Episode 5: Transcript
"Children might not have a vote, but they do have a voice." - with John Amuso
Doug French:
I'm really convinced now that I have something that the toxic smoke just got into my lungs.
Magda:
Oh, because you’re still sick?
Doug:
Well, I feel a lot better, but I'm coughing. Productively. And I had like a little sinus, something in here.
Magda:
That's weird.
Doug:
And I don't think I caught it from anybody. I mean, smoke is bad enough, but you know, that smoke in particular was--
Magda Pecsenye (00:19):
It had all kinds of random shit in it.
Doug (00:21):
Random Canadian shit in it.
Magda (00:23):
Yeah.
Doug (00:24):
So RCS says it's safe.
Magda (00:26):
Maple leaves.
Doug (00:27):
Toxic Sap <laugh> <laugh>, which is one of the best bands I ever saw. They opened up for <laugh> for Nine Inch Nails, <laugh>.
Magda (00:40):
Oh my God.
Doug (00:42):
Wow. You did take a nap, didn't you?
Magda (00:43):
Well, I got back at four o'clock in the morning last night.
Doug (00:46):
You drove home from the show, you didn't just stay at your brother's?
Magda (00:51):
No, we had really planned it out ahead of time, because we looked at the weather report and saw that it was going to be pouring down rain the entire concert. And then The Cure came on and played for almost three hours and we were standing and dancing for almost the entire thing. And his voice sounds amazing. Like he sounds like he's in his thirties instead of in his sixties.
Doug (01:18):
So, well, there's a lot of that going around ‘cause here you are in your fifties acting like you're 20.
Magda (01:23):
<laugh>. Right.
Doug (01:24):
So was it worth it?
Magda (01:26):
Oh yeah, absolutely. Going to that concert was like giving my 15-year-old self a gift, so I do not regret it at all.
Doug (01:35):
Yeah. Episode five. This was a doozy just because our guest was John Amuso who works in family law in particular representing children.
Magda (01:45):
I think it's notable that this is John's first podcast appearance. He has done a lot of teaching of other lawyers and of other advocates for kids to help them frame the work that they're doing. I think what is unique about John is that he has been doing a lot of research and a lot of framing on trauma-informed work before other people were doing trauma-informed work and really trying to understand how the kids are feeling in the middle of this and what's going to end up being best for the kids in the system. But like the balance of risk and responsibility and sort of who's bearing the burden of these situations that these kids are finding themselves in. It was interesting to hear him talking about it without having kind of like a rehearsed, you know, like an elevator pitch, because I think a lot of the people that we talk to have an elevator pitch about what they do and he doesn't really get, like, he got into the nitty gritty of it and kind of the emotion of it because he doesn't have that distance yet because he hasn't been on a zillion podcasts.
Magda (02:53):
I found that interesting. This is the kind of everyday heroics that a lot of people in the world are doing. Right. Like what he does is genuinely heroic in showing up for these kids in the way that he does. But you know, it's just not social media friendly, right? Like, it's not going to be like, “Ooh, so-and-so did this amazing thing one time.” It's like he does all these things every day for these kids and I think they're,
Doug (03:22):
That's what I love about that. He's not on social media at all. <Laugh>. He has no interest in it.
Magda (03:27):
“So where do people find out more about what you're talking about?” and he's like, “I don’t know.”
Doug (03:31):
I don't know. I don't know.
Magda (03:33):
<Laugh>,
Doug (03:33):
I mean, I guess you call me. Well, same thing. I mean, his website isn't even functioning anymore.
Magda (03:39):
Oh, that's funny.
Doug (03:40):
But it's still got his phone number on there and his email.
Magda (03:43):
Well that, I mean, that's all he needs because he's getting referrals from people. Right? It's not like he has to advertise.
Doug (03:48):
Yeah. He's gotten so good at what he does that the phone doesn't stop ringing. Just one of those good guys doing things that need to be done behind the scenes with like zero ego and making life better for small kids who are getting ground under the gears. You know.
Magda (04:05):
I think that's a good assessment. The kids get labeled the behavior problems when it's really the situation they're in that's the problem. The conclusion I drew was it's really hard to get actual help for kids who are having problems with the situation they're in. And you can get help for a kid once they're in the legal system, which is kind of horrifying because it means that we're not putting anything into prevention. We're only putting things in once the situation has gotten so bad that the parents have said, “I can't handle this anymore. Here, you have to handle it.” I was reading something the other day about kids who go into the foster care system and the parents place them in foster care because they can't access any kind of mental healthcare for them. And so the only way they can get that is to make them become wards of the state. And I am wondering if that's super-pervasive, right? Like, John was talking about it, you know, that he's able to set up all these wraparound services for kids that are in crisis once they're in the legal system and once they're in his care. But you know, he doesn't have experience with kids who are not in the legal system getting that kind of care.
