I heard about this on the news this morning. WTF was she supposed to do? The fact that she was even able to get out of the house and make it to court is impressive enough with a 5 week old. Shame on this judge.
I'm curious if she knew what the court dates were going to be when she took on the case. If she knew and just expected the judge to work around her anyway I do think it is a bit much. I also wonder if she could have had another lawyer fill in for her from her practice.
I declined a few projects that would have had to be presented during the time I was planning on being on maternity leave because I knew I would not be able to make it happen without having others bend over backwards for me.
Edit - I just reread the article. The lady is solo so she couldn't have had someone else step in, but she did know what the court date was before she took on the case.
So I'll jump in as the asshole here. From what I have been told it is common for judges to delay like that and that's why she thought NBD. However, this judge is known for being an ass and pulling "stunts like this" (words of a friend who knows the lawyer) so I feel she should have taken that into account before making assumptions. We all know what they say about assuming. Yea the judge was an ass for not delaying but I don't think the lawyer is 100% innocent in this. She should have told her clients that she would be out on mat leave and couldn't take the case. Also, the I'm impressed she made it out the door at 5 weeks pp with an infant amazes me comments kill me. I don't know anyone who stays in the house for 6 weeks. I would die if I were trapped in my house for that long! This woman isn't a hero. She should have taken into consideration that it may not get moved (since it was an already set date) before taking the case. Expecting the whole system to revolve around you having a baby is ridiculous. The whole situation is ridiculous.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
Sorry but the more I think about this the more it irks me. It's not sexism that the judge found it unprofessional to have a baby in court. I think any employer would find it unprofessional to have your baby with you while meeting with clients/customers. I have a feeling if a dad had done the same the judge would have reacted the same. I really wish people would quit crying foul where there is none. This isn't about the judge not respecting her maternity leave, he stood by his original ruling of when the hearing would be held. The lawyer disrespected her own mat leave plans by taking a case she shouldn't have.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
I agree with needing a back up plan. Where is baby's daddy? Or at least a friend that can care for the baby for the hearing even just outside the courtroom. Geez she doesn't live in a bubble. I work for a court and this wouldn't fly. Although our judges probably would grant her motion to continue in a heartbeat.
I agree with needing a back up plan. Where is baby's daddy? Or at least a friend that can care for the baby for the hearing even just outside the courtroom. Geez she doesn't live in a bubble. I work for a court and this wouldn't fly. Although our judges probably would grant her motion to continue in a heartbeat.
The article I read said that he is a truck driver and was OOT. Regardless, if that's their lifestyle (one I have lived for almost 2 years) then she needs to form some sort of support system and have back ups.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
How do we know she knew she would be gone? We don't know how close to her due date she delivered. At five weeks, she might not have pumped enough milk for someone else to give if she's EBF.
How do we know she knew she would be gone? We don't know how close to her due date she delivered. At five weeks, she might not have pumped enough milk for someone else to give if she's EBF.
She requested a delay because she the hearing fell in the middle of her scheduled maternity leave. She knew. Sorry, she just should not have taken the case. If she hadn't assumed then this all could have been avoided.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
I agree with needing a back up plan. Where is baby's daddy? Or at least a friend that can care for the baby for the hearing even just outside the courtroom. Geez she doesn't live in a bubble. I work for a court and this wouldn't fly. Although our judges probably would grant her motion to continue in a heartbeat.
The article I read said that he is a truck driver and was OOT. Regardless, if that's their lifestyle (one I have lived for almost 2 years) then she needs to form some sort of support system and have back ups.
The rest of the topic notwithstanding, I'd love to know how one can just form a support system. Like that. As if it hadn't occurred to her. I know I need one, but I can't exactly approach randos at the grocery store about it. I'm actually in a tight spot with work for this very reason, and my only solution right now was to tell my husband to offer whatever amount of money it took to get someone from his work to come entertain our baby for a couple of hours after work tomorrow.
