NATIONAL FAMILY SOLUTIONS RIPPED OFF A SINGLE MOM WITH LOW INCOME BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY WEAKNESS SANTA BARBRA California

This company ripped me off, too.  Nothing they say is true.  If that were the case, why are there so many people complaining about this company.  There are so many misunderstanding consumers....I think not.  The real problem is one company that is misleading consumers.  They focus on people seeking advice in serious situations.  People that are so eager for help and advice.  They steal your money, with promises of helping you and they do not!  There are too many people getting hurt by this company, and it needs to be sued or shut down.

1> Cost $0.00 for child matters in my state
2. I would never suggest frivilious pleadings ( judge agreed I never did)

3) I won where a Lawyer failed !
4) Yes, Lawyers think telling people how to simply get and fill out paperwork is giving legal advice but its not and they are only trying to do is protect the scam they portray.

The majority of work done by lawyers ( child custdy) is instructing paralegals to ciopy ( already filledout) pleadings and file them with the clerk)
Paralegal get &50.00..Lawyer gets $250.00


SOMEBODY BETTER STOP THE CONNECTICUT STATE..
READR THIS

f retaining the services of a lawyer is not possible, the good news is that Connecticut courts have become user friendly for litigants, especially for "pro se parties." A pro se party is a person who represents himself or herself in a court proceeding. For example, at the Milford Superior Court, there is a court service center staffed by a full-time clerk that assists litigants with filling out paperwork for divorce and custody matters. While the court service center does not give legal advice, it does make available to litigants a "do it yourself" booklet for divorce and assists litigants with filling out paperwork for a restraining order. In the New Haven Superior Court, there is an office dedicated to assisting pro se parties with completing the paperwork required for seeking applications for relief from abuse, also known as restraining orders.
One of the best advances in services provided by the Court system is the judicial branch Web site (www.jud.ct.gov). On this Web site, you will find answers to frequently asked questions, fillable forms for most areas, including small claims forms, directions and telephone numbers for the courts and you can use this site to check on the status of your case after it is commenced.
Although the courts have evolved over time to assist pro se litigants, self-representation is still a daunting task. Numerous resources exist to aid individuals with limited resources. If you find yourself in need of an attorney but unable to afford one, contact the Connecticut Bar Association or Statewide Legal Services.



or pay a lawyer $15,000.00 to do do it for you




OH...I WON SOLE CUSTODY OF MY CHILDREN PRO SE IN A CASE A HIGH PAYED ATTORNEY ALREADY LOST !

Anyone in the business of advising another person what legal forms to file, where to file them, and explaining the purpose of the forms, is practicing law. If the person who does these things is not an attorney, then the person is practicing law without a license and could end up in jail.

Consumers who happen to read the comments of Kwtrucks would be well advised to ignore all of his ill-advised comments and advice. From the tone of Kwtrucks' comments, it's obvious that he's more concerned with seeking revenge against his former wife than he is in trying to get along with her for the sake of the children. He is full of anger, overly controlling, full of himself, and has too much time on his hands. He also thinks he knows more than any attorney or judge.

We have all heard the old adage, An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is also true for non-attorneys. Litigants who are not attorneys but think they know more than attorneys and judges are usually placed in the position of having to represent themselves because no attorney will represent them. No attorney wants to represent a client who thinks he knows more about practicing law than the attorney or who brags about suing a former attorney for malpractice.

From the ill-thought-out statements made by Kwtrucks, he obviously has no idea of the possible consequences of his advice. Only a fool would advise anyone who hires an attorney to forbid the attorney from speaking to the judge about the case without the client being present. First of all, no attorney would agree to anything of the sort. Second, it is illegal for judges and attorneys to engage in ex parte communications. Third, no attorney wants to hear a judge's response to an attorney who, when summoned to the judge's chambers for a meeting with both attorneys, declines the invitation by telling the judge that his client won't permit him to meet in chambers without the client.

Kwtrucks also erroneously believes that a pro se litigant doesn't have to pay attorney fees. He obviously has no idea that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, controlling, full of themselves, and have too much time on their hands often end up having to pay all or a portion of the attorney fees for their spouse or former spouse. He also obviously has not clue that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, full of themselves, controlling, and have too much time on their hands are prone to filing frivolous actions that unnecessarily expanding the proceedings for which they can be further sanctioned by having to pay attorney fees and expenses for their spouse or former spouse.