Doug (05:25):
I think one of the bits of optimism is that it's good to know there are people like him in the system who have somehow staved off burnout after 18 years. Who are as energized to provide that level of care to the extent he can. People with hearts as big as his is, if nothing else, he could probably serve as a resource for people who were really in crisis needed to know, you know, what happens next.
Magda (05:49):
When he was talking about advocating for kids, I mean, being a lawyer for kids in the middle of complicated divorces, I was thinking, wow, okay, this is like radically more complicated than what you and I went through together. Or what most of the people I know have gone through during a divorce. I mean, certainly I've known some people that have had some tricky situations, but I kind of felt like if there was anybody listening who was like, “Oh, I don't know if I can get a divorce. I know I need to get a divorce, but I don't know if I can get a divorce.” You can think through how to do this without causing as many complications for your kids.
Doug (06:32):
And you can kind of achieve a little bit of perspective in terms of whatever difficulty you're having. You know, if John's involved, then something has reached a new level of crap and it's “There, but for the grace of God,” I guess in some respects.
Magda (06:46):
And I think another takeaway from this was just like, wow, there are a lot of things out there that are trying to hurt kids and---
Doug (06:53):
Hurt us all. Geez. We're all just like walking through the fire swamp.
Magda (06:56):
Yeah.
Doug (06:56):
Trying to avoid the rodents of unusual size.
Opening boppy synth theme music cross-fades in, plays for twenty seconds, then cross-fades out to Magda talking about leafblowers.
Magda (07:19):
When I move, I am going to have to have my headset on every time we record because I am moving to the leafblower capital of North America. There are leaf blowers going from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM every day of the week from April through November.
Doug (07:41):
If you are listening, Natick Chamber of Commerce, <laugh>,
Magda (07:45):
You need to put some regulations in how many leaves need to be blown.
Doug (07:49):
And there's just a lot more trouble. Yeah. So that's good. Just remember not to, ‘cause otherwise your sibilance will--
Magda (07:56):
No, it's my lisp. It's the lisp I've been convinced I had my entire life.
Doug (08:00):
You don't have a lisp. You have a lovely mellifluous voice. I've been told three times that people like our vibe, they like the fact they just like listening to us.
Magda (08:08):
Aw, that's cute.
John Amuso (08:09):
It's cozy and embracing. And I like it.
Magda (08:14):
Why don't you tell us who you are and what you do.
John (08:18):
Sure. Magda and Doug, thank you very much <laugh> for inviting me on your show. I've only just discovered it and already a big fan and it's, it's nice to be with both of you. You both look great, by the way. I know that the folks listening to this podcast can't see you. But you guys look terrific and--
Doug (08:38):
Look, there are no awards for this show. There's nothing to brownnose! <laugh>.
John (08:43):
It's true.!You guys look great. You know, for everyone else, my name is John Amuso and I'm an attorney in private practice in Central New York, in Oneida County. And the shape of our county geographically is that of a heart. And I think that we truly are the heart of New York. My law practice pretty much is representing children primarily in family court, mostly in matters having to do with custody and visitation, but also in neglect and abuse, paternity matters, child support, juvenile delinquency. And then for kids that sometimes need some structure and guidance, something called “persons in need of supervision” (PINS) where we try to help out kids and hopefully help out and strengthen families. Very often, I'll switch hats as I'm thinking about my job. I wear my lawyer hat and never far away is my dad hat.
John (09:37):
I have three kids that I'm privileged to have with my wife, my bride of 24 years, who's also an attorney and used to do similar work. I'm glad to talk about this. And I think even for families that don't find themselves in family court, there's a lot that we can learn about how we interact with each other, how a family is a system, and how parents perhaps can model behaviors and approaches for their kids that will set them up and on a course for happy and productive lives.
Doug (10:15):
Well, I'm glad you say that because the theme that's emerging in our infancy here is that so many conversations we're having are about family dynamics and how in many cases the family is not what we thought it was going to be when we first endeavored to help create one.
You know, John, it's great to see you after all these years and I'm really excited to talk about the differences in family law that you've been practicing over the 18 years you've been doing it. I know what Magda and I were looking at when we did split up and we also were aware of all the really traumatic stuff that we were able to avoid very luckily, because I'm sure you've got a rap sheet. I mean, I'm sure you've got an encyclopedia of terrible situations that you've had to process over the years, but I think it's really interesting to think about what the state of the dividing family is now versus what it was like, you know, 20 years ago. But I think the most important thing that you mentioned was in most cases, or in many cases, you are an advocate for children. And I'm curious how that works, how you get assigned to a child and how you conduct yourself around that child so that the child is perhaps aware of the situation but is spared as much of the trauma as possible.