This country has a highly individualistic approach to everything, including the raising of children. In many places, the whole community does everything possible to support new moms and babies. I'm all for personal responsibility, but I also recognize that this country's approach to maternity care is unique in all the world and far less supportive. Perhaps she could have managed it differently, but perhaps she could be treated with respect for her situation instead of shamed. Of course women are dropping out of the workforce when they are scolded for trying to manage it all and not doing it perfectly.
While I'm not familiar with the cases she cited in her motion for a continuance, I know with certainty that cases are continued on a motion by the government or defense counsel ALL THE TIME and not just once, but sometimes 2+ times. If the government didn't have an objection, my personal feeling is the judge was just being an asshole.
Maybe she shouldn't have taken the case to begin with? Perhaps. I also know that its extremely difficult to live in a city/state without any family members or friends you feel comfortable leaving your child with - so I get her side of it too.
I have an issue with what the judge supposedly said/did.
He scolded me for being inappropriate for bringing her. He questioned the fact that day care centers do not accept infants less than 6 weeks of age. He then questioned my mothering skills as he commented how my pediatrician must be appalled that I am exposing my daughter to so many germs in court.
I'm pretty sure its standard in all 50 states that daycares don't accept infants unless they are 6+weeks. Question it all you want, but its standard.
Germs? Seriously. Again, this just goes to the age/times the Judge is "living" in - and the fact that he questioned her mothering skills? I'd be upset about that - questions her professionalism all you want - but what is wrong with bring a baby to a public space?
Just my two cents.
M14 January Siggy Challenge: Resolution I have no intention of keeping...SHOPPING LESS!
I agree with needing a back up plan. Where is baby's daddy? Or at least a friend that can care for the baby for the hearing even just outside the courtroom. Geez she doesn't live in a bubble. I work for a court and this wouldn't fly. Although our judges probably would grant her motion to continue in a heartbeat.
The article I read said that he is a truck driver and was OOT. Regardless, if that's their lifestyle (one I have lived for almost 2 years) then she needs to form some sort of support system and have back ups.
The rest of the topic notwithstanding, I'd love to know how one can just form a support system. Like that. As if it hadn't occurred to her. I know I need one, but I can't exactly approach randos at the grocery store about it. I'm actually in a tight spot with work for this very reason, and my only solution right now was to tell my husband to offer whatever amount of money it took to get someone from his work to come entertain our baby for a couple of hours after work tomorrow.
I understand you can't just make people appear but she interacts with other lawyers, people in her office, and a lot of other places to get to know people. Also, there are ways to find reliable sitters. I'm sure she could have had her secretary sit outside the courtroom with the baby for the short time she would have been in there. Strapping the baby to her chest wasn't her only option.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
I just can't with this thread. You have seriously got to be kidding me with some of these responses!!!
First, an attorney cannot just jump into another case and pick it up. It doesn't work that way. You have to know the case. And it isn't just about attending the hearing...many times hours and hours of preparation go into it. A woman should not have to worry about that just a few weeks after having a baby.
Second, continuances are asked for and granted ALL.THE.TIME for reasons much less drastic than having just had a baby. Sometimes attorneys ask for continuances simply because they are busy with other cases and don't have time to prepare. They are common and no big deal.
Fortunately, I do agree with pp who said that this would be a complete and utter NON-ISSUE with 99.9 percent of judges (as it should be) because most judges would not hesitate to continue a simple hearing for a maternity leave. Most judges would not hesitate to continue an entire trial for a woman having had a baby. In fact, I have never seen or heard of a continuance for this reason being turned down...which is probably why this made the news!
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
And FFS it isn't like you can just go out and get a sitter out of nowhere. You have to interview people and check backgrounds, etc. Are you really going to do all of that for ONE HEARING?!?! But I guess according to some of y'all she should have spent the entire first 5 weeks of her child's life posting ads, interviewing sitters, checking references, etc. instead of oh, say, bonding with her baby and recovering from child birth. And at 5 weeks most daycares won't even take an infant that young!
