The Role of an Attorney for the Child (AFC)

Unpacking the challenges in discerning a child's true wishes in custody cases. Edward Lammers, Esq. emphasizes the importance of not coaching children, the significance of confidentiality in Lincoln hearings along with practical advice on ensuring the child's best interests are always at the forefront.

Key Takeaways: 

• how to navigate custody disputes
• the distinctions between joint and sole custody
• the impact of orders of protection
• how AFCs work with children
• importance of legal knowledge and sensitivity to family dynamics

Enjoying the show? Need help?

• Get Free Legal Advice From Mike (book free 20 minute call)
• Connect with Mike on Instagram
• Learn about Khader Law Services

Transcript

Host: 0:02

This is the brief. I'm sharing lessons from years in the courtroom, representing parents and couples on custody battles, co parenting, mental health, finances, and more. After 20 years as an attorney, I'm also bringing true war stories from the courtroom to empower you with solid and straightforward advice. I want to help you become a better partner and parent and be here any time when you need it the most. Hello everyone and thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of the brief with my cater. This week's guest is someone that I know personally and I've seen him in court. I've seen him in action folks. Our guest is Edward Lammers. An experienced attorney that has handled over thousands of cases representing children, commonly known as an attorney for the child, where you might see attorneys refer to them as AFCs. Ed had worked in the Westchester County Attorney's Office in the family unit division. He's in private practice now and has literally handled. Thousands of cases and has seen and heard almost anything. So without further ado, let's introduce Ed Lammers. Ed, thanks for being here, my friend. I

Edward: 1:17

appreciate being on your podcast. This is a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to it.

Host: 1:23

A lot of times people, you know, uh, family and clients and friends say, why the hell would you want to do a podcast and put yourself out there? The reality is I felt that it was necessary to put some user friendly, easy to find resources for people that are dealing with, you know, matrimonial cases, family court cases, be it custody cases, family offense, petitions, neglect petitions. The stuff could be intimidating. It's a great idea. I appreciate it. And like I said, thanks for taking time out. I know that you had a busy day in court today, you know, we're working after hours, so let's get right into it. What is an AFC?

Edward: 2:03

Well, an AFC, it stands for attorney for the child going back, maybe seven or eight years. It used to be called A law guardian. When I first started, it was called the law guardian, and I would say about five, seven years ago, it changed to the attorney for the child. And also our roles kind of changed or more defined. When we started being called attorneys for children.

Host: 2:32

So what was the difference between, uh, being called a law guardian because your client was still the child and now you're an attorney for the child. Same child. So what's the difference?

Edward: 2:45

Right. So law guardians used to be able to pretty much substitute their judgment almost in any case. And substituting your judgment means. Basically, if you have a client who's a child and the child says something to you or wants something in litigation, because you got to remember, if you're representing a child, it's just like representing an adult. You have a conversation with your client. You kind of learn what he or she may want judging from their age and their ability to communicate. You carry out what it is that they want. But when we were law guardians, we would substitute our judgment often. And basically, you know, that would mean that instead of. Taking our client's position as told to us, we could actually take a different position. We could take a different position that we believe is in that child's best interests based on all the assertions or the allegations in a case. You know, you can think of a perfect example would be when you're representing an adult who's got, say you're representing a mom or you're involved in a case where there's a mother who's abusing drugs and she's got a drug issue and you got a five year old client. And your five year old client or your seven year old client says, you know, I want to live with mom. I want to live with mom, but you know, mom is really. Is not able to care for a child. She's in a bad situation. Yeah. And she's not able to functionally care for it. Back when we were law guardians, we would not take the position of our clients who were saying, Oh, I want to be with mom. I want to be with mom. He would say, Hey, judge, I think it's best that this child not be with her mom because mom's got a real drug issue. And I'll go for a full circle. Now that we're attorneys for children, we have to take what it is our clients Want and what they tell us they want, and we really can't change or substitute our judgment for what our clients tell us. So we have to pretty much do whatever the clients want. There are certain circumstances, very unique circumstances, uh, where we are still able to substitute judgment, but those are the two different things. Back when we were law guardians, we were able to substitute our judgment whenever we wanted, whenever we thought it was best for our clients. Now that we're attorneys for the children, we have to basically carry out what our clients want and not substitute judge.