John (11:39):
Sure. Absolutely. And I can launch right into that. In New York state, it's literally called the Attorney for Children Program. And in order to do that, you need to have some prior experience in family court representing adults, and then you need to take some extra training and then you get put on a panel, is the term for a list, designated by county. After that you hope that the phone starts to ring. And if you get going with that and show some ability, phone starts ringing a lot. So basically the way this works in New York State is that children very often are assigned an attorney when their parents are in family court. In the custody or visitation matter, they are assigned an attorney when the parents or adults that are legally responsible for them are the respondents in a neglect or abuse case. We represent children when they are charged with an offense that if they were an adult would be a crime. That's juvenile delinquency. From time to time, kids end up in court for “incorrigibility,” or truancy. Things that aren't crimes, but things that are problematic where perhaps the family doesn't have an ability without some intervention to be able to help the child develop a little structure.
Doug (13:01):
Is that an actual legal term? Incorrigibility?
John (13:04):
Yeah
Magda (13:04):
I was going to ask the same thing.
John (13:05):
It's right in the statute. It goes back a couple generations, but incorrigible, you know, so that's not just the way we are perhaps from time to time during the day, but--
Doug (13:16):
I was going to say that's not restricted to children <laugh>.
John (13:18):
No, not at all.
Magda (13:20):
So this is basically like my dad used to jokingly threaten me when I was in high school that there was a Lutheran convent in Iowa that took girls when they were 14. And that was his joke threat to me all the time.
Doug (13:34):
I can just watch this happening. I can see it like it happened yesterday.
Magda (13:38):
<Laugh>. Well, and the funny thing is that he started threatening me with that when I was about 12, you know, jokingly. And he continued to do it. And I think a couple of times since I've been in my forties, I have threatened him I was going to go check myself into this Lutheran convent.
Doug (13:55):
<Laugh> What goes around, comes around, Dad. <laugh>.
Magda (13:57):
Right, exactly. But I mean, it's basically like when parents feel like they just can't deal with the kids.
John (14:06):
Well, yeah. If your 12-year-old, for instance, stays out all night and is, you know, I'm making this up, drinking and perhaps using other substances, and you tell them not to, “Don't do it or I'll ground you,” then you ground them and they go out the window. What are you going to do? I mean, you can't. In jest, you can't chain them to the radiator. Because you'll end up in court and you should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Awful.
Magda (14:33):
And like, I don't know what you do in that situation. I've never been in a parenting situation with my two kids in which I really wanted them to do something and they just absolutely refused to do it. And I'm guessing that you probably haven't been in a situation with your actual kids in which you were just at such odds and felt like you had absolutely no leverage and no ability to agree on things.
John (15:01):
We haven't, thankfully. But it happens in many families, families that, you know, we don't want to like typecast families as “these are the good families, these are the bad families.” In my line of work, people are people, believe me, across every group, whatever way that we'd like to think that we divide ourselves. Now we're all the same, but--
Magda (15:21):
I think it's just a communication pattern, right? Like if you get into a specific communication pattern, how do you get out of that?
John (15:29):
All right. If there's a coin, all right, on one side is person in need of some supervision, usually on the other side of the coin is either neglect or just maybe sub-neglect. Okay? Because usually there's a family dynamic or a family situation that didn't happen overnight. It could be parenting strategies that were not very effective from the get-go. There could be untreated parental mental health concerns, alcohol, substance use disorder. There's not many simple PINS. There's usually another side to the story that keeps it going. So what you need to do is you usually need to address the entire family. So for the child, what will typically be indicated will be perhaps mentoring. Sometimes I need to make a determination if there should be a mental health diagnosis, then find community-based services, sometimes referred to as “wraparound,” where you'll get mental health from a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or an MSW, a behavior manager, which is sort of like a mentor.
John (16:29):
And that's someone that sometimes will pick up the child maybe a couple times a week and just model some good healthy behaviors.
We did have a change in New York for what this is worth. Speaking of the Lutheran nuns, it used to be that the worst thing that could happen out of PINS would be the child would be removed from the home, and be placed in the custody of the county and possibly end up at a place, a facility. But that no longer exists. The state made a determination, and I agree with it, that we really should try to keep kids in the community and use community-based services for the entire family. Because what happens, you take the child out of the home, alright? Which is traumatic anyway. You provide them with structure, you provide them with round-the-clock supervision and services, then return them home to the same environment where they were removed from, but you haven't changed that underlying environment. And then six weeks, three months later, I get a call, “John, you need to work for this client again because they're back in court on a violation.” Why would we expect anything different if we didn't take care of the underlying issues?
Magda (17:36):
You were telling us before that you listened to the episode we did with Dawn Friedman about treating the parents for treating the kids’ anxiety. And you were saying it's exactly the same in what you do.
John (17:47):
It's exactly the same because it has to come from within the family, because you look at the dominant influences in any of our lives, it's the people that were around and when we're kids, it's going to be whoever is home, whether that's one parent, two parents. And if we don't think of it as a system, we're fooling ourselves. I'll give an example because once your eyes are open to this, it's intriguing and sometimes very depressing. I was at a soccer game the other day and there were these little kids, I mean like toddlers, maybe one was barely two and maybe the other one was three going on four. And one of the parents was very rough with both of the children, not to the point that it went past the line that I would've gotten involved.