Again, I just can't with some of the comments in this thread. I am so glad that I don't work for or with some of the posters. I guess this is why the stereotypes is that females are way harder on other females than men are on women.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
And FFS it isn't like you can just go out and get a sitter out of nowhere. You have to interview people and check backgrounds, etc. Are you really going to do all of that for ONE HEARING?!?! But I guess according to some of y'all she should have spent the entire first 5 weeks of her child's life posting ads, interviewing sitters, checking references, etc. instead of oh, say, bonding with her baby and recovering from child birth. And at 5 weeks most daycares won't even take an infant that young!
Again, I just can't with some of the comments in this thread. I am so glad that I don't work for or with some of the posters. I guess this is why the stereotypes is that females are way harder on other females than men are on women.
All this. When my baby was five weeks old, I was nursing around the clock, dealing with colic, and could hardly leave the house. Some babies are easier than others, so it's problematic to presume that it's a simple thing to leave a baby even if yours was easy to leave. Other presumptions in these comments that I find troubling include that it's easy to find care, that she had more control over the case, and that she's somehow making an issue just for the hell of it.
I feel like underlying all this is the idea that working moms should just get it together, figure it all out themselves, and heaven forbid if they need any accommodation. And then we wonder why so many women find it impossible to work and raise their kids. At the least, moms should support other moms trying to make it work.
delatl said: All this. When my baby was five weeks old, I was nursing around the clock, dealing with colic, and could hardly leave the house. Some babies are easier than others, so it's problematic to presume that it's a simple thing to leave a baby even if yours was easy to leave. Other presumptions in these comments that I find troubling include that it's easy to find care, that she had more control over the case, and that she's somehow making an issue just for the hell of it.
I feel like underlying all this is the idea that working moms should just get it together, figure it all out themselves, and heaven forbid if they need any accommodation. And then we wonder why so many women find it impossible to work and raise their kids. At the least, moms should support other moms trying to make it work.
EXACTLY! Especially the part in bold.
As an attorney who practices litigation, it is not a big deal at all to get a continuance. In fact, I have never seen an unopposed motion for continuance (which this one was) NOT be granted. Ever. This judge was being a prick. Period.
I have seen so many fellow female attorneys leave the field of law after they have kids. Women who were excellent attorneys. The last thing any working Mom needs is other women sitting in judgment on what is or is not an appropriate excuse for something that is common practice for men to do all the time...especially when we are talking about a woman who is 5 weeks post-partum.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
If I was a man and knew I would be unable to work during a certain period of time, I would not take a case knowing I would have to be in court during that period of time. The court date was set before she accepted the case. That's my biggest issue. For me, its not an issue of gender/sexism at all.
Then you would never take any cases...or at least not enough to make a living. And you would never take a vacation. Scheduling orders (which include hearing dates) are changed all the time. Sometimes a case will have 5 or 6 different scheduling orders where dates are set and reset before a case comes to conclusion. If we didn't take a case because there was one hearing set on a date on which we had a conflict with another case, we would not have enough cases to even be able to keep our doors open. Hell, people have conflicts with trial dates sometimes.
This is sexist because it is common practice in the legal profession for judges to reset hearings (especially when they are unopposed) for any minor reason whatsoever. There can be dozens of hearings in a case before its conclusion. It is not a big deal to reset a hearing. I have even seen judges reset hearings because attorneys were stuck in traffic before. To not reset a hearing because a woman just gave birth is basically him saying that childbirth and recovery from that (a situation that IS unique to women) is basically him downplaying the importance of that and perpetuating the negative stereotype that this is not only unimportant to our society, but that a woman should just be ready to go as soon as she leaves the hospital.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
We dont know that is really what/how the judge said it. Honestly, people stretch the truth all the time to make someone look worse than they really are.
I'm pretty sure the article states that opposing counsel corroborated her story.
Not sure why she'd want public attention, when she was humiliated...
If I was a man and knew I would be unable to work during a certain period of time, I would not take a case knowing I would have to be in court during that period of time. The court date was set before she accepted the case. That's my biggest issue. For me, its not an issue of gender/sexism at all.
