We don't have positive proof yet, either way.
Obviously this is a case of an Attorney placing her own desires over the desires of her client.
Again, you are making a conclusion based on an assumption that is clearly questionable.
For instance, the exact same evidence exists in a case of an unwilling witness, and an intimidated witness.
Oh but we do. All the young lady had to say was that she didn't want to go back to the FLDS and she wouldn't have been returned. That is positive proof that the lawyer is working against her wishes when she filed an order against returning the young lady.
For instance, the exact same evidence exists in a case of an unwilling witness, and an intimidated witness.
You are confusing a defense Attorney with a Prosecutor. To a defense attorney it makes absolutely no difference at all. I can see why you are confused though, the ladies Attorney isn't acting like a defense Attorney, she is acting exactly like a Prosecuting Attorney.