Host: 5:14

I appreciate that. So pretty much what I always do in cases, you know, and in the courtroom, where sometimes a client May have a different perception of what the child thinks. What I'll always do, I'll tell the court, can I have the AFC state, you know, after meeting with their client, what they want, and sometimes having the AFC say, here's what my client wants, sometimes it moves the needle towards a settlement. And I'll tell my client, listen, your kid or kids do want to have overnights or they don't want overnights. Do you sure you want to. Follow this. So I think it's very important.

Edward: 5:49

I think that's really important, Mike. And it's, it's a great point because adults really, or parents really need to hear what it is that their children are saying. You know, sometimes the child will obviously say something to. A parent because they know that that parent wants to hear that, and that's not always their, their position. It could get hairy sometimes, but it is very helpful for a parent to hear what the child's position is. Sometimes they don't believe it, or they don't follow or believe what their child says, but I think it's a very, it's very

Host: 6:27

useful. Sometimes that happens also. I get a large percentage of clients say, okay, if that's what my kid wants, doesn't want overnights, I'll take the day visits or I'll do it, whatever. But then you do have a percentage that say they're only saying that because that's what they're told. Ed, in no random order, how do you. Decipher if a child or children are being coached or, or being told what to say. Like, you know, are there any indicators that you look for to see if this is really, you know, child is being genuine or is the child, you know, being coached and told, you know, say this. Are there any things you, you look for?

Edward: 7:09

Yeah, of course. Initially it's ideal. Number one, if you can interview a child in person. You learn so much more information. I used to do 90 percent of my interviews at. You also learn a lot of information from that, but you want to make sure that there's nobody else in the room or that there's nobody listening in or that there's nobody influencing the child. So that's a starting point. Then once I know I'm alone with a child, it starts off with building a rapport. Small talk, what grade are you in, what school are you in, what do you like to do, and you get the child a little bit comfortable. And then you just start to talk about their respective parents. Can you tell me a little bit, what do you like to do with your dad, what do you like to do with your mom, and what are your favorite parts? And once you've really, you can sense that they're, Guard comes down a little bit and you're getting free, free flowing information. When you're interviewing a child, some red flags are you're getting statements from a child that a child or words from a child that a child normally won't stay or use, you get words, adult language, or a child, as soon as I sit down with a child immediately states, my father's beating me. My father's touching me inappropriately. My mother pulls my hair and slaps me on the ass. And without even me asking a question. That's, that's some telltale of red flags. And one of the favorite things that I like to do, I get a real honest answer is, I ask kids, especially younger ones, what their free wishes are. And they really use that as an opportunity to tell me what it is they want. My wish is I could see my dad and live with my dad. I could spend more time with my dad. I wouldn't have to live with my mom. And basically in those three wishes, and you don't put words in their mouth. They tell you. I really get a lot of information from that, especially with the younger ones.

Host: 9:21

That's very helpful that our listeners could see that. So, you know, cause there's, if I had 25 cents, every time a client hears the AFC's position and it's not something they want to hear, you know, I don't want overnights with my dad or I don't want overnights with my mom and it's almost not all the time, but many times. Oh, They're being coached. So it's important that our listeners know, you know, you know, AFCs, they're trained, you know, they know, like you said, the signs that tells to say, okay, you know, there could be a little coaching here. That could be a little coercion here. So thanks for pointing that out. Another question that I get commonly is particularly from the non custodial. So the, the parent that does not have the child is Yeah. How come the AFC never speaks to me or how come the AFC doesn't ask me my opinion or how come he never said anything or he's never called me or things along those lines. And I could start with the short answer. We're not their client. That's the short answer. How do you handle that when the non custodial wants to speak to the AFC?