Again, I think you're missing the point, cases are granted continuances all the time for reasons less important than maternity leave. The point is that he stated maternity leave was not a reason enough to grant a continuance. She is not in the wrong here. I love that you all passed on big projects and such because of your leave, you clearly don't understand how the legal field works, this is absolutely the norm for attorneys to pick up cases and request continuances.
DH is an attorney...hearings reschedule all.of.the.time - it's part of the job. DH said this judge (he does not know him) is very much in the wrong and he said he's sure the judge will have backlash and be reprimanded for being a dick.
If I was a man and knew I would be unable to work during a certain period of time, I would not take a case knowing I would have to be in court during that period of time. The court date was set before she accepted the case. That's my biggest issue. For me, its not an issue of gender/sexism at all.
Again, I think you're missing the point, cases are granted continuances all the time for reasons less important than maternity leave. The point is that he stated maternity leave was not a reason enough to grant a continuance. She is not in the wrong here. I love that you all passed on big projects and such because of your leave, you clearly don't understand how the legal field works, this is absolutely the norm for attorneys to pick up cases and request continuances.
My understanding was not that he thought maternity leave wasn't a big enough reason - it was that she accepted the case AFTER the date was set for the hearing knowing she would probably not be available/on maternity leave - I think he even wrote that on his denial. Maybe I'm wrong.
But again, because cases are continued to new court dates all the time, every day for reasons stupid or not stupid, it wouldn't have been a big deal to accept the case knowing she was on maternity leave and knowing she could request a continuance.
M14 January Siggy Challenge: Resolution I have no intention of keeping...SHOPPING LESS!
If I was a man and knew I would be unable to work during a certain period of time, I would not take a case knowing I would have to be in court during that period of time. The court date was set before she accepted the case. That's my biggest issue. For me, its not an issue of gender/sexism at all.
Again, I think you're missing the point, cases are granted continuances all the time for reasons less important than maternity leave. The point is that he stated maternity leave was not a reason enough to grant a continuance. She is not in the wrong here. I love that you all passed on big projects and such because of your leave, you clearly don't understand how the legal field works, this is absolutely the norm for attorneys to pick up cases and request continuances.
My understanding was not that he thought maternity leave wasn't a big enough reason - it was that she accepted the case AFTER the date was set for the hearing knowing she would probably not be available/on maternity leave - I think he even wrote that on his denial. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well, he in fact cited both reasons for his denial. "No good cause" and hearing date set prior to accepting representation. Again, in the legal field, it's very common to accept a case and then file a motion to continue to familiarize yourself with the case, or because you have other matters set for the same time, etc., so for her to assume he was going to approve it, is not unreasonable.
Seems to be like he just wanted to abuse his authority.
Honestly, I don't see how any of this has to with sexism or taking a step backwards. Was the judge being an ass? Yes. Was he overstepping his boundaries? No.
There are many comments that it is just thst this judge is an ass. I agree it was a dick move but dont believe all the cries of sexism. If it was a dad who brought the baby in the comments to him would probably have been similar. We wont know.
I also don't think it is a huge deal that she brought the kid to court. Typically, not something an attorney does, but I have certainly seen parties to a lawsuit bring kids to court and never seen a judge make a big deal out of it. Heck, in some instances kids come to court because they are a part of the case - e.g. family law cases or criminal law, etc.
Jurors will bring their kids sometimes, too...they usually get excused. In fact, in Harris County (Houston), being the full-time caregiver of a young child is an excuse that will get you out of jury duty.
Here is where the sexism comes into play: This isn't just about the fact that she could not get childcare. She was only 5 weeks post-partum. She had not even been released by her doctor to presume normal activities. Would this judge have denied a continuance as not a good excuse if a male attorney had had open heart surgery in the prior weeks? Or because he had some other major surgery or illness? Or because was having chemo? I doubt it. I HIGHLY doubt it. So why is child birth any different?
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
Honestly, I don't see how any of this has to with sexism or taking a step backwards. Was the judge being an ass? Yes. Was he overstepping his boundaries? No.