John (18:32):
I'm not shy, but just picking up the child by the arm, kind of putting them down in the chair and saying, “You know what you're doing wrong?“ And just being very rough and abrupt. And what occurred to me was when this child goes to school and perhaps steps out of line and the very nice teacher or aides or whoever there addresses that appropriately, with kindness and redirection, the child's not going to know how to respond. ‘Cause the child’s being conditioned that somebody’s going to pick you up, put you down pretty abruptly on your tuchus and maybe give you a little poke. That's out in public. The way people behave in public is usually a little bit dressed up for show. We never know what happens when people are behind their doors and others aren't watching.
Doug (19:22):
As I sit and digest this idea of Magda as Maria traipsing through the Alps. (You would've been great at that by the way. I could totally see you in that role.) When you talk about you are in Central New York and now that federalism in general is on the decline, we're seeing a lot of rulings that are saying, “Let's put everything up to the states,” which means everything is different state to state. So as a lawyer, are we seeing now a lot more intervention in terms of the state deciding how kids should be raised?
John (19:54):
In New York? You know, I don't want to sound like I'm just a home team, but there's many ways where New York is I think more advanced and more socially progressive, in all the best ways, perhaps than other states. A lot of states provide children with attorneys, but the role is carried out different. My young clients actually could give me direction and tell me, you know, what position they want me to take in court the way an adult can. That's as long as they're old enough to understand and be able to reason. I find that I tend to err on the younger side with that where I'll take direction from five or six years old. Now that doesn't mean I always get my way. That doesn't mean that the child has a vote, but the child has a voice. In other states it'll usually be just the attorney that's in that role, sometimes called the guardian ad litem or a law guardian, will substitute their judgment. They'll consult with their client, but then decide, well, this is what I think is best. Sort of like a mini judge. Well, we already have a maxi judge and in New York we figured out that's not really what we need.
Doug (21:02):
Because whenever these laws come up, they seem to be hastily-drafted and hastily-supported and hastily-voted on, and then hastily-signed into law to the point where a lot of the language is so vague and so confusing that it's open to all sorts of legal interpretation. Which makes it like it's the golden age of lawyers at this point. Again, state by state, it's going to be different. And I don't know how often you concern yourself with that state down there that is turning into God knows what, but--
John (21:35):
Florida. Yeah. And I'm concerned as like a, as a parent, as an adult, as an American, as someone that cares about kids, well actually you have to consider not just the judge yet at the trial level, you have to consider at the appellate level. And I could see where determinations can be made that one parent is willing to support a child as they seek to affirm their identity, and be who they truly are and act with love and as a true parent, and a judge under color of law saying that that's abhorrent and a detriment to the child, and that that parent shouldn't have custody and maybe even shouldn't have unsupervised contact. And that's horrific. The damage to the child in particular. ‘Cause we always put our first emphasis on the child, but also the entire family, the parent that's cut out, the siblings that are possibly cut out. Okay. Because that, that could divide a family and this stuff has generational consequences ‘cause there's always a much further horizon when we're talking about kids and we're talking about families. So Doug, when you talk about these laws being hastily-considered and rammed through and being what's politically expedient, what a horrible thing to mess around and play and make a few political points other than children and families and generations.
Doug (23:05):
And one of the things that struck me as you go about involving yourself in a case like this, and you've been doing so for so long now, what are the ground rules that you set with your clients or with the family and the whole idea of recognizing at some point, number one, let's keep the kid’s wishes front and center. And number two, how do we find some kind of common ground to make this as expedient and non-traumatic as possible so that the family can kind of discover its new normal and figure out how to coexist?
John (23:37):
You know, that depends on the age of the child. When we have older kids, you know, when kids start to become adolescents, some folks will like to say, “At what age can the child decide where they want to live and what they want to do?” And I always say well, custody in New York goes to 18 and to that point, legally and technically they don't get to pick. However I said, they don't have a vote, but they have a voice. Their voice becomes stronger and stronger and considered much more, because you take a 14 year old--which 14 year olds are wonderful, all right? And I love teenagers and have teenagers, so I'm not one of these poo the teenagers or, or the little ones. However, potentially they could be very scary. So if you put the 14- or 15-year-old at Parent A and they want to be at Parent B, you push down over here, something's going to pop up over there.
John (24:31):
Whether that's running away, whether that's not going to school, whether it's engaging in all types of risky behavior, really things can get out of control. When we worry about kids running away, what I immediately go to is I'm worried they're going to be trafficked because when you're 14 or 15 or 44, it doesn't matter, you get hungry at some point during the day. And at some point you want a safe place to sleep. And when you're vulnerable and somebody offers you those things, you know, you could really find yourself in a bad spot. You know, we have to be wise with our kids and realize that it's not always about can we squeeze the hardest. Sometimes it's about using our brains and recognize--
Magda (25:23):
It's, so I think sometimes parents think that it's about their rights, right? Like their right--
John (25:30):
They do have rights.