Edward: 10:26

You know, usually a, an attorney may. Asked me obviously to speak with their client. And I, I never say no to that, but primarily I try and communicate with both parents and I actually try and communicate with the non custodial parent when I know that my client does not. Wish to maybe have overnights or weekends. And I try and reassure that individual. It's not that they don't love you. It's not that they, as a matter of fact, you know, I'll try and point out some positive reinforcement about what I've learned from their, from their child. But. Like you said before, I don't necessarily have to communicate with anybody, quite frankly. I don't have to communicate with the mom. I don't have to communicate with the dad. I have to communicate with my client. And most of the time I do communicate with the mother or the father and get a little bit of information. And I find that helpful. I have to get permission of the respective attorneys. who represents mom and dad. And that's almost always 99 percent of the time I'll get permission to communicate. And that's really helpful as well, because I learned a lot in the first five minutes of an interview of, uh, of either a custodial parent or non custodial parent. But to get back to your question, I think it is important to speak to the non respondent parent as much as possible and try and reassure. I also pay attention to when I go to court, not necessarily like walking right up to the custodial parent and sitting down with the custodial parent and laughing, or it just doesn't give a good look for anybody. And so I'll usually try my best to, other than maybe just a nod of the head to the custodial parent who I've met before, but certainly not to make it look unfair.

Host: 12:22

That's very alert, a good practice. As I say with my clients, when particularly, you know, be that, you know, you're the AFC or whoever's the AFC, what I always tell my client is. You want to speak to the AFC. Okay. You know, I'll send a, I'll send an email, you know, I'll reach out to them, but I always stress the fact that whatever you tell them, it's not confidential. So, you know, if you really want to speak to them, I think it can be useful. You know, on limited occasion, they could hear your perspective. You hear your context, but the key takeaway that I want to listen to say is whatever you tell the AFC. It is not confidential. The AFC can literally go to court and say, Hey judge, I spoke to the mom. I spoke to that and here's what they told me. So sometimes, you know, as a, as a parent who demand or insist on speaking to the AFC, just let it be issue focused so that that's important. I'm sure. You know, a lot of times people think, Oh, lawyer, client, confidentiality. I says, yes, you're my client. What you and I discussed is confidential, not you and your kids lawyer. So I always stress that.

Edward: 13:30

That's a great point because I don't want to say I'm devious or whatever, but sometimes, uh, you know, when I do get permission from an attorney to speak to their client, you know, you have to understand, I am going to use information that I gained to get my. Client what it is that they want. And sometimes I, you know, I do have to state some of the things that they told me or use some of the things that they've told me against them. So it is very important that they know that I try not to do that, or at least I'll give a heads up to the attorney that's representing them about, you know, some of the issues that I think they have, and maybe tell them that they need to work with their clients on those issues so that, you know, you can make it easier for my client.

Host: 14:18

Thanks for sharing that. That's important. Now, we're talking about talking to your client. So, what is the jurisdiction for the family court with children? At what age range?

Edward: 14:31

Well, I represent children who are a couple days old to children who are 21 years old. I mean, primarily in family court and in custody and visitation cases. The court loses jurisdiction when the child turns 18 in custody. and visitation cases, you know, in guardianship cases that may go up to 21. And also I do represent juvenile delinquents. And basically that's another separate area of the law where we use the criminal law, but some of them I represent also because they're either detained past their 18th birthday. So I could be representing a child up until their 21st birthday. But generally it's from day old

Host: 15:18

to 21. I'm sure it's very fact, but you know, some general guidance. How do you deal when your client is an infant, you know, a tot literally two years old, you know, three years old where they're really not verbal. They really can't. How do you handle a situation like that?

