for her distress, but welcome to the club. Lawsuit: Wrong sperm delivered to lesbian couple [Chicago Tribune]
Editor's note: Your ProbateShark believes "Family-Friendly" in this article relates to employees of these law firms. This Shark would appreciate the term "Family-Friendly" to also extend the definition to the kindly treatment of families in the Family and Probate Courts. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Women continue to have a hard time in the law. Whether they’re being told not to show cleavage, dress like “ignorant sluts,” or wear hooker heels, they just can’t the respect they deserve. In an environment like this, where women are perceived as lesser beings and one is expected to bring baked goods to the office just because she happens to have breasts, achieving a sense of work/life balance seems like an incredibly lofty goal.
The Yale Law Women just came out with their annual list of the top ten family friendly firms. We cover this list every year (see our posts from 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008). This year’s list changed very dramatically from last year’s: only three of the firms have returned.
Which firms made the cut? Which firms had the best options available to both women and men? Let’s take a look at the latest ranking for the most family-friendly firms…
Here’s the list of the most family-friendly firms according to Yale Law Women (in alphabetical order):
In 2014, the following firms were booted from the list: Fulbright & Jaworski, Goodwin Procter, Perkins Coie (previously honored for four years in a row; so much for the diaper-changing table in the men’s bathroom), Reed Smith (previously honored for two years in a row), Sherman & Sterling, Sidley Austin, and Squire Sanders. Curiously missing in action yet again was WilmerHale. The Boston-based firm used to be a staple on the YLW list (from 2009 to 2012). Does anyone have any specific info on what happened here?
The three returning firms are Arnold & Porter (an institution on this list; it’s been recognized every year since we began our coverage), Hunton & Williams, and Orrick (both honored for the third year in a row). These three are now joined by Baker Botts, HoLove, K&E, MoFo, Munger Tolles, Paul Weiss, and V&E. Congratulations to all of these firms for their many accomplishments in “developing and implementing family friendly practices and policies.”
Perhaps an even greater accomplishment, however, is being named in not one but two rankings lists for the best firms in terms of flex-time opportunities. In 2013, Working Mother and Flex-Time Lawyers released the list of the 50 Best Law Firms for Women, which included the U.S. outpost of Hogan Lovells, Hunton & Williams, Kirkland & Ellis, Orrick, and Vinson & Elkins. Very nice work.
Vivia Chen of The Careerist has a round-up of useful information about some of the YLW study’s findings:
• Work/life balance is a hot subject at firms. The report finds that an astonishing 83 percent have committees devoted to the issue.
• Part-time and flex-time work are allowed in most firms. But part-time is definitely a women’s thing: They make up 80.5 percent of those who take advantage of the program.
• Firms offer generous paid leaves. Sixteen weeks to primary caregivers, and 5.6 weeks to secondary caregivers. But only about 50 percent of men take the maximum parental leave, while 90 percent of women do so.
That’s really good and well that all of these Biglaw firms are paying greater attention to the family needs of their employees, but we’d love to know what taking advantage of these opportunities does to one’s professional career track. Considering the YLW report says that “[a]lumni expressed skepticism about the likelihood of remaining partner-eligible after taking advantage of alternative schedules,” we obviously have our doubts as to the firms’ sincere intent to offer genuine work/life balance opportunities.
According to the surveys taken by the Yale Law Women, things are supposedly getting better. “[A]bout 40 percent of attorneys perceived their firms to be more family friendly now compared to last year,” says Luci Yang, the group’s chair. We’ll buy into that when legal professionals — women especially — aren’t being penalized for attempting to attain a sense of work/life balance.
P.S. Take this with a shaker of salt: the workaholic cult of Wachtell Lipton somehow has one of the highest percentages of associates working on part-time schedules. 2014 Top Ten Family Friendly Firms List [Yale Law Women] Wachtell Lipton Is Family Friendly? [The Careerist] Only Women and Wimps Work Part-Time [The Careerist] Earlier: The Top Ten Family-Friendly Law Firms (2013)
Lawyers ask for court continuances all the time, and sometimes their reasons are more legitimate than others (a death in the family versus something sports-related, like this Alabama football BCS Championship motion, this New Orleans Saints Super Bowl motion, or this LSU football BCS Championship motion). 
This story starts as a sperm bank horror story. A lesbian couple wanted to have a baby, and decided artificial insemination was the way to go. They pored over donor profiles, discussed with family and friends, and finally picked one specimen of biological material that was right for their family. 
Women continue to have a hard time in the law. Whether they’re being told not to