Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Division III: Even with Identified Adoption Alternative, No Continuance and a Wrong Result

In re Termination of ADR

This, in the legal community, is what we refer to as serendipity. The previous case I just blogged was about arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution. We attorney-types call it A.D.R. for short. The previous opinion was all about how a developer’s ADR clause was 86’d because the governing statute trumped. In-short, it, also, was about the termination of ADR.

This case is a little different though, its a parentage case. Here, the issue was whether the court should have granted a continuance for the parent to pursue an open adoption. When did this occur? At the start of trial. 

Let us recap the last couple similar opinions:

So what do you think the Court would require for a last minute attempt at setting up an open adoption? That’s right, identification of someone to whom you would adopt the children. Speculation at the last minute does not get you a continuance. Now, here, the record seems to indicate there was an actual potential of an open adoption with the foster parents. That seems to fall on the identifiable end of the spectrum and differs significantly from the two cases above, where nothing was identified. Here is the bit that I think Division III gets wrong:

Without a continuance, Mr. Minor could still try to pursue negotiations during trial recesses, or at the end of the trial day. He could have asked the court to recess early, so the parties and the adoptive parents could confer. He could have asked the court to take the termination issue under advisement (which the court ultimately did), thereby giving him time to explore alternatives. He could have pursued discussions in the six days following the trial and before the court dispatched its letter ruling. Given all of these alternatives, Mr. Minor cannot demonstrate prejudice or that the result of the trial would likely have been different.

If this goes up on appeal, I think he may stand a good shot. There was an identified adoptive family that Minor was working with. Pragmatically, the trial does not allow him the opportunity to continue developing the potential for an open adoption. While he certainly could have started earlier, the weight of the case law goes towards identification of the alternative, not fully developing the alternative, to ask for the continuance. Otherwise, there would be no need ever for a continuance, as any alternatives would have been developed before trial.

While Issaquah Legal Services does not practice in Family Law at present (we hope to add a Family Law attorney to our rosters soon), we are more than happy to recommend a good Family Law Attorney.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.