Although anyone has the right to represent themselves in court, Kwtrucks obviously has no clue about the possible consequences of doing so.

Anyone in the business of advising another person what legal forms to file, where to file them, and explaining the purpose of the forms, is practicing law. If the person who does these things is not an attorney, then the person is practicing law without a license and could end up in jail.

Consumers who happen to read the comments of Kwtrucks would be well advised to ignore all of his ill-advised comments and advice. From the tone of Kwtrucks' comments, it's obvious that he's more concerned with seeking revenge against his former wife than he is in trying to get along with her for the sake of the children. He is full of anger, overly controlling, full of himself, and has too much time on his hands. He also thinks he knows more than any attorney or judge.

We have all heard the old adage, An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is also true for non-attorneys. Litigants who are not attorneys but think they know more than attorneys and judges are usually placed in the position of having to represent themselves because no attorney will represent them. No attorney wants to represent a client who thinks he knows more about practicing law than the attorney or who brags about suing a former attorney for malpractice.

From the ill-thought-out statements made by Kwtrucks, he obviously has no idea of the possible consequences of his advice. Only a fool would advise anyone who hires an attorney to forbid the attorney from speaking to the judge about the case without the client being present. First of all, no attorney would agree to anything of the sort. Second, it is illegal for judges and attorneys to engage in ex parte communications. Third, no attorney wants to hear a judge's response to an attorney who, when summoned to the judge's chambers for a meeting with both attorneys, declines the invitation by telling the judge that his client won't permit him to meet in chambers without the client.

Kwtrucks also erroneously believes that a pro se litigant doesn't have to pay attorney fees. He obviously has no idea that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, controlling, full of themselves, and have too much time on their hands often end up having to pay all or a portion of the attorney fees for their spouse or former spouse. He also obviously has not clue that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, full of themselves, controlling, and have too much time on their hands are prone to filing frivolous actions that unnecessarily expanding the proceedings for which they can be further sanctioned by having to pay attorney fees and expenses for their spouse or former spouse.

Although anyone has the right to represent themselves in court, Kwtrucks obviously has no clue about the possible consequences of doing so.

Anyone in the business of advising another person what legal forms to file, where to file them, and explaining the purpose of the forms, is practicing law. If the person who does these things is not an attorney, then the person is practicing law without a license and could end up in jail.

Consumers who happen to read the comments of Kwtrucks would be well advised to ignore all of his ill-advised comments and advice. From the tone of Kwtrucks' comments, it's obvious that he's more concerned with seeking revenge against his former wife than he is in trying to get along with her for the sake of the children. He is full of anger, overly controlling, full of himself, and has too much time on his hands. He also thinks he knows more than any attorney or judge.

We have all heard the old adage, An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is also true for non-attorneys. Litigants who are not attorneys but think they know more than attorneys and judges are usually placed in the position of having to represent themselves because no attorney will represent them. No attorney wants to represent a client who thinks he knows more about practicing law than the attorney or who brags about suing a former attorney for malpractice.

From the ill-thought-out statements made by Kwtrucks, he obviously has no idea of the possible consequences of his advice. Only a fool would advise anyone who hires an attorney to forbid the attorney from speaking to the judge about the case without the client being present. First of all, no attorney would agree to anything of the sort. Second, it is illegal for judges and attorneys to engage in ex parte communications. Third, no attorney wants to hear a judge's response to an attorney who, when summoned to the judge's chambers for a meeting with both attorneys, declines the invitation by telling the judge that his client won't permit him to meet in chambers without the client.

Kwtrucks also erroneously believes that a pro se litigant doesn't have to pay attorney fees. He obviously has no idea that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, controlling, full of themselves, and have too much time on their hands often end up having to pay all or a portion of the attorney fees for their spouse or former spouse. He also obviously has not clue that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, full of themselves, controlling, and have too much time on their hands are prone to filing frivolous actions that unnecessarily expanding the proceedings for which they can be further sanctioned by having to pay attorney fees and expenses for their spouse or former spouse.

Although anyone has the right to represent themselves in court, Kwtrucks obviously has no clue about the possible consequences of doing so.

Anyone in the business of advising another person what legal forms to file, where to file them, and explaining the purpose of the forms, is practicing law. If the person who does these things is not an attorney, then the person is practicing law without a license and could end up in jail.

