Maggie Kluver has about four years experience in the law as an attorney. She was office manager and paralegal for 16 years before that. She did the same law school Nick did. She additionally has a degree in child psychology.
Her hiring is more than a little odd. I expected seperate representation in the criminal case for obvious conflict of interest reasons, but I wasn't expecting it in the family law case. She also seems like the total opposite of that guy Nick hired. She really doesn't seem like a "Nick" sort of choice either.
She also isn't quite local. Same general area but a different county.
Fucking unbelievable. You are facing losing your children and you hire someone with 4 years of actual experience? I haven't looked at her yet, but if what
@Strix454 saw is correct, my analysis is: cheap. Or just inexperienced enough to make promises she shouldn't. Or perceived as malleable.
Unfortunately it may be wording of the request. Dashcam footage is always public but body cams aren't. I hope they don't send him just dashcam footage of everyone outside the house. Was the request for both? I can see them charging $3k to blur the faces of minors and possibly their voices on dashcams without a single second of bodyworn cameras provided.
These people have shown every indication of being professional (certainly more than anyone else in this entire cast of characters), so how about we assume positive intent and that they're doing exactly what they say they're doing instead of being weird to screw the infamous jm/KF out of dollars.
So if Aaron's wife filed a restraining order due to a secondhand account of abuse, how does Aaron proceed to have custody before, and proceeds to have custody even after the poly stuff? Maybe that whole steel toe Verse are opportunistic dramawhores.
You don't automatically lose rights to your children even if you are found to be harassing and a potential threat to the other parent (that is the basis for the HRO; the relating of April's email sets the stage for Ashley having a reasonable fear of Aron being near or talking about her publicly). In that case, you do exactly as they did: require him to stay away from her, do child exchanges at the police station, etc.
A change in custody is a process.
It's only flimsy evidence because thus far Kayla has proven unable to be a competent person. Most other people would see the shit Nick does and says about his wife and divorce him.
You're mixing concepts. Whether or not it's a good idea to be married to/divorce Nick has nothing to do with whether the fact a lawyer practicing family law and also divorce law (which is...family law) being hired for a child case is "evidence" of a divorce arc.
It's "flimsy" bc just about every fucking lawyer who practices divorce law practices family law, and vice versa. Not all, but it can be assumed as the standard, even if they do some more than the other. A few specialize.
This is an interesting theory. The end run around the rules seems like something Nick would enjoy--thinking he had outsmarted CPS.
You know, I was originally going to critique the theory as too clever by half and not something anyone would do irl...but you make an excellent point that technicalities are Nick's one and only party trick.
And it might actually be a not-terrible strategy, petty technical arguments aside, with some other assurances. I don't know CPS standards for this particular brand of terrible. However, even if too eager to reunite, seems it should be an uphill battle pitching twitchy, weak-minded, too anxious or bombed to drive Kayla as miraculously and suddenly capable.
Fairly unusual to have very financial capable parents be such a mess that they are reported, even moreso for it to turn out to be more well founded than anyone could have imagined (and I'm not even talking about the test results; just having that much coke, safes, extra-sniffly people hanging around, etc). And given there's family available, there's relatively low concern about kids suffering with strangers.
And the guns are potentially bigger than has been discussed much - even though there's not much talk about them, no real suggestion atp of specific concern about them beyond apparently being a fucking slob with gun hygiene like everything else (except shower/text sessions), the gun concern is not just that children can get to them, but that [esp a stressed-out drunken cokehead controlling and argumentative titular head of the family] might just put a gun to very bad use. ...My area doesn't see too much crime/bad deaths (usual minor stuff, and occasionally targeted for house robberies by people from other areas). In 20+ years here, nearly all intentional deaths are the occasional teen suicide (there were 3-5 in my kids' school years, iirc) - with the exception of a well-off dad deciding that that was the day to annihilate the whole family, 3 or 4 kids included.
Eta, I mean that the guns may concern CPS for reasons different than a criminal court might.