This has everything to do with sexism and taking steps backwards. It has everything to do with how our government and our society: 1) devalues Motherhood/child birth/child rearing and 2) sets unrealistic expectations that mothers are supposed to be back doing their regular activities as soon as they leave the hospital. The later isn't good for mother and it isn't good for baby. It promotes ppd and leads to women beating themselves up if they can't do it all as soon as they step foot out of the hospital while their body is still recovering and they are having to care for a newborn baby. And it certainly affects the bond between a mother and a baby---a bond that can affect a child well into adulthood.
With respect to the former, America has some of the worst maternity leave laws. I think I read a statistic just the other day that only about 10 percent of women receive some paid maternity leave...that statistic is abhorrent and reflection that we don't value those (i.e. Mothers) who invest in the future of our country. Many other women don't qualify form FMLA and get no leave (paid or unpaid) at all. Further, we have some of the highest incidences of child-birth (and after birth) related fatalities among first world countries despite having some of the best medical care. I don't have specific stats, but I would be willing to bet that at least some of that is related to women pushing themselves to do too much too soon and not giving themselves proper time to heal.
When you make it difficult/impossible for Mothers to work, you lose valuable members of our workforce. It isn't good for our economy or our country as a whole. And it isn't good for the individual family unit.
Likewise, when you force women back into the workforce before they are emotionally or physically ready--in a time period when they should be concentrating on healing and bonding with their child--you fail to invest in our children...in the very future of our country.
So how is all of this relevant to the situation at hand? Here we have an
example of a member of our JUDICIARY---a leader in the community by an
definition of that word--basically perpetuating all of those bad things I
said above with his outdated views. In my mind, that is unacceptable
and something that every mother -- working or not -- should be upset
about.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
To those saying this is not an example of sexism, how is it not? You're right that we'll never know how this judge would have handled this if it were a man. The sexism part comes in at a broader level, which is that most of the time, women are the ones on maternity leave and coping with caring for small infants. This is not an issue that affects men very often. It just isn't. Most men are not forced to choose between work and childcare. So the judge was picking on a woman for a circumstance that frequently affects women and rarely affects men.
Also, there are reams and reams of research that women are challenged in the workplace for behaviors that never get a second glance from men, and a lot of that comes down to pre-conceived notions of women's proper roles and behaviors. What strikes me in this case was an insinuation that a woman's proper place with a 5-week-old infant is in the home and not in court doing her job. The judge is scolding her for being at work with her baby. Yet, he was also not accommodating her request to not be at work. She can't win. That is a feminist issue and it sure seems sexist to me.
Lots of research also has shown that in the workplace, men are cheered and rewarded for being devoted fathers and women are punished in various ways for the same. Men who take time off to do fatherly things are often viewed favorably by their bosses and colleagues. Women are seen as burdening their coworkers.
So I looked at the dates in the article I read (didn't read this particular one, don't need to read the same story a billion times). She accepted the case 4 weeks and 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The baby was 4 weeks old. So she accepted the case when she was literally going to go at any point. That is where my argument of shouldn't have taken the case comes from.
I like to think of myself as a very compassionate person. However, I don't want taken advantage of. I will get pissed when someone makes plans and just assumes I will adjust my schedule accordingly. I'm guessing this judge is the same.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
Honestly, I don't see how any of this has to with sexism or taking a step backwards. Was the judge being an ass? Yes. Was he overstepping his boundaries? No.
This has everything to do with sexism and taking steps backwards. It has everything to do with how our government and our society: 1) devalues Motherhood/child birth/child rearing and 2) sets unrealistic expectations that mothers are supposed to be back doing their regular activities as soon as they leave the hospital. The later isn't good for mother and it isn't good for baby. It promotes ppd and leads to women beating themselves up if they can't do it all as soon as they step foot out of the hospital while their body is still recovering and they are having to care for a newborn baby. And it certainly affects the bond between a mother and a baby---a bond that can affect a child well into adulthood.