Magda (25:31):
--over the other parent. But I think they think their right is to spend time with the kid, whether the kid wants to or not.
John (25:42):
I mean, look at, when your kids are in your home--this is aside from my job or being in court or mom and dad together, or the parents being together, the parents being apart. At some point, you know, on a given day your kids don't want to hang out with you. I think I've talked to my kids for a half hour on the phone their entire lives. They're just not big telephone talkers, you know? And sometimes they don't want to hang out with you. Sometimes they're at your house because it's your day and that's appropriate. But they want to hang out with their friends, they want to go to sports practice, whatever. That doesn't mean because they're at your place that you have a right to have them staring to your eyes the entire time.
John (26:23):
That's just kids and kids growing up. And part of the natural process, which is separating from our parents, which is a very gradual process we go through growing up. Sometimes it explains our behavior as well, we're preparing ourselves for that separation, but parents do have rights and I have represented parents and I like the perspective that I have now because very often I get to work with both parents if I'm given permission from their attorneys. And to me it's a much more fascinating role as an attorney to be advocating for a client, but yet have so many different tools to try to come to a good resolution.
Doug (27:04):
A lot of this podcast is about the trajectory we expected versus the trajectory we got. And so I'm just curious about how do you feel fundamentally changed as a father based upon what you've seen in these other families and how you've tried to solve other disputes. Does that affect how you try to solve them at home?
John (27:23):
Yes, absolutely. And that's because I have a sample set that I can refer to of different ages of different situations of how parents respond and where that's been met with good results and, and otherwise, and I think some of the big lessons, one is to not be reactive, even though I--
Doug (27:48):
Our whole society is based on reactivity, it seems. I mean, that's a real--
John (27:52):
Yeah.
Doug (27:53):
That's real uphill battle isn't it?
Magda (27:54):
And there are all these videos on, you know, TikTok and Reels and all this kind of place that are these parents that are bragging about being reactive and glorifying being reactive. You know, “my daughter talked back to me, so I took all of her clothes out onto the lawn and lit 'em on fire and made her watch.” Right. All this kind of stuff. And they get millions of views and all these people saying, “Well, she should have known better.” And it's just crushing,
John (28:19):
You know, I think you ask yourself, you know, the basic questions, it's like: that's mean. All right.
Magda (28:26):
Yeah, it's mean. It's mean.
John (28:27):
It's not a stretch. And if something's mean, don't do it.
Children remember the reaction more than they remember the event. Seeing your clothes burned on the front yard, you will be burned into your memory and you can't unring that bell. Sorry for mixing metaphors. I do that a lot.
Doug (28:45):
Not a problem. It's like, you know, if you hit 10, we get a free steak.
Magda (28:49):
Yeah. <Laugh>, when your parent does something like that, you can't ever trust your parent again. My whole thing has always been, you know, the world is a rough place. The world is mean and the world is cruel and the world is going to be awful to my children when they get out into the world. I don't need to be mean to them also. Home needs to be a place that's always safe.
John (29:13):
The rest of the story, too, though, is that if we don't have trust and we don't have safety, yes the world is scary and difficult, but if we don't have trust to those that we should trust, even when we are in those situations, we might find ourselves in a very good and loving relationship, but not able to accept--
Magda (29:33):
Yes.
John (29:33):
--that love and support. In some ways that's sadder than the fact that there are a lot of scary people that mean us harm, when we can't even accept love because we were betrayed earlier, or were given a lesson that trust did not exist from those that we absolutely should trust.
Magda (29:51):
That goes back to what you said earlier about the dad being rough with the two or three-year-old and then they go into school and have a teacher that's using appropriate discipline, not punishment. Right. Like just setting up a structure to help guide the kids into good behavior. And they don't know how to react to it, and it's because their boundaries are in a place that they're not supposed to be ‘cause the parent trained them to have different boundaries.
John (30:16):
A conversation that I have very many times with clients: The secret of life is simple. I'm not saying it's easy. I said, you have to show up, you have to be where you need to be, when you're there you have to act appropriately, and then you have to put in a little bit of effort.
Doug (30:31):
No, I hear that. Yeah. In fact, when Magda and I split up, I remember I developed this very particular habit because the whole point is when the family splits up, the co-parents’ main job is to rebuild the floor beneath the kids. And so every time I said goodbye to them, I said, “I will see you again on this date at this time.” And then moved anything to make that happen. I still do that now. I mean, I send, you know, our son off to high school and it's like, “I will see you at five o'clock tonight. And we'll have dinner.”
Magda (31:05):
I think you and I were very, very, very concerned with recreating structure for the kids though. I mean, do you remember that you had moved uptown and I was still downtown, and so we started exchanging them in front of Zabars and then after two times we realized we didn't want to exchange them there anymore because we didn't want them to have any negative associations with Zabars?
Doug (31:26):
Well, the whole point of like having dinner together when we exchanged the kids,
Magda (31:30):
Oh God, that was so awkward. It was horrible.
