How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 114794
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds


This answer was rated:



Got it. Thank you for your new question.

I am here.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

now update!


ok i will verbatim,attempt to walk you thru.and tina is here with us today!

(helping her as much as i can paul.)


Now:before she arrive, earlier,the attorney has call me. (before her)so odd.

but he in a nutshell,ask me if i am "understanding that"since he did not at all sign a agreement for such "lawyer representation with the court"and since she did,"this did not mean he took her case,and her child lawsuit case involving CPS!"Is he right paul?


he then say,"I did not have all of the facts,to base a fair conclusion" on if

"yes or no"if tina has a "real claim to sue"and how it should be written up

etc.if she did have a claim!!!


So paul.i just literally laugh,because i am saying to this "attorney"but your

draft,clearly is written per "count"and cause of action,so what am i not

seeing her counsel.and his response; Heather-Marie,i really don't think so,at "this point"because i did not know"1"substantiated,of excessive corporal punishment was against her!(and upheld 2x by a appeal judge!)


I said,but your email back and forth with "tina"demonstrate the complete

antithesis,whereas; your saying to her,your understanding all of this and

your even commenting on having to acknowledge,there was yet 1 finding

of corporal punishment,or as appeal say,1 incident of abuse & neglect

by "Excessive use of corporal punishment " so why are you now attempt

to say your not"aware"of this finding,on the record!




Then i encompass:


There is no way your seeing the withheld evidence; i.e. pix,showing no abuse!(in the SAME location where child was allege to be so brutally beaten,withheld by CPS!


There was a internal report(s)showing caseworker never was even able to prove child abuse,even complimenting the primary caretaker(mom!)

and her home.


There is a police dept.(supplemental report)exhibit,"another worker, for DYFS,DCCP adage,"we can't prove abuse assault complaint at this time but "will keep cops posted"if warranted.


So i told him,"You either did not read this,did NOT provide diligence,with so much evidence she share with you,and LIED to her misleading her to think your reviewing her email file,OR "your lieing about" what your train

in,as a "personal injury lawyer"with sex abuse,and other claims re:CPS.


He was so quiet paul,and only ending it with,"Well,that is all i have to say today since i know your helping her"with emotional support,and legal research etc. heather,and he say,"but i m goin to inform her to day i can't

re-consider"i "had a headache"ALL last week over this,and i told him,


and HOW DO U THINK TINA FEEL, your making her go to the E.R. for chest pains,and she has No history,in her early forties of such until you shock her by quitting the case,your promising her to represent her,even provided a draft,as with your name on it,sir.That is nefarious to do to her

and i am glad she will be suing you then and i just hung up on him.


i await your full response to his points raised.


BTW:(by the way)

tina then hear from him

and he essentially cited almost the same,but with her was"actually"he turn on her,NOW saying,'well how do you expect me!"(YELL AT HER)

to represent, you when i did not "See"nor have all facts like the 1 finding?

But again paul,he is telling her lies,he KNEW because her paper trail

via email and fax,demonstrate he knew from her since day 1 a finding did exist,

BUT HE IS IGNORING the most significance as i told him and her:


1. Appeal said(1)finding was NOT enough i.e. spanking etc. to keep a child from her own parent,and state"cps"agency MUST hence,have other serious allegations in order to NOT reunite parent,and child. paul.


DYFS ,DCCP for five years knew this and IGNORE each appeal ruling

until 2010 or so or 2011 clearing the parent of"all additional allegations"

by this time the child was already home same year mom was cleared.


Understand paul?


alot to read,so take your time,and again ONLY i told him focus

on the"spanking ISOLATED 1x incident"and he is again saying how the

"appeal has spoken"but yet the appeal are the ones who said,dyfs has

to investigate,either prove "a danger to mom"or not etc. if not the child it say can NO LONGER BE DEPRIVE, and also adding"importantly the nj parent"because the "un-investigated allegations" continue to "Darken"and cloud the record,and,affect the"Constitutoinal Right'of tina the parent.


THAT IS WHAT you see paul,he is not focusing on.


as a result,sadly "the child was brutally assaulted,repeatedly"

but he is not"Seeing this"but yet his draft make it appear he did.


i await your urgent CLEAR feedback




LASTLY:she told him,i am still going to either file my own suit,but with YOUR draft attach,with your name on it,and he told her, "GO AHEAD"she






Thank you for the response.

No, he is not right. Just the fact he does not have a signed agreement does not mean he did no agree to represent her. Representation can be inferred from an attorney's actions, such as drafting the complaint that you have with his name on it and the other correspondence you have with him and Tina.

He is going to be liable for malpractice here and you know it, he likely does as well. Since he did actually begin representation and then dropped it at a time where it would cause material prejudice to Tina, which we all know is a violation of the rules of professional conduct.

Part of his malpractice is not just dropping her at the last minute causing her prejudice, but also in failure to properly review facts in the case and no zealously represent a client he agreed by his conduct to represent.

She needs to not attach the draft of his suit to her suit. She needs to hold that off for her malpractice against him. She needs to just file her suit and she can use what he drafted and take his name off of it and file it with her name, but do not submit what he drafted (that is her evidence in the malpractice case against him).

Thank you so much for using I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.


There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be taking a break.

You can always request me through my profile at or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

OK(she say thank you sitting here)leaving here,and she say thanks too!





i have just hung up with a attorney with prowess in handling 100% legal mal.

cases in and PA.; chicago.

this guy was saying analogous to you paul and i quote:


1. heather-marie,yes the atty. from what it appears"on its face"without a view of his "Draft"alleged to have been written for her per count,cause of action,yes this man has committed LEGAL MALRACTICE.i was happy

paul hearing this at 6:15 p.m. and JUST hung up almost 1 hr.consult.i am

happy as Tina,he said the fact he:

a.)contact court in writing adaging,to extend deadline from april 5 for just 1 month,to add on"and or review docs to "investigate MORE cupable parties;to be encompass,not "to see if she has a claim"cause of action demonstrate,he "already believe she has a claim on the"already file suit"



b.)he inform mom,and child "yes"i will represent you,get me ALL docum.

that are currently in your possession to"begin the process"as i review,but

yet he"actually not only review!(he actually put HIS NAME on a well written lawsuit with the facts! he draft,a per cause of action count 1,2,3,4,



And signed"bob" for BOTH plaintiffs,mom and child.


The attorney for legal mal,adage,

"1 spanking i agree with online counsel at just answers,and as a paralegal he say,and professional in the biz heather,yourself realize it is

a form of mal,that she is able to win money damages from,he is very much interested,however paul as your adaging,he say to first be sure to

"Remove attorney crappy name"and to be able to file"within deadline"the statute,to just file it.i mean the claims are written superbly,strongly and by fact(s)with exhibits,to be attach heather-marie,and he said TINA will be able to i hope find attorney IF she is able to defeat,the defendant CPS

lawyer's Motion To Dismiss,which we all know he will file against her to have it dismiss.


Attorney said paul:


i do believe he has committed legal mal,premise also a fact he told her

repeatedly"i am your counsel" DON'T WORRY,no need to "fret"i will file

this for you timely,when i am returning from vacation by,end of april 30

may 1st.your having"plenty of time"

Then he return,the two "speak multiple times again"goin over ALL claims

per count,and yet?He tell her last week,he is not going to represent her.


2 TO 5 or 6 days prior to file?


he agree,paul in closing,"this time frame is not long enough to procure a attorney with such prowess in this complex field,but she sure is going to have a "hell of a legal mal"


and again he agree wholly with you paul.


lastly he adage, have her call also Judge law clerk,and just advise them by phone, what is taking place,and tina did this. i overheard nice clerk say i can't give out legal advice but"what a jerk!"she SAID THIS lol and i heard tina say,"yes"and how the clerk say,just in writing by may 5th or so.

let judge _____ know ,what he did to you so wrongly,put IN writing and

request a longer time to file,by or before end of may at least your then having 4 weeks or less to find counsel,OR file pro-se and keep looking for a lawyer,at the least,as legal mal attorney say,"At the least"her statute

of limitation;to file is met.

Tim,the attorney was great! adding how the guy"PAUL"is telling you for tina what she need to do,tell him i "high-five"his legal answer aw.that was nice and i told him i ALWAYS utilize paul as a paralegal i like to be sure

and he say,"Paul has it right,the attorney"has to file this,and if not it is legal mal without A DOUBT!


so tina call again attorney leaving msg.again "your my lawyer"and i expect this file,as i am told by legal mal attorney,and other counsel if not then i am suing you,sir,for which your in breach etc.





