- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 681
Figuring Out Favia
I simply cannot figure out Vanessa Favia.
If she is in this case just for the money, she isn’t doing a very good job for herself. And she isn’t doing a very good job for Stella, who she should care about at least a little, because to be paid she needs to show she has accomplished something for her client.
If I were in Favia’s shoes, I’d do things differently.
First, I’d remain officially disconnected from Heather. For Favia to ask to appear in Judge Cohen’s courtroom as Heather’s attorney forever disqualifies her in my mind as appropriate counsel for Stella. This baby needs a legal advocate who puts her interests above all others, including her mother. The fact that Favia was willing to expressly advocate for Heather tells me that she cannot be presumed to be able to represent Stella against Heather. Favia has ties to Heather which bias her representation of this unborn child. This is Favia’s biggest mistake, even bigger than asking for an unconscionable amount of money from the trust.
A better strategy would be to always argue for the unborn child only, hold all billing in abeyance, and wait and watch. If before delivery there are any discernable problems or issues, Favia can argue for treatment or other action that benefits the baby, no matter whether this helps or annoys Heather. For example, she could have (and I believe should have) argued before Judge Cohen that the money for Heather’s food should go through a dietician who would select meals based on the nutritional needs of both mother and unborn child. (And not let Heather gorge herself on French fries and burgers to the exclusion of a balanced diet.)
After the baby is born, Favia’s position becomes much stronger. She can argue that Kerobokan is no place for an infant. She can argue that Heather’s history even before the murder makes her an unfit mother. And if Heather is convicted of anything at all, Favia can use that as one argument in a suite of arguments to insist Heather lose custody of the child.
If Heather is convicted of murder, no matter the sentence, Stella would then be entitled to the trust, not Heather. Favia would then be in the driver’s seat, representing the trust’s beneficiary. That would have been the time to start grubbing for money.
It’s interesting to note that I think the strategy I outline here is the best one whether you are a lawyer just looking for financial remuneration or if you are one genuinely concerned for this poor baby.
But as I see it, Favia has shown herself to be concerned with doing whatever makes Heather happy, which proves she is not working solely in the baby’s interests.
Even if this strategy angered Heather, Favia could argue before Judge Cohen that her responsibility was to the baby. At any point either before or after the birth, she could point out that Heather’s and Stella’s interests are not the same and could argue that Heather should not be in a position to fire her (Favia).
I’ve been thinking about this general scenario off and on for weeks, and have wondered why Favia didn’t take this road, since it seems obvious. When I learned last night that she’s asking for over $125K from the trust, I got to thinking about this whole issue again.
I think the biggest problem with my analysis above is this: right now there are no clear adverse interests between mother and unborn child. Those adverse interests would arise when:
(i) Stella is born, alive, and someone makes an argument in a court of law that her best interests are not to live in prison and not to live with a person who has an extensive history of battery within the intimacy of the family; and
(ii) If and when Heather is convicted of murder, thus disqualifying her from benefiting from the trust set up by her mother and Stella is named beneficiary.
Should any of these things happen, Stella should have an independent legal voice of her own. However, I don’t think the law in Illinois would accept that the mother of the child gets to choose that independent voice. (Others with experience or expertise would be better able to expound on the matter, or to correct me if I am wrong in claiming this.) I’m guessing that Judge Cohen and no one else in his courtroom are making these arguments because the time is not yet ripe. But when the time comes for Stella to have something more than a lawyer who jets to Bali for photo-ops and acts as a nanny for a spoiled brat who murdered her own mother, Favia won’t be anyone’s first choice.
I think that Favia must know this and is rushing to cash in now, before she’s booted by a court as Stella’s attorney. For the reasons I’ve given above, I think it would be hard for Favia to argue that she’s an independent voice for Stella.
Illinois law has provisions for an “Attorney for the Child,” a “Child Representative,” and a “Guardian Ad Litem.” I’ve had a quick look at a couple of sites which discuss these things (one from the Cook County Court and the other providing the text of the governing Illinois statutes) and I’m still absorbing the contents. Anyone interested can consult:
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ABOU...tionsDivision/ChildRepGuardianAdLitemGAL.aspx
Or (search the document linked to below for “750 ILCS 5/506”
:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2086&ChapterID=59
I simply cannot figure out Vanessa Favia.