Doug (31:33):
But it still, it was good for them though, right? We endured the awkwardness because the kids liked having us together at least, ugh,
Magda (31:40):
Well think it became awkward and they started talking about it. But I mean, I also think you and I tried to take our cues from them. Like when they said they didn't want to have dinner with us anymore, it's like, okay. Just like, do you remember when they said that they wanted to switch from our schedule to doing a week on and a week off? You and I were like, “But, but, but I won't see you for a whole week!” And they were like, “Oh, grow up.”
Magda (32:05):
It was, for me, it was good feedback that the kids feel secure enough in this situation and they feel secure enough with each of us that they can say, “this is what we want instead of what's happening” and--
Doug (32:20):
And they're going to be heard for sure.
Magda (32:21):
Right. They weren't afraid to say it to us. They didn't have to go find a lawyer like John.
When you are hired to represent a kid, whether it's a juvenile delinquency, someone's incorrigible, or it's a custody or it's something like that, who is it that actually hires you? Is it a social worker? Is it the other family court lawyers in your county? Like, who is it that actually says, “Ooh, let's get John Amuso, he's really good at this”?
John (32:50):
That would be the appellate division. In New York State, we have the Supreme Court, which is not actually the top court. The court of appeals is the tops. And in between we have the state divided into four parts called appellate divisions. Each of those divisions--I happen to be in the fourth--has an attorney for children program, and that's where you are qualified and placed on a panel and required to take continuing training in legal education courses. So literally what happens: a clerk will call from the family court, I take the assignment, there's an order from the court that makes me--the judge's order--that I am the attorney for the child or children. And it authorizes me to access schools and medical providers and other folks that have information. I keep track of my time and then New York State pays me. So the parents don't select me or pay me. Certainly the child doesn’t. And to the state's great credit, there is zero pressure, feedback, leading on, nothing like that to influence how I do my job. So.
Doug (34:07):
And if they call you and you're not available, do they just move on to the Bs? And the Cs and the Ds?
John (34:13):
<Laugh>? Yeah. Right. You know what? I think that they have a wheel and they spin it <laugh>,
Doug (34:18):
Given the times now where compromise is on the run, how much harder has that made your job?
John (34:26):
When Magda was talking about these TikTok videos of folks showed how they could lay down the law, the prevalence of--
Doug (34:33):
Another indictment of social media, guys.
John (34:34):
Yes, of social media. Absolutely. Folks think that, you know, that's the standard and I have to beat that. And it is much more difficult now than it might have been 10 or 12 years ago to bring people to the shore. Parents are distracted by these outside influences and their kids suffer. A lot of kids don't have the social skills that they did 10 or 12 years ago in terms of having interactions or interactions with adults. And some kids still really do. Sometimes I find that the better social interactions are with those that aren't as privileged, in that regard.
Doug (35:12):
Well, that's an actually another interesting question about technology versus the law in a sense of how our technology is expanding and improving and becoming so much more cognitive and so much more efficient than the law is having a tough time keeping up. Even those who have created AI are saying, please regulate us because we don't, we're reaching a point now where this has to be used under particular circumstances. So with that in mind, is the law keeping up with all of these new permutations that families can have or can suffer through? And if not, what do you think can be done about it?
John (35:48):
The family law boils down to like a few phrases. It's actually one of the simpler areas, literally, of the law. It's “do what's in the best interest of the child.” So it should be able to adapt as times change, as technology changes, as the structure of the family. So it's a matter of being able to hopefully be evidence-based, but I think it's where we're going to rely on some wisdom and keeping our eyes open to actually what the effects are.
Doug (36:26):
When did you decide you wanted to be a lawyer?
John (36:29):
Wow. When I was a boy, a little boy, I was very strongly influenced by my godfather. Back up half a sec--I'm part of the first generation of my family to go to college. My godfather was part of his first generation to go to college. And he grew up in the same neighborhood I did, actually literally the house next door. And he went to Hamilton College. So from when I was a little boy, “Johnny, you know, you should be a lawyer like your godfather.” I was like, “oh, okay.” I think I was in law school by the time I ever even went into a courtroom anywhere. I had never shadowed a lawyer or anything like that. I think it was just kind of like a, something I kind of fell into, in a way. My godfather inspired me because he was just the most impressive person in terms of his intellect, the way he would have a passion for fairness, for helping people, and for holding himself to a standard of honor and dignity.
Doug (37:32):
And so the legal profession was something you were attracted to, but you didn't really have a strong concentration in mind. Like would you have predicted 20 years ago that you'd be a family lawyer now?
John (37:42):
No, I had no idea what it was or that it took place. I grew up in an a home where family court didn't play any part. You know, my parents in about a month are going to have their 60th wedding anniversary and I’m one of six kids. My parents had three out of the gate very quick and then a long gap. So I'm basically the oldest of the youngest, so I'm technically a middle, but I'm actually an oldest functionally, so it's
John (38:13):
Kind, it's, it's a little weird, but
Doug (38:14):
No, I get it.