Thank you for the update.

I am not surprised the malpractice attorney concurred, as this is one of the most flagrant malpractices issues I have seen with a lawyer in a long time. Asking for an extension, drafting a complaint, telling the client they would represent them and telling the court that they needed time to prepare the complaint and not that they had to see if they had a complaint are all strong pieces of evidence that he was leading her to believe he was representing her.

This is good news, because if she does not get the complaint filed in time or loss because of not being able to get an attorney to pick up the DCF case and losing the case because of that reason. She still does have to pursue the DCF case as she has a duty to mitigate her damages in the malpractice case.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

oh i know!

i just smdh.(shake my darn/damn head)at this sir.


oh! forgetting to say;


Attorney Tim also had mention;


just be sure she,paul"definitely attach" why Res Judicata should not apply.

he"Agree"the fact 1"substantiated abuse finding" excessive"corporal"for a 1 time incident,leaving "NO SERIOUS BRUISING/BRUISES"and surely no broken skin, should have not resulted in,"As appeal cite"barring mom

from her own child"for so many years.


he said,res judicata will not apply here,"should not"premise on the fact:


1.)BOB attorney at least did write, paul"this arguement should fail on a state action;(opposition for mtd. motion to dismiss)mom was cleared 1x

in 2010 again during 2011 "in writing from executive order"clearing her

name,"as all other "serious"allegations were marked as UNFOUNDED.

hence,"whenever a wrong is"overturn" paul he adage,this allow the person "Falsely accused"etc. and or jailed,or just even substantiated

in a family court civil part matter,allow such party to sue,for such injuries

resulting from the


2.)failure to TIMELY investigate,as the appeal order this multiple times

and as a result paul as "that failure to investigate"way back 6 yrs ago the

child suffere,repeat horror, in foster care.,and mom lost famial association time,with her child guaranteed as seen in so many case law

he say.



Paul,do you agree about that?


he say attach the finding that say OVERTURN by the "state"office of the attorney general,and where appeal(five yrs.prior said INVESTIGATE)


he really think it will show,the judge,ok..."This is a new claim"because this was not PART of the old claim,and also 3 new worker(s)and 2 foster parents are being sued who are all again NEW paul.


he did add,but her daughter claim(s)no matter what,are going to be a settlement,no way they are taking this poor rape victim,of extreme abuse

through a trial,the state of NJ has multiple lost claim(s)and has settled

em all,1 pro-se and multiple with lawyers,all similar to what has happen here.


caseworker "to hide"he say evidence,and report,Judge child is well and

in school,living with the other parent,yet"all knew"at the time of going to court,child was in the hospital,or suicide attempt?and had been"lost"in the same system that SUPPOSE to protect her! he really said he feel as u paul,"her claims are cemented"but that to just attach for mom/child both

"enough sufficient evidence,to "BOB"well written statement of claims; cause of action,per count,and be sure to "not put everything in"but enough to support i.e. "dr. report adaging horrific word of gang rape and another sex abuse assault in "van"and beating by foster parent,along with Report of"zoloft"given to a once happy child,which cause her to want to kill self under state supervision.





I agree that the information about the res judicata should be attached and also that the case should focus on the fact that the charges against her were unfounded.

It sounds like Bob actually knew this at one point too, but for some reason he got lazy and decided to back out of the case improperly.

I also agree that she has a case over the trauma caused for their failure to investigate and leading to more harm to the child and her loss of time with the child.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

i was not here for few days.

and morning paul!

i was just helping her,and others with such pro-se self file consulting and draft proofread assignment,and case law,research etc. and my classes.

hi sir.


and thank you. we got it.


oh! and one thing b4,i ACCEPT answer;

when she is to file her Amend-Complaint due may 4th two things:


1. since it fall on a weekend the 4th-5th,the court will allow it to naturally b

file "the following biz day"i think this is fine, correct?so that is on monday

and also:


2.She should serve the main office of dccp,dyfs of course she know this.

and also per defts,or main office is fine.


thank you!

check back in soon.


(might have other query later,have not been here several days so busy

helping her and others,we are very appreciative of your help as always!

your the best.clearly astute,and "the legal mal attorney tim"i will keep u as always posted, Tina just VERY happy she is able to file as there is as you agree,and tim "sufficient fact(s)with few good strong exhibit supporting what the state did was beyond gross negligent,so many secrets,and misrepresentation,ya know....


awaiting your answer,before i ACCEPT


bye now.




