A Webb City lawyer made "false representations" to the court and to his client in a child custody case over a period of several years, according to a malpractice lawsuit filed Thursday in Jasper County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit was filed by Susan Dillard with Attorney Bradley R. Barton and his firm Pennick Barton LLC are listed as defendants. Dillard is represented by Laurence D. Mass, St. Louis and Nicholas C. Lunnen, Springfield.
According to the petition, Dillard and her husband, Webb City doctor Wayland H. Dillard divorced in 2007 with Dr. Dillard receiving custody of three children.
For the next eight years, she was allowed to see her children, but Dr. Dillard cut off her access in 2015.
For the past eight years, Barton has represented Dillard as she attempted to be allowed to visit her children. Even after Dr. Dillard died in 2020, she was kept from the children, with guardianship being held by their stepmother, the petition said.
After Barton filed a motion for modification of the custody agreement to allow access to Dillard, the lawyer for Dr. Dillard and his wife, filed motions to terminate Dillard's parental rights and allow the stepmother to adopt the children.
On November 21, 2018, the court issued an order denying Dillard visitation on an interim basis. pending trial.
After a judge heard evidence on January 14-16, 2019, ordered the parental rights of Susan Dillard to be terminated and allowed the stepmother to adopt one of the children. The adoption of another was denied, bur the stepmother was granted legal guardianship, according to the petition.From the petition:
Barton stated to the Circuit Court that Plaintiff agreed to the guardianship. Plaintiff never agreed to guardianship of {a child} by Father and Stepmother.
Plaintiff continually contested the Guardianship of {the child} On July 15, 2020, the trial court
found in favor of Plaintiff and granted her motion for therapeutic visitation. Attorney Barton was instructed by the Circuit Court to draft and submit an order for therapeutic visitation.
On or about July 29, 2020, Father died from cancer leaving Sherry Dillard the lone guardian of {the child}.
Plaintiff asked Barton what she could do after Father’s death. Barton stated, “Nothing. She [Stepmother] gets guardianship because was co-guardian with [Father].
Plaintiff was never informed by Barton that she could have opposed guardianship after Father’s
death.
Between July 15, 2020 and April 2022, Barton made no filings in the guardianship case on Plaintiff’s behalf.
Barton claimed that he couldn’t come to an agreement with the Guardian ad Litem and opposing counsel as to the substance of the therapeutic visitation order; and that he couldn’t contact the opposing counsel to obtain an order signed approved as to form. Therefore, Barton never filed the order for therapeutic visitation between July 15, 2020 and April 2022.
On April 25, 2022, almost two years from the time the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for therapeutic visitation, Barton filed a proposed order for therapeutic visitation, which could have been filed within a few days of the probate court’s July 15, 2020 order.
The Circuit Court ultimately set aside the order for therapeutic visitation due to the passage of time.
Barton by his own written admission stated, “I should have sought relief from the court much sooner that I did.”
Between 2020 and 2024, Barton repeatedly told Plaintiff and her brothers that the Court has “refused to sign the order” and that Barton has no idea why; that he “just needs to get in front of the judge” to have him sign the order, that “the judge is lazy”; that “the other two attorneys do not agree with you on who was chosen to oversee the visitation and therefore refused to agree to the visitation plan."
Barton repeatedly told Plaintiff that he “placed the visitation plan in the judge’s box for him to sign;' and also told Plaintiff “I am putting in a motion to terminate [stepmother’s] guardianship, they dragged this on long enough, you deserve your daughter, you’ve done nothing wrong."
None of these statements were true.
Plaintiff repeatedly emailed Barton about the July 15, 2020 order, scheduled many phone calls with him to discuss that order, some of which included her brothers who live in the State of Pennsylvania, and also had in person meetings with Barton regarding the same.
Between 2022 and 2024, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain therapeutic visitation were set back by continuances and the like, finally culminating in an evidentiary hearing set for October 25, 2024 on Plaintiff’s motion for therapeutic visitation, over four (4) years from the time the Court originally granted Plaintiff’s motion for therapeutic visitation with
32. In May 2024 Barton told Plaintiff he would file a motion to terminate the Stepmother’s guardianship of {the child} but he never did.
Dillard is asking for damages in excess of $25,000, costs and expenses and is demanding a jury trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment