Free Articles
, / , / , / ,
The following are case descriptions and outcomes reported by veterans who successfully had their cases handled by the Austin Bar Foundation’s Veterans Legal Assistance Program (VLAP). Names have been changed to protect anonymity.
“Lisa,” a veteran, moved around Texas quite a bit after leaving the Army. She was battling mental health issues, which made it difficult to maintain employment or stable housing. She had one child, but the father was not involved at all and had not been seen or heard from since the child’s birth. An anonymous accusation was made to Child Protective Services (CPS) that her child was the victim of neglect. A CPS visit to her apartment resulted in a mental health evaluation, which led to an involuntary commitment for Lisa. While in the hospital, the veteran agreed to a custody order that placed her child with a relative and allowed her no decision-making powers or visitation.
Lisa’s mental health commitment lasted for a couple of years, during which she had no contact with her child. After her release, Lisa was much more stable and had consistent employment, housing, and mental health. She contacted the family member who had her child and discussed getting visitation rights. The relative agreed, but the original order was in a Texas county that neither of them actually resided in. Lisa did an online intake with the Austin Bar Foundation’s Veterans Legal Assistance Program and received a follow-up phone call. Though both sides were willing to modify the order, neither had the money to hire an attorney or make multiple trips to the venue in which the original order was issued several hours away.
VLAP staff and a volunteer attorney drafted an agreed motion to transfer venue and supported it with affidavits from the parties. The motion was e-filed, and the parties only had to make one trip to get an order transferring the case to the county where the child and the mother lived. Once the case was transferred, an agreed motion to modify was e-filed for the parties, who then obtained an order that allowed Lisa to have immediate access to her child and gave more visitation as she hit certain milestones.
“Mike,” a veteran, called VLAP about a severance matter. At the time of his termination, Mike was given a severance offer but had to sign a waiver releasing the company from all legal claims he may have related to his termination. The severance offer had a 21-day expiration date. Mike was very upset and did not want to even consider the severance package. He threw it away after reading it while not understanding the actual offer. As the days passed and Mike calmed down, he began to reconsider. The problem now was that the offer was about to expire, and he did not have a copy of it, nor did he understand its contents. VLAP was able to find Mike an attorney, who quickly obtained a copy of the severance package. The attorney also obtained a copy of the actual termination letter that laid out the reasoning for the termination, which was not favorable to Mike. The attorney patiently explained the offer to Mike paragraph by paragraph. The attorney also gave Mike a legal analysis of his potential claims against the employer and their likelihood of success. With this information, Mike consented to the attorney engaging the former employer in a negotiation. The attorney successfully negotiated more separation pay for Mike.
This outcome gave Mike enough money to continue paying his bills, including his rent, for several months while he looked for different employment. If not for the work of the volunteer attorney, Mike would have lost out on thousands of dollars and seriously jeopardized his living situation.
Veteran “Henry’s” ex-wife remarried and moved out of state with the child of the marriage, despite a geographic restriction that should have kept the child in Texas. Henry needed to file to enforce the geographic restriction before the ex-wife could establish new jurisdiction over the child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Due to very short time frames involved in the case, VLAP drafted a motion for enforcement, which Henry filed pro se. The ex-wife hired an attorney, filed a motion to break the geographic restriction, and filed a motion to hold Henry in contempt on past due child support. VLAP’s managing attorney, Doug Lawrence, assisted the veteran with discovery, set the case for a hearing, then engaged the opposing counsel in negotiations.
Over several days of negotiating via email and phone calls, an agreement was reached. The child’s home state would remain Texas. This ensured that Henry would not have to go out of state for any litigation involving the child. Henry received enhanced visitation that gave him more time with the child than the original order. He also got extra visitation to make up for the time he missed due to the ex-wife moving. The motion for contempt was nonsuited. A payment plan on the past due child support was made that did not financially strain Henry, who served notice to his ex-wife that he was going to stand up for his parental rights. He also positioned himself for future modifications of the custody and visitation of the child as he kept the case in Texas, expanded his visitation time, and began the cleanup of his support arrearage.
“Dave,” a veteran from a poor Texas county, called the program desperate for assistance to finalize a visitation modification in Travis County. While it was obvious that tensions would be high between him and his former wife in court, he wanted to ensure that everything was on the record and all forms were accurate.
But the hearing was scheduled for the next day.
This is where VLAP comes in. A volunteer attorney came on board on short notice to help with the case. With almost no time for preparation, the attorney was able to prevent Dave from being ambushed by the opposing party with more than four hours of witness testimony and evidence against him.
Thanks to the cross-examination efforts of this volunteer attorney, Dave obtained an order for scheduled visitation with his children. Previously, his visits were solely at the whim of his ex-wife. This order gave him regular, meaningful time with his children after years of not knowing when he’d get to see them again.
Without the last-minute efforts of VLAP to find a volunteer attorney to help Dave, he might have continued these intermittent and insufficient visitations with his children.
“Betty” is a veteran battling cancer. She was in the beginning stages of treatment when she realized that she did not have a will and began to worry about what would happen if she died before completing one. She tried to create a will using the internet, which proved unsuccessful.
Her VA social worker had her call VLAP to seek assistance. Betty was matched with an attorney who practices estate planning. The attorney working with Betty made sure that all her property and financial accounts were up to date on the beneficiary designations. Medical and financial powers of attorney were executed, so people she trusted could step in and make decisions for her if she became unable to do so. A will and advanced health care directives were also drafted and executed.
“John” is an elderly veteran who lives alone in a rural county. He’d maintained a strip of grass that lies next to a highway near his property. As he aged, he could no longer maintain the area. Someone or some entity started maintaining the area after John stopped. He did not know who was doing it. When whoever was cutting the grass stopped, John received a notice from the city stating that he needed to cut the grass or they would start fining him and possibly foreclose on him if he did not pay the fines. John called VLAP for assistance in determining what to do. A volunteer attorney talked with John and then started researching the case. The city claimed that they had an easement, but there was no written easement specifically listing the duties of the parties concerning repair and maintenance. Plus, the easement holder had a duty to maintain the easement. The city still insisted it was John’s responsibility to maintain the area in question. The volunteer attorney then found that the property was not within the city limits, thus outside the city’s jurisdiction. It was also determined that John did not own the property. According to property records, his property line stopped short of the area in dispute. The city withdrew their notice of fines for failure to maintain the area.
If you would like to volunteer for VLAP clinics, please contact doug@austinbar.org.