John (38:16):
We're all a little weird when we,
Doug (38:18):
You’re like the captain of the AAA team.
John (38:20):
<Laugh>. That's right, that's right.
Doug (38:21):
Well, the reason I'm asking this, I'm leading up to this just because you have, your oldest is about to go to college and that's got to be a bit of a trip just to kind of think about what college meant to you and to have your kid go off and kind of extend that legacy. How do you think your experience as an adult and being somewhere now where you had no idea where you'd be back when you were in college and got to law school, how are you counseling your kid to look at their college experience and what they can get most out of it so that when you're preparing them for the next thing, they're ready to take an opportunity when they find one?
John (39:03):
There was an op-ed, I think it was, it was the day's blend. I don’t know if it was today or yesterday, in the New York Times.
Doug (39:10):
Yeah, it was either yesterday or in 1987 or something, somewhere in there.
John (39:14):
It has to do with the advice I would given to grad commencements about following your passion and how that's not always maybe the most useful advice.
Doug (39:24):
Oh yeah, I did read that. Yeah, exactly. I hear you. We'll connect to that in the notes.
John (39:29):
Yeah, and the advice I give, ‘cause kids will ask me, you know, including my own kids and I like to be consistent. What's good for my kid is good for your kid. Is that I say, think about what it is about yourself that you need an outlet for. Some people need to be in one place and like to be a little bit more in the books. All right. And there's some lawyers that do that, and thank God for them because that, that would drive me crazy. Other people they need an outlet where they're on their feet moving around, interacting with people and perhaps solving problems. That's a little bit more describing myself, but for my kids, I want them to be able to determine or at least get an idea of what it is about them that they need an outlet for.
John (40:17):
And then I think the rest of the pieces will follow the place. Sometimes folks need a little bit more security and steadiness. Again, I'm a small business person, you know, I think there's a certain temperament that goes with that because when it's good, it's great. And when it's slow, it can be a little stressful. So I don't think in terms of job titles that like, all right, “here's the good job title and you should go for that and you need to take these courses.” I think it's find what it is that's going to make you satisfied in terms of your temperament and the basics of your personality. And there's a lot of different career paths and educational paths and you’ve got to figure it out. It's your life.
Doug (40:59):
I know Magda and I have talked about this a lot, just the idea of instead of molding kids into what you think they should be, just encouraging them to be the kids, the people they are. And that's one of those things a lot of people our age are confronting, the idea that what we may have wanted our kids to be and what they're turning out to be. Some follow the plan right along to the letter and others have a very wide disparity. And I think that's on us to kind of process that and recognize that whatever they end up being is not a reflection on us. It's just who they are.
John (41:34):
We're privileged to be able to watch this happen. You know, they're ours, but we don't own them. It's no different from our kids. I think sometimes we forget that, that we were kids once and we wanted to assert ourselves and we want to have our own identity and our kids are no different. Working for kids I find to be very humbling. You know, it's not that I feel like, “oh, I'm lording it over you” or, “you're just a kid.” Kids know a lot of things and speak truth that we forget or that we lose the courage to speak. I saw a client that I've represented on and off for years, hadn't seen me in in a while. She's like, oh, you look like an old man. I was so excited. All right. Because I love when kids speak up, advocate for themselves and say what they're thinking. We have to be courteous and respectful, but sometimes they lack filters and sometimes we have too many filters and we can learn a lot from kids.
Doug (42:28):
That's nice. I mean, that's a nice way to bring it back to your profession and how you advocate for kids armed with the law, which is a really terrific leverage to have, to bring that to bear and to wield that when the kids need it.
John (42:46):
And you know what? That that, Doug, that's interesting because push comes to shove, I'm a lawyer, you know, for kids, so that means that I owe them confidence. We have confidentiality, all right. There's attorney-client privilege that I have to act ethically and that if push comes to shove, I have to be ready in court to prove a case and to examine witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to point out where people are being truthful or where they're lying. However the humility that's necessary to do this is to recognize that it's not a zero sum game necessarily, or a win or lose, because ultimately the family will endure after the case is over. And what we do in the courtroom if we don't conduct that with some respect and humility on our part, that this system, this family needs to work together at some level and just go in there and think, you know, I'm going for broke and I'm going to beat the hell out of you in the courtroom until I get my way, you're going to destroy the village to save the village. And if you're going to be that way, well, you're a menace.
Magda (44:02):
To people who haven't been there and don't know what sort of the state of family law is right now. It sounds like you're saying that your client child comes in and you say, “Who do you want to live with?” And they say, “I want to live with Dad A because he gives me chocolate bars all day long and Dad B doesn't, so I want to live with Dad A” and then that is what you advocate for. And I think that that's not at all the truth. I think that the default is 50/50 custody right now and that you're only advocating if it's a case of, you know, like a child having a really strong opinion, ‘cause something's dysfunctional in one.