With respect to the former, America has some of the worst maternity leave laws. I think I read a statistic just the other day that only about 10 percent of women receive some paid maternity leave...that statistic is abhorrent and reflection that we don't value those (i.e. Mothers) who invest in the future of our country. Many other women don't qualify form FMLA and get no leave (paid or unpaid) at all. Further, we have some of the highest incidences of child-birth (and after birth) related fatalities among first world countries despite having some of the best medical care. I don't have specific stats, but I would be willing to bet that at least some of that is related to women pushing themselves to do too much too soon and not giving themselves proper time to heal.
When you make it difficult/impossible for Mothers to work, you lose valuable members of our workforce. It isn't good for our economy or our country as a whole. And it isn't good for the individual family unit.
Likewise, when you force women back into the workforce before they are emotionally or physically ready--in a time period when they should be concentrating on healing and bonding with their child--you fail to invest in our children...in the very future of our country.
So how is all of this relevant to the situation at hand? Here we have an
example of a member of our JUDICIARY---a leader in the community by an
definition of that word--basically perpetuating all of those bad things I
said above with his outdated views. In my mind, that is unacceptable
and something that every mother -- working or not -- should be upset
about.
I would hands down agree with you if she was told she would not have a job had she not taken this case even though she was about to have a baby. Nobody forced her to take a case that would result in her having to figure out a way to show up in court right after having her baby. She made that decision on her own. Judge's can move dates, but they are not required to.
Judges move hearings all the time. All.the.time. For big reasons or little reasons or even no reason at all. I have a case that has been continued more than 10 times, no questions asked.
This judge was being an ass and trying to make some example of her.
As for saying she shouldn't have taken the case knowing there was a hearing, that's just not fair. If she is a solo practitioner and her h is a truck driver, they are not rolling in cash, trust me.
I do agree with you about the judge being an ass. I understand that judges can move dates without questioning it, but they are not required to. That is my point. From what I got out of the few articles I read on this matter is that she knew this judge was known to be an ass about moving dates.
I cannot agree nor disagree in regards about her money situation. I know a few truckers who make good money, and I know a few who are not. The article says nothing about their annual income. For all I know they have made a couple good investments and are rolling in money, or they could be barely scraping by.
So I looked at the dates in the article I read (didn't read this particular one, don't need to read the same story a billion times). She accepted the case 4 weeks and 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The baby was 4 weeks old. So she accepted the case when she was literally going to go at any point. That is where my argument of shouldn't have taken the case comes from.
I like to think of myself as a very compassionate person. However, I don't want taken advantage of. I will get pissed when someone makes plans and just assumes I will adjust my schedule accordingly. I'm guessing this judge is the same.
So basically your argument is that pregnant attorneys or attorneys who are new Moms can't take on any new cases just in case 1 asshole judge refuses to do what thousands of other judges in this country would do. Mmmkay.
Oh and you effectively saying you would not being willing to make a small accommodation to your schedule for a new mother doesn't make the judge right. It just makes you wrong, too.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
So I looked at the dates in the article I read (didn't read this particular one, don't need to read the same story a billion times). She accepted the case 4 weeks and 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The baby was 4 weeks old. So she accepted the case when she was literally going to go at any point. That is where my argument of shouldn't have taken the case comes from.
I like to think of myself as a very compassionate person. However, I don't want taken advantage of. I will get pissed when someone makes plans and just assumes I will adjust my schedule accordingly. I'm guessing this judge is the same.
So basically your argument is that pregnant attorneys or attorneys who are new Moms can't take on any new cases just in case 1 asshole judge refuses to do what thousands of other judges in this country would do. Mmmkay.
Oh and you effectively saying you would not being willing to make a small accommodation to your schedule for a new mother doesn't make the judge right. It just makes you wrong, too.
Wow. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said I would be pissed. I did not say I wouldn't make the accommodation. But thanks for telling me I'm wrong.
Congrats to my GP Sister from another mister Bruinsbabe!!
So I looked at the dates in the article I read (didn't read this particular one, don't need to read the same story a billion times). She accepted the case 4 weeks and 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The baby was 4 weeks old. So she accepted the case when she was literally going to go at any point. That is where my argument of shouldn't have taken the case comes from.