Consumers who happen to read the comments of Kwtrucks would be well advised to ignore all of his ill-advised comments and advice. From the tone of Kwtrucks' comments, it's obvious that he's more concerned with seeking revenge against his former wife than he is in trying to get along with her for the sake of the children. He is full of anger, overly controlling, full of himself, and has too much time on his hands. He also thinks he knows more than any attorney or judge.

We have all heard the old adage, An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is also true for non-attorneys. Litigants who are not attorneys but think they know more than attorneys and judges are usually placed in the position of having to represent themselves because no attorney will represent them. No attorney wants to represent a client who thinks he knows more about practicing law than the attorney or who brags about suing a former attorney for malpractice.

From the ill-thought-out statements made by Kwtrucks, he obviously has no idea of the possible consequences of his advice. Only a fool would advise anyone who hires an attorney to forbid the attorney from speaking to the judge about the case without the client being present. First of all, no attorney would agree to anything of the sort. Second, it is illegal for judges and attorneys to engage in ex parte communications. Third, no attorney wants to hear a judge's response to an attorney who, when summoned to the judge's chambers for a meeting with both attorneys, declines the invitation by telling the judge that his client won't permit him to meet in chambers without the client.

Kwtrucks also erroneously believes that a pro se litigant doesn't have to pay attorney fees. He obviously has no idea that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, controlling, full of themselves, and have too much time on their hands often end up having to pay all or a portion of the attorney fees for their spouse or former spouse. He also obviously has not clue that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, full of themselves, controlling, and have too much time on their hands are prone to filing frivolous actions that unnecessarily expanding the proceedings for which they can be further sanctioned by having to pay attorney fees and expenses for their spouse or former spouse.

Although anyone has the right to represent themselves in court, Kwtrucks obviously has no clue about the possible consequences of doing so.

Anyone in the business of advising another person what legal forms to file, where to file them, and explaining the purpose of the forms, is practicing law. If the person who does these things is not an attorney, then the person is practicing law without a license and could end up in jail.

Consumers who happen to read the comments of Kwtrucks would be well advised to ignore all of his ill-advised comments and advice. From the tone of Kwtrucks' comments, it's obvious that he's more concerned with seeking revenge against his former wife than he is in trying to get along with her for the sake of the children. He is full of anger, overly controlling, full of himself, and has too much time on his hands. He also thinks he knows more than any attorney or judge.

We have all heard the old adage, An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is also true for non-attorneys. Litigants who are not attorneys but think they know more than attorneys and judges are usually placed in the position of having to represent themselves because no attorney will represent them. No attorney wants to represent a client who thinks he knows more about practicing law than the attorney or who brags about suing a former attorney for malpractice.

From the ill-thought-out statements made by Kwtrucks, he obviously has no idea of the possible consequences of his advice. Only a fool would advise anyone who hires an attorney to forbid the attorney from speaking to the judge about the case without the client being present. First of all, no attorney would agree to anything of the sort. Second, it is illegal for judges and attorneys to engage in ex parte communications. Third, no attorney wants to hear a judge's response to an attorney who, when summoned to the judge's chambers for a meeting with both attorneys, declines the invitation by telling the judge that his client won't permit him to meet in chambers without the client.

Kwtrucks also erroneously believes that a pro se litigant doesn't have to pay attorney fees. He obviously has no idea that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, controlling, full of themselves, and have too much time on their hands often end up having to pay all or a portion of the attorney fees for their spouse or former spouse. He also obviously has not clue that angry pro se litigants who are bent on revenge, full of themselves, controlling, and have too much time on their hands are prone to filing frivolous actions that unnecessarily expanding the proceedings for which they can be further sanctioned by having to pay attorney fees and expenses for their spouse or former spouse.

Although anyone has the right to represent themselves in court, Kwtrucks obviously has no clue about the possible consequences of doing so.

These services show you exactly what forms need to be filed, where to file them, and explain what each form is for.

Once a person has that information, a lawyer is no longer neccessary in the process.
In my state a lawyer will charge you to from $150-$300 to file a motion, just the act of of handing a clerk a singler piece of paper is not worth that..Oh by the way, it costs $0 to file any petition or motion in these custody cases.
So a lawyer, who is already in the court building everyday, sees fit to charge you big $$ to walk up to a counter (no waiting) and hand the clerk a piece of paper. ( the fee does not include the prep of the filing)
I could go on and on how uneccessary an attoney is, since a judge should not hold it against you if you make a minor mistake on some paperwork..
How do I know this...FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE
I used a wrong title ( I either called a motion a petition or visa versa)
The opposing counsel responded by a motion to dismiss due to this error, at first the judge was leaning towards having me restart the whole process again..
THATS WHEN I NICELY CORRECTED HIM.

I TOLD HIM THAT PRO-SE LITIGANTS NEED NOT BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS A LISCENSED LAWYER.

HE SAID THIS WASNT TRUE.....UNTIL I HANDED HIM A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT STATED THAT WORD FOR WORD.....
FUNNY HOW A LAWYER AND JUDGE DIDNT KNOW THIS, BUT A GUY OFF THE STREET DID.

BIG SCAM-PRE-TRIAL HEARING...
This is when the 2 lawyers and judge go back to chambers where nobody else is allowed in and determine the outcome before anything happens...THIS IS A FACT..

MY NON-LEGAL SUGGESTION IF YOU HIRE A LAWYER IS TO PUT IN WRITING HE WILL NEVER SPEAK TO THE JUDGE ABOUT THE CASE WITHOUT YOU BEING PRESENT.

The fun part of representing yourself is that you get to hold depositions and question your ex yourself.
In court you are allowed to speak to the judge while you ex may only have the lawyer speak for them.... this is a big bonus !

How do I know...after 2 years and $14,000.00 seeking custody of my kids...I lost.
I went online, I went to law library and found how simple the forms are to fill out and turn in and get a courtd date.
I tried the case myself...I won sole custody !!!!

I then sued my ex- Lawyer for malpractice because if I can win the case without any law school, it should have been easy for him to win..

OH..I GOT MY MONEY BACK FROM THE LAWYER !
And I can tell you he did nothing different than any other lawyer in the court did... the fill out paperwork and go thru the motions..

IF YOU ARE GOING TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY..FIRST SIT IN THE COURTROOM OF THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE TYPE OF CASE YOU HAVE..AND SEE WHICH LAWYERS HE SEEMS TO BE BUDDIES WITH AND GO WITH HIM !

BUT STUDY THE SYSTEM..ITS RATHER SIMPLE AND EVERY COUNTY HAS SAMPLE FILINGS POSTED ONLINE AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS COPY THEM !


OH..ONE LAST IMPORTANT INFO... THE REASON MOST CUSTODY BATTLES END IS BECAUSE USUALLY THE FATHER HAS SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND HE GETS SCARED OF HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS LOST AND FEARS EXCESSIVE SUPPORT AND THEN HE SETTLES...

WHEN YOU REPRESENT YOURSELF, YOU BRING AS MANY LEGITIMATE FILINGS AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN..AND SPREAD THEM OUT WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER WEEK AND SEE HOW MUCH FUN YOU HAVE MAKING YOUR EX PAY THEIR LAWYER $300.OO EVERYTIME HE HAS TO SHOW UP IN COURT WHILE IT COSTS YOU NOTHING...DRAIN THE MONEY AND YOU WILL BE IN THE DRIVER SEAT !!

I find it ironic that whenever Eric responds to a complaint about National Family Solutions on an internet complaint site, the standard response from Eric, who is employed by the company, is that the client misunderstood their program. I challenge Eric to explain why so many people misunderstand the program.

The answer is because NATIONAL FAMILY SOLUTIONS' INTENTION IS TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC.

National Family Solutions is ripping-off consumers who are looking for a low cost solution to solve their legal problem. National Family Solutions is misleading consumers by claiming to offer low cost solutions to legal problems. ONLY A LICENSED ATTORNEY IS ALLOWED TO OFFER ANY TYPE OF LEGAL SOLUTION FOR ANY PROBLEM. Anyone else who advertises that they offer any type of legal solution is practicing law without a license. And it is illegal in every state in this nation to practice law without a license. But that is exactly what National Family Solutions and anyone affiliated with the company is doing. No one except a licensed attorney has authority to give anyone legal advice, tell anyone how to represent themselves, or even tell anyone where and how to file documents.

If anyone reading this believes that using the services provided by National Family Solutions can save them money, think again. The only thing more expensive than hiring a attorney to represent you in a legal matter is hiring an attorney to fix a problem created by trying to represent yourself.

If an attorney messes up your case, you have recourse through the State Bar Association in the state where you live. When National Family Solutions gives you incorrect advice or otherwise messes up your case, you are out of luck; you cannot get any help from any State Bar. If you want to represent yourself, at least consult with a licensed attorney who has authority to give you advice.