Thank you for your response. I understand you get busy, we all do.

1) If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then the due date becomes the next business day the court is open. Thus, if it is due on Saturday, it would be due on Monday.

2) She needs to serve the main office, typically the director and also because this is a state agency, she should serve a copy on the State Attorney General's office.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

i thought this was as always accurate i just love to triple-check .and do u really think she has to serve per caseworker,or i don't think it is always warranted,even if some attorneys do,and or pro-se.etc. let me know.



Thank you for your response.

If she is suing the case worker personally as part of the suit, she has to personally serve the case worker as well. If the case worker is not named as a party in the suit she does not have to be served. Anyone named in the suit has to be served and she should have some individuals named in addition to the DCFS agency.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

thank you paul. last question premise on Res Judicata,since mother already sued prior....(Only from her wrongful removal)but was 4 yrs later, judge told her...Statute of Limitations to sue caseworker,ran out naturally,but below is a case whereas; case law support:


1.Can sue,if new facts"that was not able to be known,or was known during such time,and or could've been raise during first"set of fact(s)for 1st suit."



so query is:


1.Tina sue yes years ago sir....but "new facts"against 3 new workers and

1 same worker(hid the fact child suffer all of the above"and hid the fact a man was 'convicted of the crime,NOT until MEDIA advise mom her child was in a hospital for"rape examination,related to a man raping her near group home"and also facts not known are new i.e."missing person"!the

bulletin was NOT issue by NJ State Police,local,county sheriff;police till

years later paul,so these are ALL new facts correct?


see below,from my research i have on such.thank you!


trying to get exact link from attorney(assisted me with research weeks ago on this for another family,but this 1 i feel FIT tina perfectly(i hope!)

ok check it out below!




"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation" (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). The rationale for the doctrine is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim should not be allowed to do so again; allowing relitigation would undermine the interest of the community and the litigants in finality (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Relitigation of claims also inhibits judicial economy (see Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 28 [1978]). The dismissal of a claim on the ground that the statute of limitations has run is a determination on the merits for res judicata purposes (see Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 194 [1981]; Sosa v JP Morgan Chase Bank, 33 AD3d 609, 611 [2006]; Cold Spring Harbor Area Civic Assn. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Huntington, 305 AD2d 444, 445 [2003]). Here, the plaintiffs could have raised, in action No. 1, their current causes of action arising out of the transfer of the premises in 2000. The causes of action arose from the same operative facts and concern the same property. Thus, the dismissal in action No. 1 of the causes of action arising from the 2000 transfer as barred by the statute of limitations, is res judicata as to the plaintiffs' current causes of action arising out of that transfer (see Cold Spring Harbor Area Civic Assn. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Huntington, 305 AD2d at 445). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the first and second causes of action.

However, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the third cause of action, which sought to recover damages for breach of contract based on the agreement. First, when the court granted the motion to dismiss action No. 1, it granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the equitable claim arising from the agreement, which was allegedly entered into in December 2006, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, not on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. The granting of that branch of the motion which was to dismiss that cause of action was not a determination on the merits. Consequently, res judicata does not bar the current cause of action alleging breach of contract based on the agreement (see Plattsburgh Quarries v Palcon Indus., 129 AD2d 844, 845 [1987]; Furia v Furia, 116 AD2d 694, 695 [1986]; cf. Maitland v Trojan Elec. & Mach. Co., 65 NY2d 614, 615 [1985]; Lampert v Ambassador Factors Corp., 266 AD2d 124, 124-125 [1999]). Moreover, in evaluating the sufficiency of pleadings in deciding a motion made under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take the allegations of the complaint as true and provide plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference" (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 94 AD3d 997 [2012]; East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 66 AD3d 122, 125 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 775 [2011]). The plaintiff's ultimate ability to prove those allegations is not relevant (see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d at 19; Knutt v Metro Intl., S.A., 91 AD3d 915, 915-916 [2012]). Here, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract based on the agreement (see Cottone v Selective Surfaces, Inc., 68 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2009]; see generally 2-5 Corbin on Contracts § 5.24; 2-7 Corbin on Contracts § 7.17; cf. Denburg v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 82 NY2d 375 [1993]; Joab Commercial Laundries v Reeder, 159 AD2d 489, 490-491 [1990])

Thank you for your response.

With regards XXXXX XXXXX judicata, if this new issue is one she could not have litigated previously and/or did not even know existed at the time she brought her first action then it is not res judicata. I think as we talked before on this, the new suit she is filing is because of the new information that was hidden and not disclosed and also for the emotional distress not of DCFS taking her child but because of the negligence and mistreatment that occurred AFTER the child was taken, which was not an issue in the first case and was not decided nor could it have been raised in the first case because she is just discovering these hidden undisclosed reports.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

HA! i knew my research hence is again gold( thanks to also your help sir)

we have spoken on.,prior analogous cases.yep.but this one is not the same

and plz see CLEAR comparison below from this student of law thank you paul.(because her ONLY fear as "she told bob"is this,knowingly she has so many GOOD STRONG claims,and bob her former counsel did agree the res judicata,should "not"apply,then i ask tim, the legal mal atty.say it too

now you!

see below what i say FIRST,and then read the ending of this great case law!




Just enough to support genuine issue of a material fact,that can be proven,sufficient facts;hence has been provided,for both parties injured,by the defendants.



now see below more research is:

I.E. Tina _____________,is naming 3 new worker(s) along with "1"of the prior workers in her new claim(s)premise on she was not "cleared of the add'l serious allegations years ago,from "Action 1"and did not know

that, she was going to be,since such the first several years,without her child,they were all used against her,as"truth"but

NOT until see exhibit _____________,the appeal court,ordered "swift investig"into the allegations,and adage,if "not"true mother can no longer be deprive the right to see her child,visitation,parenting time,and or return(through plenary hearing first etc.) Mom was not aware, any of this,until appeal was finalized;and the decision(after cps caseworker ignore the appeal opine for FOUR YEARS! but nevertheless finally through a state executive order,sign by ATTY.GENERAL HERSELF,parent is now cleared,and "premise on NOT enough sufficient evidence"or witnesses"hence are now OVERTURNED; emphasis encompass,written by the deputy attorney general.

"YES STATE MIGHT BRING UP WELL THE"1"Spanking incident is still substantiated,so she was not either way able to have child home!"but yet APPEAL SAID,WRONG!(investigate,it said"with dispatch"because if not properly investigated"swift"it continue to affect the"constitutional RIGHT" of and the parental rights of Tina ____,and her children in foster care IF the "more serious allegations"are false."can NO LONGER"Be DEPRIVE as a act of excessive corporal etc. abuse and or neglect"1"incident that is of non-criminal nature,"is NOT"in any way"enough to keep a child from a parent...APPEAL SAID investigate,the other serious allegations,but state failed to for 5 yrs!!!(IF THEY WERE INVEST.TIMELY naturally a gang rape would have not happen,nor "tied up'beat up in foster care,and push around by a father dad.


importantly PAUL:

Mother also did not realize her child was being "gang-rape"sodomy,and citing more gruesome crimes,to her child in the foster home,and while under"State supervision."hence paul NOW see below, where i also highlight,such part sir.bout"not mention in 1st claim" etc. and this woman case in nyc here,move forward.


Parent,moreover(another claim,also did not know as the state worker(s)were in court 2011,citing child is fine at home with"Dad" and in school,her child was being pumped(stomach area)for dangerous drugs;

in foster care,under state supervision,and had a suicide attempt,homical thoughts,ideation-suicide,and had to be psychiatricaly hospitalize,nor did not know "state lost child"in the same system,that is set up to protect the child!(Judge PAUL even call THIS PART RIGHT HERE,a"human tragedy"worse case he adage since being on the bench in NY family court,and now in NJ family court,yep(i do not see transcript from tina)but i trust he said this,because she told a reporter this recently who himself"verify"by speaking with the law clerk,when report ask judge for

a comment!

TINA,as below,did not "Assert" any OF THE AFORESAID,kinda like she file prematurely paul,prior to the aforesaid,she was not at all clear,of such serious allegations,but she"rush and sue for wrongful removal"and surely did not know a child was brutally sodomize, tied up;in foster care home while "foster father"allow such assault take place,

off and on for several years "

After"the first dismissal of her"wrongful removal claim"

Tina ,never premise on the fact,never had a "full and fair opportunity paul" not at all premise on DUE process violation(s)

naturally etc. and the fact state IGNORE to investigate,to return child and or parenting time,for FIVE elongated years,even after appeal said DO IT, in multiple appeals.

see below!