Edward: 15:34

Well, the younger a child is when you're representing infants, you have to rely on outside third party information. You have to rely on facts of the case, do your own investigations, medical records, depending on how old the child is, whether or not, you know, they're in pre K or anything like that, whether or not they're getting to school, whether or not they have any intellectual disabilities, whether they have any physical disabilities, the younger a child is, the more you look to third parties. A lot of times when I get to a child. You know, and that's six year old, seven year old, it really depends on how you evaluate them, whether or not you could tell, you know, some kids you could tell right away, they're very intelligent. They speak very well. They can express their thoughts. Some can do it at six years old and some can't do it at eight years old. So it's really fact specific. The more that a child can express himself and the more confidence that I have in the children's ability to exercise, Or express themselves. The more I'm going to rely on what it is that they want, uh, and the less likely I'm going to be looking for outside information, getting away from substituting my judgment, like I said before, there are limited circumstances now as an AFC, where we can still substitute judgment, but it's, it's very rare that we get to do it. And when we do it, we have to notify everybody in the court that we're substituting our judgment for what our client wants.

Host: 17:13

I understood now, and you kind of lead to it, you know, when a child is able to articulate themselves, here's what I want. They're, they're clear in their thoughts. And I've been in so many cases, right? Where a parent is, you know, filing a petition for visitation with their teenage child, right? You know, 13, 14, 15. And I've seen many times. Everyone says, you know, you know, even some courts sometimes will say, listen, you're not going to have a, you can't force a 15 or 16 year old to do something that they don't want to do. So is there. An age range where the child's wishes pretty much control, or is it more the older they get, the more weight it has? So like, you know, is it a sliding scale or is there like a definite cutoff?

Edward: 17:57

That's another great question. I mean, you know, there is no black and white answer. There are no statutes which identify when a, a court has to listen to a 15-year-old or a 13-year-old. So this is something that we, after practicing for 15, 20 years, we see when a court is willing to listen to an individual of a certain age. So for example, once. Once you get to be 12 or 13, the court's definitely going to listen to you. The court's definitely going to listen to you, but that's right on the cusp where they're going to say, Hey, you have a right to your opinion. You have a right to say something, but you're still too young. And you know what? You have to see your mother. You have to see your father. So there's that cusp around 12. And 13 is right there. Once you hit 14, uh, and especially 15, you know, most courts are going to listen to you and not necessarily force you to do something that you don't want to do. And so I find that once I have a 14 year old and I'm representing a 14 year old, in almost any order, I would say that any visitation would be subject to their wishes and desires, which would mean that they would have a say. And whether or not they will exercise those visits. Cause you got to remember, you know, they're kids, they're 14 year olds. Now they're going to high school. They got plans on the weekends. They got their own friends. They got their own activities. And all of a sudden you have a parent who's saying it's supposed to be my weekend. I want you here. And so you got to be mindful as a parent, you have to be mindful when your child gets a little bit older, you got to give them a little bit of, of, of leeway. And you have to listen to a little bit of what they want and not necessarily be so, you know, like a dictator.

Host: 19:54

I tell my clients and I always ask, particularly nowadays where, you know, I'm not saying every 13, 14, 15 year old has an electronic device, but most do have an electronic device. And what I recommend is let the parent deal directly with the child and texting and scheduling, you The access visitation on a weekend. So as you were saying, if there's an activity, sometimes they've got a sports activity or there's a, a birthday party or stuff, so instead of spending the whole day, I've seen many kids where they'll tell, I represent the non custodial parent, yeah, I don't mind seeing dad, but I just don't want to spend the whole day with him, or, you know, I don't mind spending the day. I just don't want to sleep over. So what I usually try to carve out is, okay, so the weekend is his time and then let the non custodial. And the child, you know, think of that 13, 14 years old kind of work out, okay, I'll pick you up after the sports class or stuff like that. And that satisfies taking the child's wishes into consideration. And sometimes it works. You know, and sometimes it doesn't.

Edward: 20:58

And we know as practitioners, you know, if you can counsel your client, especially the noncustodial parent to heed what their child is, is telling them to listen to them, to try and follow through with what it is that they want. It will go, it goes a long, long way instead of telling. You better be here for a weekend or I'm going to violate your mother, or I'm going to tell the judge that you're not visiting, it's not going to help you.

Host: 21:27

No, no, a hundred percent. You know, sometimes, you know, don't, you know, get in a custody case and especially the contested, sometimes giving in a little bit carries a long way. Because they'll say, you know, let the court see you're not putting your desires or your anger with the mother or the, or with the other parent, you're putting the child's wishes first. Sometimes these small little victories, you know, this, I call, excuse me, these small little concessions lead to victories down the road.

Edward: 21:56

You know, like we talked about something before and it's interesting because, you know, you could say, how do you know when you're interviewing your child, whether or not your child's being coached or, but I find the same, you know, it's interesting when I interview an adult, I can, their tells about whether they're overselling their case or what kind of person they are, or as soon as you start talking to a custodial parent, they're just bashing, The other parent bash, bash, bash, nothing good to say, uh, you know, those are red flags. And when you interview a custodial parent, it's like, listen, I want the father to have as much access as he, as he wants. I hope he can do every weekend. I got to work. I need his help. Then, you know, you're getting genuine feeling. You're not getting, you know, information that's, that's not good information. And then you can use that to pretty much resolve a case almost immediately, but it works with. Interviewing a custodial, non custodial parents as well. We learned that

Host: 23:01

many times, like sometimes, you know, when I'm doing a consultation with a client or speaking with them, sometimes I say, well, what normally happens or how, how will the case end? And what I honestly tell them is each case is so unique. I could tell you what happened in 20 cases beforehand. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen in your, you know, cause there's different dynamics, the relationship between the parents, the relationship with the child, the age, you know, the length, you know, all these little dynamics, they all play a factor. And I tell people it's not evidence that dictates it's the best interest of the child standard. What the hell does that mean? You know, and, and there is, you know, that, that is a fair question. Sometimes best interest of the child, according to who,

Edward: 23:44

I

Host: 23:44

don't know

Edward: 23:44

if I, I don't know if we could define

Host: 23:46

it. Yeah, exactly. My next question, and I wish I had, I said 25 cents or I wish I had a nickel every time I deal with this is what is the difference between joint custody and sole custody? I think

Edward: 24:02

the easiest way to look at it is when you're looking at. Legal custody, you're dealing with decision making. So joint custody is joint decision making. Sole custody is sole decision making, meaning one person is going to make all the decisions. So whenever you're dealing with legal custody, if you just look at it as call it decision making, then you're going to have joint decision making. And it's joint custody, or are you going to have sole decision making, which is sole custody?

Host: 24:37

I almost wish that they change the word sole custody and joint custody into sole decision making and joint decision making. Because I think that when you hear the terminology, and Ed, I know that, you know, while you represent a lot of children, you've also represented parents. And I'm sure you've been in this situation before. Sure. When a particular parent wants You know, the custodial parent is digging in their, their heels. I want soul, the non custodial wants joint. And they're like, well, am I giving up my parental? Or I was like, no. And it's so unfortunate sometimes that sometimes you have to counsel what it really means that it's about. And it's not even just regular decisions. It's really, it's the major decisions. It's so true

Edward: 25:18

that many of the people we represent, and I'm not talking about the children, but the adults, do not understand what joint legal custody means, sole legal custody means, or really physical custody, and, you know, with little education, you can counsel a client and make them understand that you're not losing your parental rights. You're not losing your parental rights. You know, your right to participate or access to information, like speaking to teachers or getting records or all of those things. Even if you, the, the, the other parents getting sole custody, you know, you still have certain rights that your client could have, which is access to information, which I think is one of the most important things, quite frankly, and is way overlooked. And I think having legal custody is. Something that's way overblown and people think it's a lot more than it is. And it's really not, I think physical custody is all

Host: 26:16

important and access to information. I totally agree. I speak into many members of the bar and the panel and, you know, on matrimonial cases, and I think, you know, you're right. A lot of people just hear the term and they automatically think it's not. And what I always tell them is, so you have different types of custody. So one is physical custody. That's physically where does the child live? There's usually an agreement on that, you know? So it's usually, you know, physical custody. To mom, you know, joint with final to the parent that has custody. So generally speaking, I tell a client the custodial parent usually has final decision making and the joint requires both of you to talk, you know, or to come to agreement and I'll tell clients and particularly in cases where they insist on joint custody, there's an order of protection. You and the other parent literally can't talk. The judge seeing that you can't talk. Joint custody requires communication. I've had clients and they say, I want joint custody, but don't talk to me. Uh, you know, the, the other parent is on block. That inherently is diametrically opposed to what joint custody is.