I like to think of myself as a very compassionate person. However, I don't want taken advantage of. I will get pissed when someone makes plans and just assumes I will adjust my schedule accordingly. I'm guessing this judge is the same.
So basically your argument is that pregnant attorneys or attorneys who are new Moms can't take on any new cases just in case 1 asshole judge refuses to do what thousands of other judges in this country would do. Mmmkay.
Oh and you effectively saying you would not being willing to make a small accommodation to your schedule for a new mother doesn't make the judge right. It just makes you wrong, too.
Wow. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said I would be pissed. I did not say I wouldn't make the accommodation. But thanks for telling me I'm wrong.
You're welcome.
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
Re: Ahhh, sexism & backwards thinking at its finest.
I'm curious if she knew what the court dates were going to be when she took on the case. If she knew and just expected the judge to work around her anyway I do think it is a bit much. I also wonder if she could have had another lawyer fill in for her from her practice.
I declined a few projects that would have had to be presented during the time I was planning on being on maternity leave because I knew I would not be able to make it happen without having others bend over backwards for me.
Edit - I just reread the article. The lady is solo so she couldn't have had someone else step in, but she did know what the court date was before she took on the case.
That One Gal From Alaska
The rest of the topic notwithstanding, I'd love to know how one can just form a support system. Like that. As if it hadn't occurred to her. I know I need one, but I can't exactly approach randos at the grocery store about it. I'm actually in a tight spot with work for this very reason, and my only solution right now was to tell my husband to offer whatever amount of money it took to get someone from his work to come entertain our baby for a couple of hours after work tomorrow.
That One Gal From Alaska
The rest of the topic notwithstanding, I'd love to know how one can just form a support system. Like that. As if it hadn't occurred to her. I know I need one, but I can't exactly approach randos at the grocery store about it. I'm actually in a tight spot with work for this very reason, and my only solution right now was to tell my husband to offer whatever amount of money it took to get someone from his work to come entertain our baby for a couple of hours after work tomorrow.
I understand you can't just make people appear but she interacts with other lawyers, people in her office, and a lot of other places to get to know people. Also, there are ways to find reliable sitters. I'm sure she could have had her secretary sit outside the courtroom with the baby for the short time she would have been in there. Strapping the baby to her chest wasn't her only option.
First, an attorney cannot just jump into another case and pick it up. It doesn't work that way. You have to know the case. And it isn't just about attending the hearing...many times hours and hours of preparation go into it. A woman should not have to worry about that just a few weeks after having a baby.
Second, continuances are asked for and granted ALL.THE.TIME for reasons much less drastic than having just had a baby. Sometimes attorneys ask for continuances simply because they are busy with other cases and don't have time to prepare. They are common and no big deal.
Fortunately, I do agree with pp who said that this would be a complete and utter NON-ISSUE with 99.9 percent of judges (as it should be) because most judges would not hesitate to continue a simple hearing for a maternity leave. Most judges would not hesitate to continue an entire trial for a woman having had a baby. In fact, I have never seen or heard of a continuance for this reason being turned down...which is probably why this made the news!
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
Again, I just can't with some of the comments in this thread. I am so glad that I don't work for or with some of the posters. I guess this is why the stereotypes is that females are way harder on other females than men are on women.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
I feel like underlying all this is the idea that working moms should just get it together, figure it all out themselves, and heaven forbid if they need any accommodation. And then we wonder why so many women find it impossible to work and raise their kids. At the least, moms should support other moms trying to make it work.
As an attorney who practices litigation, it is not a big deal at all to get a continuance. In fact, I have never seen an unopposed motion for continuance (which this one was) NOT be granted. Ever. This judge was being a prick. Period.
