was family court case mishandled?

[Bucky41]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

During the past year, I have battled my ex-husband in Family Court. I did ALOT of research before hiring an attorney and thought I had made a good decision. Please let me know if I was right or made a terrible mistake.

There was an order of protection in place which my ex wanted to have modified so he could visit with children (they were included as he had made threats to abduct them). His reason for the modification was "that father loves and cares for his children, etc." to which my lawyer stated this was not a reason to modify - what change had occured. Did he (the father) not love and care for them previously? I saw his point and when we went to court thought it would be dismissed (as my lawyer had stated). It wasn't and he didn't seem prepared to fight the case. It wasn't just that day either as we went to court more than 5 times. Should he have been prepared to go on the offense? I don't only mean the first day, but at some point... He always seemed to prefer to defend and not file any motions for my case. I'm not sure I'm being clear and I apologize if that's the case. I gathered so much information that could have helped and nothing was brought up. It was like being in a tennis match and he just kept lobbing the ball back instead of going for the win (maybe that helps clear up what I mean).

I know so many of you are senior members and I guess I just want to know if this is standard/normal/how you guys handle it.

If you need more information I'll be glad to provide it and any feedback would be welcome.

 

[You Are Guilty]

As far as I know, I'm the only person who responds regularly who actually worked in the NY Family Court, but even I have no way of knowing if your attorney acted properly. 5 appearances is, unfortunately, all too common, even for minor issues to be resolved. I had several cases which were in the double digits and were 2, 3, 4 years old. "Not filing motions" may not mean anything if there were no reason to file any motions (defending a request to modify an order rarely calls for motion practice). If he was "defensive" (as opposed to "offensive" I guess), that could be because he was defending the motion to modify, or it could just be his litigation style.

But what's most unclear is what your question is now. You appear to be asking us to decide if you don't like your lawyer.

 

[Bucky41]

If he was "defensive" (as opposed to "offensive" I guess), that could be because he was defending the motion to modify, or it could just be his litigation style.

But what's most unclear is what your question is now. You appear to be asking us to decide if you don't like your lawyer.

I appreciate your reply. One instance is opposing counsels motion to dismiss my OOP...there were blatant lies in there which I pointed out in my rebuttal (and which the law guardian noted in her reply) which I felt should have been brought to the judge's attention. Some of the lies had been stated previously in court (not a lawyer but I know what the word 'perjury' means) and my lawyer didn't say anything...let their lies go on record without letting the judge know they were lying.

I'm not sure what my real question is - I wanted some insight as to whether all lawyers just kind of 'defend' even when they have the opportunity to go on the offense and try to win (maybe win isn't the best word, but it's the only one I can come up with).

Thank you for reading my post and taking the time to address my concern.