The meanest motion ever
Sometimes my job is sickening. I get the whole idea of defense lawyers attacking my clients in order to make sure they are telling the truth. But what I can never get used to are the grotesque tactical maneuvers used by some defense lawyers to save an insurance company a buck.
Here are a few excerpts from an argument I made to the Court opposing defense counsel's motion to dismiss a father's claim for the wrongful death of his child. Before reading this: a) put on a white jacket; b) stand up fully; c) employ wonder woman frown; d) thrust out chin; and e) use extra emphasis when using the word: "repulsive."
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, initially when I drafted the response to this motion, I asked for terms. And I took it out because I believe that this motion was the result of a law firm letting an associate just run amok. And I didn't want to blame her for it. But this is one of the meanest motions I've ever seen in a case. It is without foundation...There's a human element in cases as well as a legal element. And humanity, I believe, should be an undercurrent of our legal system. As well as respect of individuals. And this motion is disrespectful and not based on the law.
And so what the defense is inviting us to do here is to go ahead and discriminate against a couple that is not yet married and put a burden on them that it would place on no married couple to prove paternity because of an alleged rape that they (the defense) has done nothing to discover. I think it is repulsive. In fact, stepchildren and stepparents do have rights under our wrongful death laws. it started with natural, it went to adoption, and it went to step. that was the progression of our law because it reflects the humanity of our culture.
In this case Mr. A was there for all the pregnancy. He supported his wife (Freudian slip) throughout the pregnancy. He was there witnessing the collision. Was there witnessing when an emergency C section was required. Was in the hospital every day of his daughter's life. And held her at the moment she died. I just find this motion repulsive.
There is no case law saying that you must prove paternity before you can be deemed to be a mother or father. To the contrary, all the case law says you act like a mother, a father, you take on those responsibilities, you love the child, you are the mother or father for the purposes of our laws in this state.
The heart of this motion is attacking the fatherhood of Mr. A. I just can't get over it.