#LGBT Lawyer

[sunflowers-and-scales]

happy pride month everybody

ft. some ace attorney guys and a bad idea i had

[queerism1969]

[floral-ashes]

Law students expect infinitely more coherence from the law than the law is able to provide.

Nothing about criminal law makes sense. Teaching criminal law is an exercise in pretending it makes sense just long enough for students to be able to write an exam about it.

My internal monologue during course preparation: “Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I hope my students don’t ask about this.”

It’s not that I don’t know the topic well enough to answer. It’s that I have a table of Supreme Court decisions where they give five different answers to the question.

And yes, of course, I can just tell them it doesn’t make sense. I can remind them that the system exists to reproduce racial capitalism, not to make sense. But that’s deeply dissatisfying to most of them. They want certainty, otherwise they feel like they’re not on track to becoming a competent lawyer.

[maglorthecrab]

I realised I never posted this here so here y’all go and thanks everyone for a whopping 200 followers! I love you all 💗

[yourdailyqueer]

Nadine Hwang (deceased)

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Lesbian

DOB: 3 March 1902 

RIP: Died 1972

Ethnicity: Chinese, white

Nationality: Various - she moved about but died in Belgium and lived with Nelly in Venezuela for 20 years.

Occupation: Lawyer, veteran, chauffeur, spy

Note 1: Was one of the first Chinese female pilots and served in the Chinese Air Force as an honorary colonel. There is evidence to suggest that Nadine Hwang also spied against the Nazis as an agent on behalf of the French Resistance.

Note 2: Had a relationship with opera singer Nelly Mousset-Vos

[momoychan]

Happy pride month, folks!

Let me know if you guys want a FranMaya version 😉❤️💙

[toniodarling]

New official narumitsu art dropped in honour of pride month

[ineffable-ezra]

Queer DT headcanons

Crowley- genderfluid, arospec, acespec, panromantic any prns

The Doctor- genderfluid abrosexual abroromantic

Alec Hardy- transmasc aroace

Barty Crouch Jr- transmasc bi

Doug McLeod- he/they nonbinary biromantic asexual

Phileas Fogg - panromantic asexual

Ginger Littlejohn- repressed homosexual

Simon Yates - bisexual cis man

Rex Alexander - gay ace

Kilgrave - STRAIGHT BC I HATE HIM

Scrooge Mcduck- bisexual he/him nonbinary

Campbell Bain - he/they demiboy pansexual

Peter Vincent - any pronouns nonbinary nblw

Harry Watling- repressed bisexual

Roderick Peterson - straight

Donald Peterson - very bi

Casanova - like painfully bi

Peter Carlisle - SOMEHOW EVEN MORE BISEXUAL

If you think of any more, let me know

[rythyme]

so... if i'm not mistaken... gmmtv wrote, filmed, edited, marketed, AND PREMIERED a whole ass show without getting international airing rights?? how the hell does that even happen?? did they simply not read their contract?? did they intentionally ignore it??? did they get a verbal go-ahead and then just forgot to put it in writing? it's a bad look for gmmtv of course but also kind of hilarious to think of how they could have fucked up this badly when they literally had A YEAR to sort it all out

[iriscleverole]

Arghh I'd forgotten about Narumitsu week.

I won't do the days (am no artist), but I still want to participate, so have this picture I drew. Love their dynamic honestly.

[april-in-spring]

Based on his official art. Gave him an updated autopsy report cause his empty hand was bugging me.

[onlytiktoks]

[miawashere]

japan & LGBTQ rights

in june of this year, japan passed a bill to “promote understanding of the LGBTQ” according to thejapantimes.com. it was highly controversial because there was no consequences for discriminating those apart of the LGBTQ and predict it will do nothing for those facing mistreatment for just being themselves. as to as someone who lives in japan, there is is little to nothing about it the LGBTQ and is honestly ignored, but i hope japan will establish more rights for the LGBTQ+ community so they stop facing harsh discrimination. no one deserves to live in a world where they are judged and feel like they cannot be themselves.

[floral-ashes]

Do we think I can get my employer to reimburse my Netflix monthly fee since I use it to watch copaganda to inspire hypotheticals for my criminal law class?

[yourdailyqueer]

Ociel Baena (deceased)

Gender: Non binary (they/them)

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: 9 December 1984 

RIP: 13 November 2023

Ethnicity: Mexican

Occupation: Politician, activist, electoral magistrate

Note: First non-binary magistrate in Latin American history

[attorney-anon]

On Recalcitrant Judges and Disappointed Clients

TL;DR: An AJ decides to make the lives of my same-sex clients harder, so I spend my day telling her all the ways in which she's wrong. If you can vote in your judicial elections, do so!

Storytime under the cut for the sake of your dashboard.

I had a prove-up scheduled this morning for one of my favorite types of cases, a second-parent adoption (2PA).

In case that term is unfamiliar to you, in short, a 2PA is essentially a form of litigation-as-prophylaxis for same-sex parents to ensure that both parents have full parental rights to children born during their marriage, by having whichever parent isn't already an undisputed legal parent under Texas law adopt the child. I won't get into the reasons that it's considered necessary amongst attorneys who handle LGBTQIA+ family law cases, but suffice to say that it's the best form of protection that same-sex parents can have.

It is, absolutely, infuriating that it's a thing that we need to do 2PAs under Texas's legal scheme, but they're also a little fun to do because everyone is consistently happy about the litigation. Procedurally, they resemble step-parent adoptions, as 2PAs don't actually exist as a separate cause of action, but most judges in my usual county of practice are happy to work with us once they understand what's going on, since I live and work in a blue county. I actually file most of my 2PAs in this county by choice, because the judges are, by and large, either LGBTQIA+ themselves or allies.

Here's how my day went:

When I get up and get ready in the morning, I'm already a little nervous because I haven't done a 2PA in this particular court before, and because my usual preparation process was disrupted by me having to go depose an opposing party yesterday, so I had to condense my usual prep into less time. It's via Zoom, though, so I'm at least going to be sitting comfortably in my office about it.

When I get to my office, I sign on, and my first disappointment of the day is that, apparently, the District Judge isn't even the one handling the docket - it's her associate judge (AJ), who is well-known in this area for her irritability and temper. To explain, an associate judge is not elected - they are, essentially, assistant judges hired to help the elected judges (District Judges) manage their dockets. Associate judges don't have court reporters in their courts, so I won't have a record of anything that happens today.

So anyway, I wait, and my case gets called. I greet AJ while my clients get their Zoom camera set up and all that jazz. AJ is already upset because her prove-up docket is running later than she expected. That's great, but I'm still optimistic. She asks the procedural posture of the case; I explain we're here on a 2PA. AJ asks, "Where's your ad litem?" I am immediately flabbergasted, and concerned.

See, in most cases involving kids in Texas, the court has the authority to, on motion of a party or sua sponte (on its own), appoint an attorney whose sole job is to argue in hearings and trials about the best interest of the child (an attorney ad litem). I have never once been asked to hire an ad litem for a 2PA.

I explain we didn't request one. AJ asks where my waiver order is. I explain that I have never been asked for a separate waiver order for an ad litem, and AJ says, "Well, I don't waive the ad litem anyway unless I can see that the parent can represent the best interest of the child, so let me assign you Jane Doe as an ad litem and I'll reset you." I am flabbergasted at this point. Not only have I never been asked for an ad litem on a 2PA, but I have absolutely never had a judge outright tell me that my clients could not act in the best interest of their child without me so much as introducing my clients to the judge.

It takes me a second to regain my composure, but I proceed to confirm just how problematic this court is going to be moving forward. "Judge, we also requested a waiver of the home study under the new statute; would the Court prefer to sign a standalone order to waive that?"

For context: In Texas, adoptions typically involve an adoption evaluation/home study conducted by a mental health professional. Due to recent legislative changes, this requirement can be waived when the parties are married, subject to the court's discretion. Since that statute passed, I've had no problems with most courts agreeing to waive the adoption evaluation for 2PAs. Waiving the adoption evaluation saves my clients about $2,000, because adoption evaluations are expensive.