If she is in this case just for the money, she isn’t doing a very good job for herself. And she isn’t doing a very good job for Stella, who she should care about at least a little, because to be paid she needs to show she has accomplished something for her client.
If I were in Favia’s shoes, I’d do things differently.
First, I’d remain officially disconnected from Heather. For Favia to ask to appear in Judge Cohen’s courtroom as Heather’s attorney forever disqualifies her in my mind as appropriate counsel for Stella. This baby needs a legal advocate who puts her interests above all others, including her mother. The fact that Favia was willing to expressly advocate for Heather tells me that she cannot be presumed to be able to represent Stella against Heather. Favia has ties to Heather which bias her representation of this unborn child. This is Favia’s biggest mistake, even bigger than asking for an unconscionable amount of money from the trust.
A better strategy would be to always argue for the unborn child only, hold all billing in abeyance, and wait and watch. If before delivery there are any discernable problems or issues, Favia can argue for treatment or other action that benefits the baby, no matter whether this helps or annoys Heather. For example, she could have (and I believe should have) argued before Judge Cohen that the money for Heather’s food should go through a dietician who would select meals based on the nutritional needs of both mother and unborn child. (And not let Heather gorge herself on French fries and burgers to the exclusion of a balanced diet.)
After the baby is born, Favia’s position becomes much stronger. She can argue that Kerobokan is no place for an infant. She can argue that Heather’s history even before the murder makes her an unfit mother. And if Heather is convicted of anything at all, Favia can use that as one argument in a suite of arguments to insist Heather lose custody of the child.
If Heather is convicted of murder, no matter the sentence, Stella would then be entitled to the trust, not Heather. Favia would then be in the driver’s seat, representing the trust’s beneficiary. That would have been the time to start grubbing for money.
It’s interesting to note that I think the strategy I outline here is the best one whether you are a lawyer just looking for financial remuneration or if you are one genuinely concerned for this poor baby.
But as I see it, Favia has shown herself to be concerned with doing whatever makes Heather happy, which proves she is not working solely in the baby’s interests.
Even if this strategy angered Heather, Favia could argue before Judge Cohen that her responsibility was to the baby. At any point either before or after the birth, she could point out that Heather’s and Stella’s interests are not the same and could argue that Heather should not be in a position to fire her (Favia).
I’ve been thinking about this general scenario off and on for weeks, and have wondered why Favia didn’t take this road, since it seems obvious. When I learned last night that she’s asking for over $125K from the trust, I got to thinking about this whole issue again.
I think the biggest problem with my analysis above is this: right now there are no clear adverse interests between mother and unborn child. Those adverse interests would arise when:
(i) Stella is born, alive, and someone makes an argument in a court of law that her best interests are not to live in prison and not to live with a person who has an extensive history of battery within the intimacy of the family; and
(ii) If and when Heather is convicted of murder, thus disqualifying her from benefiting from the trust set up by her mother and Stella is named beneficiary.
Should any of these things happen, Stella should have an independent legal voice of her own. However, I don’t think the law in Illinois would accept that the mother of the child gets to choose that independent voice. (Others with experience or expertise would be better able to expound on the matter, or to correct me if I am wrong in claiming this.) I’m guessing that Judge Cohen and no one else in his courtroom are making these arguments because the time is not yet ripe. But when the time comes for Stella to have something more than a lawyer who jets to Bali for photo-ops and acts as a nanny for a spoiled brat who murdered her own mother, Favia won’t be anyone’s first choice.
I think that Favia must know this and is rushing to cash in now, before she’s booted by a court as Stella’s attorney. For the reasons I’ve given above, I think it would be hard for Favia to argue that she’s an independent voice for Stella.
Illinois law has provisions for an “Attorney for the Child,” a “Child Representative,” and a “Guardian Ad Litem.” I’ve had a quick look at a couple of sites which discuss these things (one from the Cook County Court and the other providing the text of the governing Illinois statutes) and I’m still absorbing the contents. Anyone interested can consult:
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ABOU...tionsDivision/ChildRepGuardianAdLitemGAL.aspx
Or (search the document linked to below for “750 ILCS 5/506”
:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2086&ChapterID=59