Edward: 27:31

Yes. And you know, when you get that, that first statement, it's going to take a little bit of time with that client to get them to understand what's, what really is happening. And it's, it's interesting. You brought up orders of protection that also has a significant impact on custody for the very reason that you said joint custody requires the ability to communicate. Case law in New York state basically says if there is a. You know, if there is an order of protection and you force it to trial, then somebody's getting sole legal custody. So, it's important to listen to your attorneys because if there's an order of protection, you know, and you're, you're gung ho about going to trial, most likely you're going to lose custody.

Host: 28:16

While, you know, reality is statistically, be it civil cases, criminal cases, matrimonial cases, and similarly in family court, most cases do settle. By a settlement, by withdrawal, but I always tell my clients, unless you're really not getting any type of wiggle room or any good faith negotiations, you'll usually get better with a settlement. You may not get everything you want. When you settle, but you'll get something as opposed to when you go to a trial, you risk everything, particularly if there's a family offense, but you know, if there's a history of domestic violence or if there's a history of family offense petitions, I always recommend settlement is the easier way because once you go through a true custody battle, you really air out all the laundry, you know, from the history of the relationship and open court, it's hard to move forward after that. You know, that's just my take on it.

Edward: 29:10

Yeah. So I know you were asking me AFC questions. I just wanted to give the audience some basic pointers about children in the court system. Children do not go to court. The judges don't want the children to be in court. That's why they have attorneys. So one thing you should tell your, your clients. I don't bring a child to court. There's no reason for a child to be in court. Some people, parents say, Oh, I'm going to bring this child in court. I want him to tell the judge. If a judge hears that they're going to look very sideways at your client and your client's going to lose on that first day. So. It's important to know that children don't go to court. If you're a parent, don't bring your child to court. If you do try and get either somebody to watch the child or plan to be there early, cause there's some of the courts do have childcare. So that's just one area. I want to also tell some parents may want to know, Hey, does my child ever get to talk to anybody? I mean, other than his attorney, did they get to talk to the judge? Did they testify? In family court we, a child really very, very rarely will testify in open court when it comes to custody and visitation matters. At worst, you may have testimony outside of the courtroom where the attorneys or the judge may ask the child certain questions, but the child won't have to sit in the courtroom. That's very rare as well. One of the things we have in custody and visitation cases is what we call a Lincoln hearing. It was a case based on a person named Lincoln, or sometimes we call it an in camera, but those are crazy words for just the judge getting to sit down with the child and speaking to the child freely. And the attorney for the child is present. You know, the child gets to say whatever he or she wants to, to the judge. And that's. At a point, it's usually after a hearing and the judge will ask the child about his or her feelings and they try not to do these in cameras and it doesn't happen on every case, but where a case goes to a hearing, the judge will usually invite the child to come in and have a conversation with the child in the presence of the attorney for the child. So those are a few things that I thought would be helpful for, and by the way, those Lincoln hearings are in cameras. When the judge interviews the child, those are highly confidential hearings, very rarely, they are recorded just like any other matter, but they're only used if there was an appeal and the appellate judges would get to listen to what was said in that in camera, that Lincoln hearing. And those are very important hearings because the child gets to express how he or she feels and it can be extremely powerful and usually sways any judge that's on the fence. That will usually cement it.