The AJ shakes her head, and tells me that she's utterly shocked that I would ever ask her to waive a home study on any adoption, ever, no matter what the legislature has said, because what if this step-parent has problems with the child?

At this point, I realize, the judge may not understand what a 2PA is. It's not a formal cause of action, I recall, and she may simply not understand the lingo. She may be thinking this is just a regular step-parent adoption, and perhaps she's had problems before and is being overly cautious. I begin to explain that, actually, the adopting parent is already a presumed parent of the child under the Texas Family Code, and that this is only to formalize that relationship due to the current political climate and whatnot.

I get about a sentence in before the AJ quips that she's not sure why I'm arguing with her and then tells me to shut up. I shut up.

AJ proceeds to ignore me and continue writing. It's clear she's looking at the pleadings so she can get the parties' names right, and then she pauses and asks me: "Hold on, where's the child's father? He should be a party."

I explain that the child was conceived through an anonymous sperm donor, so there is no legal father. "Okay, well, do you have proof from the sperm bank that it's an anonymous donor?" I'm asked, in a tone that implies that AJ thinks I'm actively lying to the court. I explain that I have a letter from the sperm bank about the issue and am prepared to admit as an exhibit right now.

AJ finally relents: "Well, I guess, get that on file with the Court, then submit your waiver orders to me and I'll look at them. Don't contact Jane yet, I'm going to have to research this." She dismisses us.

When I first sign off of Zoom, I am embarrassed for getting my prove-up shot down (and for getting chastised by the judge for 'arguing,' as if arguing isn't my actual job for which I receive money) for a couple minutes, and then I am angry.

I am angry because my clients shouldn't have to do this in the first place just to get the same respect from the judicial system that opposite-sex couples get by default.

I am angry because AJ said that my clients couldn't look out for the best interest of the child they have raised since birth, together, as if she has any understanding of who my clients are or what their family is like.

I am angry because AJ cut off my attempt to tell her the information that did, in fact, change her mind once that information was explained.

I am angry because my clients will now have to spend even more money for me to protect their interests.

I am angry because the judge is letting her lack of understanding of queer families get in the way of what should be, and what typically is, a quick, easy process to provide same-sex parents with a little peace of mind while the Great State of Texas continues to assault common decency.

So, bristling with anger, I talk to the Partner to confirm that the plan that is forming in my brain will work, then I talk to the clients.

My clients express that they are are humiliated, blindsided, and convinced that AJ hates them, though they have no idea why AJ would. Once of them is initially convinced that this is somehow my fault because I must have spoken to the judge beforehand and said something amiss (I assure them that I was, similarly, gobstopped by AJ's behavior, and that I had never spoken one-on-one with this particular judge).

Once I get the clients calmed down, and explain the plan, they are on board.

Then, I draft a twenty-page bespoke motion in under 4 hours, because I am angry.

The motion cites 8 different provisions of the Texas Family Code, and contains an 11-item appendix, as well as a detailed timeline of the parties' marriage, their reproductive journey, and the procedural history of the case up to the current date, including a detailed account of the hearing. The motion also points out that, despite the judge's demand that I ask her to "waive" the ad litem attorney, no such waiver is needed for the ad litem attorney, because the Court isn't required to appoint one and no one asked the Court to do so.

Is most of my day now gone? Yes. Did I have other things to do today? Yes. Am I still pissed off at AJ? Absolutely I am, and I'm considering no-billing everything from this point forward just so my clients can afford for me to go to court and teach AJ how to read the laws she's supposed to be applying.

Happy Pride, y'all.

If you're a registered voter in a state with elected judges, remember to vote in judicial elections!

A steady push for statutory change in the legislative branch, or a steady push for policy changes in the executive branch are both good, but the only way to fix the judiciary branch is to vote out biased judges and vote in fair ones.

Fixing the judiciary can get queer families in red states the relief they need from oppression and discrimination now. Same-sex couples get divorced, just the same as opposite-sex couples. They have kids and argue over custody, just the same as opposite-sex couples. And they should be able to do that without facing a judge who assumes that two women or two men can't both be parents.