John (44:45):
Okay, actually, let me address that directly. You literally could have a circumstance in Parent One is the one who makes all the medical appointments, has a very appropriate home that's well furnished and accommodating for what a child needs. And then the other parent less so, and perhaps, you know, that's the house where there's the extra video game system and where chocolate is like immediately on demand. And let's say I have a client that's 12 years old and is an excellent student, very good understanding of how things work and says, “I want to live with the parent that has the video game system and the chocolate, and lets me stay up all night.” When I go to court, I will advocate with the position that the child should live with the parent, the one with the chocolate and the video games.
John (45:39):
And if I have to prove my case by showing just the quality of chocolate and how fine the video game console is, I will do that because that's what my client directed me to do. Now why is that okay? Number one, I'm a lawyer and I take orders, but also I don't make the decision. Ultimately a decision has to be made after a trial. The judge will decide I might lose the case <laugh> or not get the position I advocated for, but that's just fine if it turns out that the child ends up with the other parent that's going to do the things that are healthy and allow the child to grow up and be a productive member of society, the system worked. Now, having said that, I do have to say where that breaks down and where there is a difference. If a client directs me to take a position that's going to put them in very serious harm, I then under the law New York have the ability to take a contrary position. I'll say that my client wants to live with the parent that keeps the loaded handguns on the coffee table and has an illegal collection of poisonous snakes. However, the position I'm taking, I'm going to substitute my judgment and try to make the case that they should be with the other parent where it's less likely they're going to blow their brains out or be poisoned.
Doug (46:55):
Is that a hard thing to prove? I mean, when you have to assert that and call an audible like that, how much evidence do you have to have in your back pocket to support your case?
John (47:05):
You should have a lot. I hate to do it. I do take the job and the oath I took very seriously. I would always rather take my order from a client and then pursue that. It's not the John Amuso Show. And thankfully those situations are so rare. No. Have I given you enough?
Magda (47:22):
Yeah, you definitely did.
Doug (47:23):
Sure. I mean, I’d watch the John Amuso Show.
John (47:26):
<Laugh>. That's an idea.
Doug (47:29):
I really appreciate you coming on to talk about your life, the families you've gotten involved in, the situations you've witnessed, the situations that you've helped resolve. To some extent for you to be at this now for almost 20 years. That's got to be some really fulfilling work.
John (47:44):
At times very fulfilling. You have to roll with it a little bit. We've learned a lot in the last, you know, 20 or so years. We've learned a lot about mental health, we've learned a lot about trauma, we've learned about vicarious trauma. Vicarious trauma is when you see others going through very difficult times. And you have to be able to cope with that yourself and try to develop some resilience. The phone rings for me to get a new case because somebody's in conflict and somebody's hurt. It's unhealthy to deny our own humanity in our own empathy. And I think that's true for all of us. We need to absorb what we do, what happens in the world, in our community and our families yet still be able to be models of resilience.
Doug (48:31):
And how do you protect against vicarious trauma? Is it your personality? Is it your age? How much of it is something you were born with and how much of it is the work you put in to kind of maintain that even keel that your clients need?
John (48:45):
Part of it is I feel my feelings. Sometimes I see some horrible things, and I feel horrible about it. I've shed tears over clients, I've lost clients. And I feel those feelings. Sometimes I feel angry and I let that feeling happen, you know, hopefully in a safe and appropriate way, you know, recognize that we're all trying to do the best we can and some days are going to be hard, some days are going to be easy. And that's the human condition. That it's always been the practice of family law is a very self-selecting little micro industry. And not everyone is cut out for it or is able to roll with it. I practiced real estate law for a little while, stressed me out, gave me a stomach ache. And this doesn't. I'm not saying it's better or worse.
Doug (49:38):
That's interesting. That's part of how you're built.
John (49:42):
It’s how I'm built, you know, that that's learning about yourself and finding out what it is that your personality and your temperament. I imagine it's the same with the medical field. Some folks would rather be in the lab and other folks want to be in the ER. And we need them all.
Doug (50:01):
Oh, John, it's been great talking to you, catching up after all this time and learning about this profession that you've blossomed into. And I've never had an extended conversation with someone who does the work you do. And so I'm always grateful to expand my horizons a bit. That's, it's the kind of thing that happens every day that and everyone's aware of and it's the kind of stories that kind of make you hug your kids tighter. So I really appreciate you coming on.
John (50:26):
No, and thank you. And I learned a lot from both of you, as I have for years. And the process, thinking about doing this, like I said before, is great for me ‘cause it makes me think about what it is that I do. So it's always a good tune up for me.
Doug (50:41):
I appreciate that. I think I'm here to learn more than anything else. However that ripples outward is just a bonus. Thanks again for your time. Thank you for listening to Episode Five of the When the Flames Go Up Podcast with Magda Pecsenye and me, Doug French. And we will see you next week. Thank you.