Host: 32:02

That's very important that, you know, again, Lincoln, I call them in cameras and I tell clients when, uh, that, yeah, all I could tell you is that it happened. I don't know what happened. I don't know if it went good, bad, other than there was an in camera and I don't know what happened and they don't share what happened, so, you know, but, and I think what makes it very valuable is that it's, it's so confidential that the child can speak freely and, you know, Anything was ever to get leaked out. It just breaks down the trust with the child, with the AFC, the child, with the court system, the child, with the judge. So it's important that they stress the confidentiality. Thanks for bringing that up.

Edward: 32:40

Yeah. You know, Mike, you brought up just something that I think is so important as an AFC, you also have to. Know when to broach information because you don't want to say, for example, your child doesn't want to, your client doesn't want to see his or her father and gives you some specific information. As an attorney for the child, you're not allowed to just walk into the courtroom and say, Hey judge, this is what my client told me. He said this, this, this, this, that, um, you know, we still have attorney client confidentiality and I have to speak to my client and say, Hey, is it okay if I say this? To the judge, you know, you're telling me that you don't want to see your father and that he called you a little bitch and slapped you across the face. Is it okay if I disclose it? Because I know you don't want to see your dad and this information would be very helpful and you not having to see your dad if I disclose it. So I have to get their permission, but I'm also. Careful to, I don't want to inflame a certain situation, throw my client under the bus where he or she may have to either see that parent on the following weekend, we're supposed to try and unite families and make it easier for everybody. It's just like representing an adult and representing a child. You want to be careful on how you phrase certain things to either parent, what information you use. And you also want to make sure that your client knows that, and you get permission to use certain information because all of a sudden you use certain information. The kid goes home, the parent says, you told your attorney that you did this, that, and the other thing. I didn't know he was going to tell anybody. And then, you know, you really have a problem with your own client. So you gotta be careful.

Host: 34:23

Yeah. And because particularly if they told you something and it shares, like you just said, establish that rapport. That rapport is, uh, Destroyed after appearance, particularly if they're not, and it happened before where I had the noncustodial waited to his weekend to see the child. And as soon as he saw the child, he says, you said, well, you know, A, B, and C, and it really strained the relationship with the AFC. And the case was just, it was hard to repair after that. So, you know, you make a very good point. Ed, I don't want, I know we went a little over and I want you to share your thoughts. I just want to say that, you know, to our listeners. I've had many cases with Ed Lammers and he's has taken positions that are sometimes in favor of my client, sometimes against my client. And I use that term because that's what the clients say. The AFC is against us. So I want to take away for all our listeners when the AFC gives a position, it's not against you. You know, it's not against the mother. It's not against the father. It's not against the custodial. When an AFC gives a position, they are stating what their client wants. Who is the child? Number two, when the AFC does meet with the child, make sure if you're the custodial parent, respect the lawyer client relationship and have the AFC meet with the child alone, be it on a telephone or in person. Number three, don't bring your child to court and the limited exceptions when the judge wants to see the child. Those are extremely limited. And, you know, you'll be told how to proceed with that. Number four, don't coach your kids because, you know, you know, the AFC is one, not only are they attorneys, they go through training, you know, they've been doing it long enough. They could tell when something is, is not right. You know, for any parent that needs an A FC, and, and I mean this from, uh, all sincerity, you know, if, if your child has edla as a has a a FC, they're very fortunate.

Edward: 36:25

Thank you, Michael. I appreciate that.

Host: 36:27

Ed, thank you so much for. I really appreciate taking time out of your busy day, you know, particularly on a weekday, you know, it should be a note to our listeners. We did circle around a couple of things, you know, JD, which is juvenile delinquency. We discussed orders of protection. We could talk hours about final decision making. So, Ed, I would love it to have you on as a guest on a different topic. I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Edward: 36:53

You got a pleasure to be here and good luck with the podcast, right?

Host: 36:58

Thanks for listening. This is my cater and I'll help you and your family navigate custody disputes or divorce matters with your best interest first. You can book a free consultation with me a lot more by following me on Instagram at Mike j cater. I've also included a link in today's show notes. Tune in for our next episode of the brief coming next week.