Additionally, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action, which alleged unjust enrichment. That cause of action was not asserted in action No. 1,

and it pertained to personal property, rather than the premises.


The complaint adequately alleged a cause of action to recover for unjust enrichment (see Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 94 AD3d at 997;East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 66 AD3d at 125; Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 59 AD3d 473, 481 [2009]).







Once again, you are on the money on this one Heather. Yes, we have discussed similar issues on other cases and on this one I believe you can still get around res judicata based on the concealed reports and them not reporting the abuse or denying there was any abuse. Tina could not have brought a cause of action she did not know existed at the time of her previous suit and she is bringing this against the other workers involved in this matter not the same workers for the same violations in the first suit.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

ok we are almost 100% agreeing today however again keep in mind:


1. child (portion of claim is suing"prior workers"sir,and some new"as we know tolling the statute,allow child to sue"at eighteen just about in each state correct?"so she is suing,the child for such"all workers"negligence.


2.but "tina"her mother,is suing from again"being cleared"and yes the overall intentional infliction,of such emotional distress;paul,and the hinder of a child in hospital from so many injuries,all of 2010,and some of 2011.


comment on above:again they just wanted to sue "under one umbrella paul"and as your reading "BOB"former attorney amend-complaint,sir he

himself,"did not discrete" feel a need to seperate mom/child,he said,as he was pleading in a cause of action,about the "never known"etc.res judi

not apply etc.


and lastly:after commenting on 1. and 2.



also last case law review is this paul:

unlike the aforesaid cause of action....

Tina new claim(s)were not known to her at ALL.none paul.not one...

i "Truly paul believe, judge nicely let her AMEND this in april for may 4th 2013,premise on he"Seen"something that is feasibly there

"IF"amend-complaint is properly enumerated.(WHY BOB former attorney himself outline it perfectly!)and he even mention that res judicata,should not apply.

UNLIKE THE case,relating to Res Judicata Paul;

above out of MICHIGAN:

Tina,"had no time to AMEND"her old"wrongful removal"lawsuit file earlier i think mid 00's or 07 premise on the fact she"AGAIN"was never cleared!(the 1 spanking allegation yes,remain affirm,because mom admit to a light spanking) even if state say abuse and or excessive.... THIS was affirm,"however" appeal adage,INVESTIGATE swift so no longer children"shall be DEPRIVE to return home."PERIOD.... that was that... and or at least parenting time till a plenary hearing,can be fully conducted,on "whether or not the state can "After"proper review;investigatory into such add'l "serious"allegations can be either proven or not... IF NO "state"can no longer"deprive"such rights of mother tina.

so again paul.

Read this link below,with good case law on such fact this guy in MICHIGAN, was denied such right to "amend"etc. as court saying how he had"time"during the "1st"claim"file in FED.Ct.etc. to do so,but he did not,and the"Facts"he is "now"presenting,for damages "were"known to him, so see paul TINA fact(s)significantly presented,even here to you were NEVER KNOWN......

she was"cleared" 1 yr and few months ago,and serve state notice of tort claim timely,and child turn 18 same year in 2011.both are now suing,for again this fact.

1) Yes, the child is suing for the negligence against the child

2) Tina is really suing for what she did not know happened that DCF concealed from her and for the emotional distress that it caused when she learned of it. Neither of these could have been part of her first suit if she had no way of knowing it.

Bob's complaint was pretty much on the money about res judicata not applying. The case law you have supports Tina on this issue so you would likely get her beyond any res judicata arguments with that.
Law Educator, Esq. and 11 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

bob really did enumerate much for her.glad she is utilizing ALL of it in her pro-se self file lawsuit against horrid cps caseworker,and she surely is in a good position,even prior to finding me, she is just grateful to then after bob ditching her(legal malpractice) . that she find us,through some 1 on facebook who i,and owner Bella did help,with write-up;edit,etc. proofread service,and legal extensive research,


so she is going to be just fine.and again thank you so much paul. i left another bonus$ for your legal input answers,always are the best.




I believe that Tina will be okay in this matter with what Bob did and with your help she should be just fine and should see some success on this case.