I have seen so many fellow female attorneys leave the field of law after they have kids. Women who were excellent attorneys. The last thing any working Mom needs is other women sitting in judgment on what is or is not an appropriate excuse for something that is common practice for men to do all the time...especially when we are talking about a woman who is 5 weeks post-partum.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
This is sexist because it is common practice in the legal profession for judges to reset hearings (especially when they are unopposed) for any minor reason whatsoever. There can be dozens of hearings in a case before its conclusion. It is not a big deal to reset a hearing. I have even seen judges reset hearings because attorneys were stuck in traffic before. To not reset a hearing because a woman just gave birth is basically him saying that childbirth and recovery from that (a situation that IS unique to women) is basically him downplaying the importance of that and perpetuating the negative stereotype that this is not only unimportant to our society, but that a woman should just be ready to go as soon as she leaves the hospital.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
Not sure why she'd want public attention, when she was humiliated...
DH is an attorney...hearings reschedule all.of.the.time - it's part of the job. DH said this judge (he does not know him) is very much in the wrong and he said he's sure the judge will have backlash and be reprimanded for being a dick.
Well, he in fact cited both reasons for his denial. "No good cause" and hearing date set prior to accepting representation. Again, in the legal field, it's very common to accept a case and then file a motion to continue to familiarize yourself with the case, or because you have other matters set for the same time, etc., so for her to assume he was going to approve it, is not unreasonable.
Seems to be like he just wanted to abuse his authority.
Honestly, I don't see how any of this has to with sexism or taking a step backwards. Was the judge being an ass? Yes. Was he overstepping his boundaries? No.
That One Gal From Alaska
Jurors will bring their kids sometimes, too...they usually get excused. In fact, in Harris County (Houston), being the full-time caregiver of a young child is an excuse that will get you out of jury duty.
Here is where the sexism comes into play: This isn't just about the fact that she could not get childcare. She was only 5 weeks post-partum. She had not even been released by her doctor to presume normal activities. Would this judge have denied a continuance as not a good excuse if a male attorney had had open heart surgery in the prior weeks? Or because he had some other major surgery or illness? Or because was having chemo? I doubt it. I HIGHLY doubt it. So why is child birth any different?
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
With respect to the former, America has some of the worst maternity leave laws. I think I read a statistic just the other day that only about 10 percent of women receive some paid maternity leave...that statistic is abhorrent and reflection that we don't value those (i.e. Mothers) who invest in the future of our country. Many other women don't qualify form FMLA and get no leave (paid or unpaid) at all. Further, we have some of the highest incidences of child-birth (and after birth) related fatalities among first world countries despite having some of the best medical care. I don't have specific stats, but I would be willing to bet that at least some of that is related to women pushing themselves to do too much too soon and not giving themselves proper time to heal.
When you make it difficult/impossible for Mothers to work, you lose valuable members of our workforce. It isn't good for our economy or our country as a whole. And it isn't good for the individual family unit.
Likewise, when you force women back into the workforce before they are emotionally or physically ready--in a time period when they should be concentrating on healing and bonding with their child--you fail to invest in our children...in the very future of our country.
So how is all of this relevant to the situation at hand? Here we have an example of a member of our JUDICIARY---a leader in the community by an definition of that word--basically perpetuating all of those bad things I said above with his outdated views. In my mind, that is unacceptable and something that every mother -- working or not -- should be upset about.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
I like to think of myself as a very compassionate person. However, I don't want taken advantage of. I will get pissed when someone makes plans and just assumes I will adjust my schedule accordingly. I'm guessing this judge is the same.
I would hands down agree with you if she was told she would not have a job had she not taken this case even though she was about to have a baby. Nobody forced her to take a case that would result in her having to figure out a way to show up in court right after having her baby. She made that decision on her own. Judge's can move dates, but they are not required to.
That One Gal From Alaska
I cannot agree nor disagree in regards about her money situation. I know a few truckers who make good money, and I know a few who are not. The article says nothing about their annual income. For all I know they have made a couple good investments and are rolling in money, or they could be barely scraping by.
That One Gal From Alaska
Oh and you effectively saying you would not being willing to make a small accommodation to your schedule for a new mother doesn't make the judge right. It just makes you wrong, too.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge: