About my Family Law practice at Crosta Law Office, PLLC
I became a lawyer out of a commitment to help people deal with the most difficult experiences of their lives through the application of law. For a significant number of my clients over the last 40 years, this has meant using my knowledge of the law and courtroom procedures to see them through the emotional turmoil of a broken marriage, or long-term committed relationship.
By their very nature, Family law cases almost invariably involve significantly more time in court than personal injury cases. Practicing family law not only provides a valuable service to clients, but also helps to keep my courtroom skills sharp as a high percentage of family law cases involve at least a preliminary motion and frequently lead to trials and appeals.
Over the past 40 years, I have obtained significant experience in a wide variety of family law cases including:
- Parenting Plan (custody and visitation) litigation
- Divorce, with complicated asset divisions
- Child support modifications
- Parenting Plan modifications
- Motions practice
Approximately 15 years after I appeared before the Washington State Supreme Court on behalf of Andre Stute (Stute v. PBMC, Inc., discussed elsewhere), I found myself once again appearing before Washington State’s highest tribunal, this time in a family law case.
The case went to trial in Snohomish County Superior Court and the Judge ruled that the three minor children of the parties would reside primarily with my client. After the trial was concluded, the other party, who had represented herself in court, became aligned with a well-organized and well-funded national movement that seeks to establish a precedent that tax payers must bear the expense of appointed counsel for civil litigants who are not able to pay for private legal counsel. The movement is often referred to as “Civil Gideon” taking the name of the landmark US Supreme Court case that established the right to court-appointed counsel in criminal cases. In King vs. King, the Washington Supreme Court held that there is no right to taxpayer funded representation in civil cases and upheld the trial court’s ruling in my client’s favor.
In another memorable case, I represented a divorced woman whose ex-husband had become very wealthy in the technology industry. He used his significant financial advantage to bring a case to court in which he sought to take custody of the parties’ two minor children away from my client. The ex-husband managed to have a high-priced psychologist appointed as a parenting evaluator and, after the ex-husband paid $45,000 to this ‘expert’, testimony was given in court that, in the expert’s opinion, the father should be awarded full custody. After two weeks in trial, the judge made a finding that the father’s expert was not credible and denied his petition for custody. The court went on to award my client $65,000 in legal costs.
Through the years, I have frequently heard form clients, sometimes long after their case had been concluded, reflecting on what it meant to them to have caring and competent legal representation during their family law case. One example:
I have known Brad Crosta since 2011 when I hired him to represent me during my divorce case (which included a minor child), and then again in 2016 for modification of the parenting plan, after my ex moved to another state. Brad was extremely thorough and handles my cases with confidence and an abundance of knowledge. Brad is extremely ethically and both values and stands for what is right. Both of my outcomes were heavily in my favor and I cannot thank Brad Crosta enough for the amazing work he did for me. I highly recommend Brad for anyone who is looking for an excellent and competent attorney who will fight for you to the end! Natalya, 2018