On their web site, National Family Solutions describes the services they offer in vague and confusing terms. I challenge Eric to explain the following statements found on their web site:

National Family Solutions was designed to shorten the length of time that most families incur when determining the outcome of whom gets custody of your children.

Eric - In clear and unambiguous language, I challenge you to explain, in detail, how National Family Solutions can shorten the length of time for a custody determination. Litigants are at the mercy of the Court system; No one, not even a licensed attorney, can affect the speed with which their case is resolved.

Our visitation programs are designed to walk you, the client, step by step through a complex and changing legal system.

Eric - In clear and unambiguous language, I challenge you to explain your visitation program and how it differs from anything else.

Eric - Walking a client through the legal system is considered giving legal advice by all 50 states. In clear and unambiguous language, I challenge you to explain how what you tell a client about how to navigate the legal system is different from giving the same advice that does constitute legal advice.

Eric - Since you are not an attorney, in clear and unambiguous language, I challenge you to explain what constitutes legal advice and to explain what legal services a non attorney is legally allowed to perform.

Eric - I challenge you to proivde the name of the person who told you that the services offered by National Family Solutions do not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

If Eric does not respond to my challenges within a reasonable time, everyone who reads this can assume that National Family Solutions is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, conduct that constitutes a crime in every state.

At National Family Solutions we specialize in helping families go through many different types of family law situations by preparing all of the petitions and motions they need to file with the court and educate them to represent themselves pro-se'.

Heather Schmick's case was no different. The first individual she spoke with was Yuri Goodman, a consultant who has been with the organization for more than a year. Yuri's job is to qualify parents/clients for our program. NFS only enrolls clients in our program that adhere to a number of qualifications. It is also explained to each client in a RECORDED VERIFICATION that the $100.00 enrollment is non-refundable. This is due to the fact we only can sign up a limited amount of people each day.

The $100.00 dollars retains an appointment with a case manager the next day as well as creating a membership account in NFS's nationwide database system. Yuri Goodman explained our program in detail to the potential client, Heather, including the fact that they will have a case manager, who in this case was Mr. Burmaster.

The case manager is the liaison between the client and our nationwide legal staff who are responsible for preparing the documentation for each case. The case manager is also the contact person for the client if they need any questions answered. Most clients find it very valuable to be able to pick up the phone and talk with someone without being billed high hourly rates as they would with a private law firm.

On 5/27/09 Ms. Schmick decided to move forward with the program and paid her $100.00 enrollment/retainer for NFS services. She was then emailed a 34 Page Questionnaire which NFS uses to complete each case and given an appointment on 5/28/09 at 9:30 with Scott Burmaster.

Included with the Questionnaire is a welcome email and user terms and conditions which reiterates all of the aspects of our program that were explained to Heather by Yuri Goodman.

The next day Heather Spoke with Mr. Burmaster for her initial consultation. Again they went over the program in detail and put together a game plan to accomplish the goals of Ms. Schmick. Scott explained again as Yuri did that the case would be anywhere between $800 to $1000 and it would be possible to make payments if necessary.

Per the notes on Ms. Schmick's file, the consultation went well and Heather was informed to fill out the questionnaire as quickly as possible in order for NFS to proceed with her case.

Three Days later on the on the 1st of June, Heather contacted Scott and informed him she had a change of heart and cannot afford our program. She requested a refund at which time Mr. Burmaster informed her again that unfortunately the $100.00 enrollment is non-refundable. The only cases that are refunded are clients who where not properly qualified for our program during the original consultation. Cases we take on accident usually involve a potential client not explaining all aspects of their case. For example, Child Protective Services is involved, they already have an attorney, or they have already filed with the courts.

It was also explained that if anytime down the road she wished to comeback for help that her $100.00 enrollment was STILL VALID and we could reactivate her into the program at no additional cost. 6/1/09 was the last contact NFS had with Heather until the notice of the Rip-Off Report.

Let us be clear, AT NO TIME has Mr. Burmaster told ANYONE that he is an attorney. Our attorney's are contracted to work for the company through our legal staff retention system. Mr. Burmaster is a CASE MANAGER (not a member of our legal staff), which is to say he is there to walk clients through the system of representing themselves in court in order to save thousands of dollars over the cost of an attorney.

It is the belief of National Family Solutions that we represent ourselves with the utmost integrity and good business ethics. If you would like to find out how we work in more detail please contact us at 888-290-7002 or visit us at www.nationalfamilysolutions.com