When I started as an intern at the Safe Families Office in the Fulton County Courthouse, co-run by Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation and the Partnership Against Domestic Violence, I thought I knew it all. I went to an all-women’s high school, and I even graduated from Agnes Scott College, a women’s college. I organized a benefit for an international battered women’s shelter as my senior project, and I thought I was prepared for whatever came my way at the Safe Families Office. I was even prepared for the ever-present question, “Why does she stay?” But I was not prepared for how emotionally involved I would become in AVLF’s Safe and Stable Families Project.
I started as an intern with AVLF at the SFO in August of 2015 and stayed on as an extern in the spring of 2016. I was eager to represent a domestic violence client at a 12-month protective order hearing under Georgia’s Student Practice Rule, and I finally had my chance in February 2016. I had conducted the Ms. R’s intake, and her story touched me. She was a young mother of two and a recovering addict working hard for her children. She was sweet, polite, and the last person you might expect to be a victim of domestic violence.
Her story struck me, and I knew I wanted to represent her at her 12-month hearing. I did everything in my power to prepare – I knew the facts backward and forward. However, a day prior to the hearing, I learned that because my Ms. R had an open divorce case involving the same Respondent, her protective order case was to be heard in front of her Family Division judge, rather than by one of the regular family violence judges. I was incredibly nervous. I had observed the regular family violence courtroom and become familiar with those judges, but I had no idea what to expect with the Family Division judge.
I woke up the day of the hearing prepared and ready to present my case. Ms. R arrived timely, and we were ready to proceed. I was not prepared for the Respondent to show up with an attorney; most parties represent themselves in TPO hearings. Needless to say, I was terrified. Opposing counsel was older and undoubtedly more experienced than I was. He immediately proposed to settle the case and insisted that Respondent have visitation with the children. Given the facts of my case, my client was unwilling to agree and adamantly wanted to proceed.
Once we appeared before the Judge and I was sworn in, opposing counsel requested a continuance, claiming that he had just been retained and needed additional time to prepare. He also suggested that the protective order issues could be ironed out in the parties’ status conference in the divorce a few weeks later. But Ms. R wanted to move forward that day.
I objected to the continuance, arguing that the Respondent had plenty of time between being served with the protective order and the hearing date to obtain an attorney earlier. I also argued that because of the nature of my externship, I would not be able to represent Ms. R on an alternate date. Further, I was the one who had built a relationship with this client and was familiar with the case, and I was prepared to proceed. Luckily, the judge was persuaded, and the hearing moved forward.
While I was nervous, I knew I had to stay strong for Ms. R. She and her children needed my help to earn the protection to which she was entitled. My direct of Ms. R went well, and she was able to clearly articulate the severe abuse. I was a little thrown off when opposing counsel made objections to leading questions and the client’s lack of personal knowledge, but I did my best for my first time in court – and I learned some of the things I can do next time to prevent those types of objections.
Opposing counsel cross-examined my client and focused heavily on her past addiction issues. I objected on relevance grounds but was overruled. It looked like things could take a bad turn, but my client owned up to her past and repeatedly reminded him about her success in recovery. When I was able to cross-examine the Respondent, I clearly asked some good questions because he ended up admitting to some of the alleged abuse. The judge extended the 30-day protective order for 6 months and ordered that Respondent have no visitation with the children until at least the first status conference in the divorce – a solid victory for my client.
The hearing lasted for an unusual and intense 2.5 hours. I am so happy we won – it felt so amazing. Knowing that I helped my client, even just a little bit, made me feel like law school is so worth it. Having this experience built my confidence, but even more importantly, receiving a favorable outcome provided relief and happiness to both Ms. R and me.
