Divorce and Child Custody Movie Review - Dark Water 2005

Today I review Dark Water from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.

Dark Water [2005] - Director Walter Salles brings to the screen this Kaidan [Japanese Horror] genre film by writer Koji Suzuki. The Kaidan is my favourite genre of film as this Japanese style involves the supernatural aspects of ghost or poltergeist centered around a revenge plot. The remake of Ju On, The Grudge -- starring Sarah Michelle Gellar -- a year earlier thankfully opened the doors for US audiences to this style of film. This ghost story has the added subplot interest for me of a child custody battle.

This movie opens with both parents meeting with mediators and discussing the attempt by each to locate new residences. Father suggest living within close proximity to each other to facilitate a Shared Parenting arrangement. Mother immediately accuses father of never having been interested in daughter prior to separation. The tone is set for the relationship between the parents and that this is clearly going to be a child custody battle movie. Unlike Kramer v Kramer however the child custody battle is actually a subplot to the dominant feature of the film which is a ghost story.

For me this is absolutely ideal as I have a keen interest in the manner in which child custody matters are portrayed and I also enjoy entertaining the fantasy of that a supernatural where people return from the dead actually exists.

The mother and daughter are shown shopping for an apartment which introduces the sales manager, John C Reilly. The building is in shambles but Reilly assures that some planned cosmetic changes will liven the place. The daughter is at first reluctant but quickly, if somewhat mysteriously, embraces the building.

The viewer is then taken back to mediation where the father promises a legal battle because the mother has moved so far away making parenting time exchanges difficult. The film continues to develop the characters and the eccentricities of the daughter which eventually become of concern to her school teacher and others. Meanwhile there is a continuing problem of a water leak in the apartment and flooding of the upstairs apartment which is furnished but unoccupied by the tenants.

The mother consults with an attorney and then heads off to see her daughter at school. The daughter makes mention of her father not liking the school. The mother is then shown meeting with the teacher who states that the father came by to leave his emergency contact information and then, reading the mother's facial expressions, asks if there was a protective order or something baring the father from coming to the school. This provides a very real portrayal of the dynamics between embattled parents and the third-parties that are ensnared in the situation.

At the conclusion of a weekend parenting time the father mentions a scheduling conflict the following weekend and the mother readily agrees to his proposed change. The custody conflict remains at the forefront but is underplayed giving more opportunity for the ghost story and the mysterious dark water to unfold. Eventually the source of the dark water is revealed in a climactic situation that compels the mother and daughter to relocate.

The film concludes with an amicable relationship between the parents being established and the needs of their daughter becoming prominent. It's a warm conclusion more apt for fairy tales than reality but hopefully something that may be a trigger for parents embattled in a child custody case.

If there is a movie that you would like reviewed please send a request to me. The complete list of movies I have reviewed may be viewed here.

If you need assistance with parenting time, custody or support issues please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Who is God?

If you had faith that fire wouldn't burn your skin what would be the number of skin grafts, pain pills or infections needed to convince you that your faith was misplaced?

As an intellectual I have always been resolute in my conviction that man cannot know God. Thus I hold the position of an agnostic. This is not to say that arguments about theism cannot be made. Today I will support my observational-based opinion that God is a malevolent deity.

William of Occam is the philosopher responsible for giving us "Occam's Razor" which provides that given two competing theories that equally explain the data that one should choose the one that posits the least number of entities. Occam's Razor debunks alien abduction. One theory to explain the feeling of being motionless but having auditory awareness is that a complex machine carrying extra-terrestrial creates has traversed space and come to your house for the purpose of retrieving you and conducting experiments on your body. The other is sleep-paralysis.

Now for an examination of God. The Bible, text of the Christian branch of the Judaic cult, tells us that there is one omnipotent, all-loving deity. The other Judaic cults as well as many others tell us of a benevolent God. But how can this be true if there is so much hardship, evil and "sin" in the world? The explanation is that there is a parallel entity called the devil who also seeks to influence our behaviour.

This seems to be a contradiction in a world created by a perfect, all loving God. If God is benevolent and he created the world then why did he also create evil? If you listen to the explanations propounded by the cultists dogma it has to do with tempting our free will. This is a very complex system that includes myths, fear of damnation, a purported luxurious afterlife, condemnation by society and a promise that the discord in your life, which may have brought you to seek the absurdity of institutional religion, is part of a grand scheme for your eventual betterment. There is an alternative explanation though.

Actually, there are two much more plausible explanations. The first, that we are simply evolved beings as Darwin and his predecessor, Diderot, have postulated. We are here by chance and have developed a survival mechanism whereby desirable traits are passed along and those that don't conform to advancement of the species are weeded out. Lack of a fear of heights is a trait that gets weeded out. Those ancestors of ours who were out wandering along the terraces of the cliff side which contained their dwelling, but who had no fear of heights, likely fell to their deaths.

But some believers challenge the evolutionary theory not by trying to disprove the theory but instead asking 'how was the universe brought into existence?' Their answer is, of course, their supreme being as espoused by their particular cult. Occam accounted for this by positing that God may have created all singularities but that once done there was no divine intervention. It's a reconciliation of the two view points; that God created the universe and man in his image, and that man evolved from from a chance configuration of the individual elements. God created the elements -- all matter in the universe -- then those elements started combing and through the near infinite probabilities over billions of years in trillions of galaxies eventually created man as we know ourselves to be here on Earth. But, today, I'd rather focus on the alternate supernatural explanation.

If you were given the whole Biblical story as an adult in full possession of all your mental faculties there is very little chance you would accept it. Adults are generally indoctrinated during times of distress -- death of a loved one, divorce, bankruptcy, major illness/mental condition or some other tragedy -- when they are in need of support and their logical resistance is subdued. The number of perfectly well-adjusted adults who take up religion as a new philosophy is exceedingly small. Likewise someone who was abused as a child with this indoctrination is unlikely to shed a belief in a supernatural being responsible for all of existence. So that is the basis on which I want to posit my theory today.

I have long said that if God exists then he is a malevolent being who answers the prayers of the priests of the pedophilia organization known as the Catholic Church but not the young children who suffer the sexual abuse condoned and covered up by that cult. I think of the possibility of the existence of a God much the way that Occam did -- the creator of existence. Epicurus had long prior argued effectively against the idea of an anthropomorphic god who was cognizant of human affairs.

Epicurus asks, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing?. Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then how can there be evil?" Descarte would later expand on this precept which I came to know before having ever read any of the works of Descarte.

The adherents of the various cults hold to a set of beliefs that there is an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful deity. For my examination I will start with the premise that there is an all-powerful deity. We are aware of this deity through our perception. Whether it be through personal reflection or actual conversation with God through prayer or meditation this interaction is subject to the construct of our minds. The same mind that gives us hallucinations, confusion between dreams and what we perceive as reality, or water on a roadway in the dry desert.

Since evil exists there must be a rational explanation to the questions that Epicurus asks. I have always been a big fan of the Twilight Zone television series which I got to watch in syndication as a young child. In Episode 22, The Monsters are Due on Maple Street, alien beings manipulate the environment in a neighborhood. Electricity in houses go on or off, cars will or won't run and residents try to figure out who or what is behind these events. Eventually suspicion turns to each other and before the evening is over one anxious resident has shot another. The beings are then revealed and convey that the results are the same in every neighborhood in which the try this. These beings toyed with their human subjects for their amusements and a social experiment.

So what if God is the same? Before exploring that think of the Indian riddle -- The Blackfooted Indian always tells the truth. The Whitefooted Indian always lies. An Indian with moccasins on approaches you and claims to be an honest Blackfoot. Which is he?

Could it be that God is a malevolent Whitefoot and not the all-loving Blackfoot? Think of God as the all-knowing, all-powerful deity that created your mind and the manner in which it perceives. This malevolent deity tells you that he is an all-loving God which you perceive as true. That he is going to give you eternal life in bliss but you have to follow some rules that he has established for you and delivered to men that he has chosen to receive his message and then deliver to you. He has also told you that there is another force similar to him, but that this force is evil. This force will tempt you and try to turn you against the all-loving God. If you sacrifice your own desires, your ambitions and ultimately your happiness now and worship this all-loving God then you will reap the great rewards that he will bestow upon you later. Finally, that you should not apply logic to the existence of God because that will offend him. You believe all this and have faith in your convictions based upon your perception and likely indoctrination while you were an impressionable child who followed authority and hadn't developed the mental faculties to adequately challenge the absurdity of the stories you were told.

What if there was only one deity? That this one all-knowing, all-powerful deity is a malevolent force who sits aloof projecting thoughts of himself as being an all-loving god and then tosses mayhem, disaster and excruciating pains your way and blames it on an alternate malevolent force.

It is a question that cannot be answered. As Occam postulated though, the answer to two alternate theories should be the one which posits the minimum number of entities. The existence of one malevolent god would easily explain the great paradoxes and contradictions of the organized cults while accounting for the default response that "God works in mysterious ways."

If you would like to explore more philosophical thoughts and pursue a path towards attaining truth then you may wish to visit or become a member of the Center for Inquiry.

If you would like assistance in unlocking the power within you and discarding the scripts that have kept you from achieving happiness and success then then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

2012 Amendments to Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Phased in Parenting Time

After a two year process the proposed revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] have now been posted on the Indiana Judiciary web-page. The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center [DRC] -- the body responsible for writing the IPTG -- will be accepting public comment on the proposed revisions until Monday, 26 March 2012 .

For the past two years I have been attending the DRC meetings and presenting proposals or providing feedback as requested. I will be analyzing each of the amended sections individually and providing commentary on the changes. Today I continue with my seventh posting - Phased in Parenting Time

Here is the unaltered introduction to Phased in Parenting Time

"The first few years of a child's life are recognized as being critical to that child's ultimate development. Infants (under eighteen months) and toddlers (eighteen months to three years) have a great need for continuous contact with the primary care giver who provides a sense of security, nurturing and predictability. It is thought best if scheduled parenting time in infancy be minimally disruptive to the infant's schedule."

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- commentary

Overnight contact between parents and very young children can provide opportunities for them to grow as a family. At the same time, when very young children experience sudden changes in their night time care routines, especially when these changes include separation from the usual caretaker, they can become frightened and unhappy. Under these circumstances, they may find it difficult to relax and thrive, even when offered excellent care.

When a very young child is accustomed to receiving regular, hands-on care from both parents, the child should continue to receive this care when the parents separate. Regardless of custodial status, a parent who has regularly cared for the child prior to separation should be allowed to exercise overnight parenting time. When a parent has not provided regular hands-on care for the child prior to separation, overnight parenting time may be phased in as provided below, until the parent and the child have developed a predictable and comfortable daytime care taking routine. “Regular care” for the child may also include a parent who is employed outside of the home, provides income for the household and has otherwise bonded with the child.

The commentary provides some subtle yet distinct and important changes. The existing rule provides that a parent who has regularly cared for the child prior to separation should be "encouraged" to exercise overnight parenting time. That parent shall now be "allowed" overnights instead of being encouraged. This is essentially a burden shift that no longer requires a court to take an affirmative step to foster overnights and instead would shift the burden to finding cause that the parent shall not have overnights.

The second change was to allow the court to take the affirmative step of phasing in overnights when a parent has not exercised regular care responsibilities. This removes the quasi-prohibition that overnight parenting time "is not recommended". The presumptive shift as proposed will favour giving infants a greater bonding opportunity with both parents.

The final proposed change is an expansion on the definition of "regular care". Courts and practitioners in my observations have held to a strict interpretation of the term which required the NCP to have actually performed the tasks of care such as feeding, nurturing, changing diapers and supervision. No such burden was placed on custodial parents, however, who could employ others to perform such tasks and still be presumed the fit parent for all overnights. This expanded definition removes the implicit requirement of having to had performed all care activities.

I am not satisfied with the revisions to this section although some of the changes I felt were important were included I did want to see an increase in the minimum parenting time for the NCP which is consistent with the current empirical data which suggests that infants benefit from an increase in that minimum time. I will posit that recommendation again.

The next section will cover Regular Parenting Time.

If you need assistance with a child custody matter please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

2012 Amendments to Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Specific Parenting Time Provisions

After a two year process the proposed revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] have now been posted on the Indiana Judiciary web-page. The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center [DRC] -- the body responsible for writing the IPTG -- will be accepting public comment on the proposed revisions until Monday, 26 March 2012 .

For the past two years I have been attending the DRC meetings and presenting proposals or providing feedback as requested. I will be analyzing each of the amended sections individually and providing commentary on the changes. Today I continue with my sixth posting - Specific Parenting Time Provisions

The introduction includes an addition to emphasize the importance of the parents agreeing to a plan for the children that best suits them. Judges have repeatedly told me that they do not like having the burden of making these decisions placed on them when parents cannot agree. I have sought to have the parental designations changed to parents who share rights and responsibilities to try to eliminate any power structure associated with the current custodial designations. The DRC has included specific language cautioning parents that the titles used are not to be construed as to diminish or elevate a parent's status.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Introduction

"The best parenting plan is one created by parents which fulfills the unique needs of the child and the parents. Parents should attempt to create their own parenting plan which is in the best interests of the child. If an agreement is reached, the parenting plan shall be reduced to writing, signed by both parties, and filed for approval by the court in order to be enforceable. When the parties cannot reach an agreement on a parenting plan, the specific provisions which follow are designed to assist parents and the court in the development of a parenting plan. They represent the minimum recommended time a parent should have to maintain frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact with a child.

For identification purposes, the following provisions set forth parenting time for the noncustodial parent and assume the other parent has sole custody or primary physical custody in a joint legal custody situation. These identifiers are not meant to diminish or raise either person’s status as a parent."

Much concern was shown by the members that the provisions concerning overnight parenting time seemed arbitrary and that a parent who could provided regular care should not then be presumed unable to do so for a specific time period simply because of a divorce or separation. They also acknowledged the importance of frequent and regular contact for infants and toddlers to have with both parents and that the sooner this can happen the better it is for the child. The Committee has proposed a Phase-In plan to help accelerate greater parenting time for the child with the NCP.

Here are the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portions: Overnight parenting time and Phase In.

"Unless it can be demonstrated that the non-custodial parent has not had regular care responsibilities for the child, parenting time shall include overnights as provided in Regular Parenting Time, II. E. below. If the non-custodial parent has not previously exercised regular care responsibilities for the child, then overnights should be phased in." [This appears as a new section in the draft revisions but that is only because it has been moved]

"Phase In: If the non-custodial parent who did not initially have regular care responsibilities has consistently and regularly exercised the scheduled parenting time under these guidelines for at least nine (9) continuous months, regular overnight parenting time may take place as provided in Section II. E. below."

The commentary has been expanded to include very specific direction as to progressively getting the child to the point of significant and meaningful parenting time with the NCP.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- commentary

"1. Assumptions. The provisions identify parenting time for the non-custodial parent. The provisions assume both parents are fit and proper, both parents have adequately bonded with the child, and both parents are willing to parent the child. They further assume the parents are respectful of each other and will cooperate with each other to promote the best interests of the child. Finally, the provisions assume each parent is responsible for the nurturing and care of the child. Parenting time is both a right and a trust and parents are expected to assume full responsibility for the child during their individual parenting time. When these assumptions do not apply, the judge should craft an order which fits the best interests of the child.

2. Lack of Contact. Where there is a significant lack of contact between a parent and a child, there may be no bond, or emotional connection, between the parent and the child. It is recommended that scheduled parenting time be “phased in” to permit the parent and child to adjust to their situation. It may be necessary for an expert to evaluate the current relationship (or lack thereof) between the parent and the child and recommend a schedule. It may be necessary for an evaluation of the current relationship (or lack thereof) between the parent and the child in order to recommend a parenting time plan. A guardian ad litem, a mental health professional, a representative from a domestic relations counseling bureau or any other neutral evaluator may be used for this task.

Completion of each stage of the phased in parenting time is not required. It is not the intent of this section to require a non-custodial parent to progress through each stage of the child’s life as set out in this phased in parenting time, from infancy through age 5. For example, if the non-custodial parent begins the phased in parenting time when the child is 3 months of age, and later can demonstrate the ability to perform regular care responsibilities, the non-custodial parent’s parenting time need not be restricted by the remaining stages. The test should not simply be the child’s age, but should include consideration of the non-custodial parent’s participation as a caregiver and the best interests of the child. A non-custodial parent who provides regular care responsibilities may be able to skip one or more of the stages and enjoy unrestricted regular overnight parenting time. "

The next section will cover Phased in Parenting Time.

If you need assistance with a child custody matter please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

2012 Amendments to Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Scope of Application

After a two year process the proposed revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] have now been posted on the Indiana Judiciary web-page. The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center [DRC] -- the body responsible for writing the IPTG -- will be accepting public comment on the proposed revisions until Monday, 26 March 2012 .

For the past two years I have been attending the DRC meetings and presenting proposals or providing feedback as requested. I will be analyzing each of the amended sections individually and providing commentary. Today I continue with my fifth posting by backing up a bit to Scope of Application.

It must initially be understood that the IPTG are guidelines which are given the force of law when adopted by the court. There are situations in which the Guidelines are not applicable and will not be adopted by the court.

Here is the Scope of Application section in the Guidelines as currently written

"These Guidelines are applicable to all child custody situations, including paternity cases and cases involving joint legal custody where one person has primary physical custody. However, they are not applicable to situations involving family violence, substance abuse, risk of flight with a child, or any other circumstances the court reasonably believes endanger the child's physical health or safety, or significantly impair the child's emotional development." [emphasis added]

The proposed revisions in bold type clarify this point more succinctly --

In such cases one or both parents may have legal, psychological, substance abuse or emotional problems that may need to be addressed before these Guidelines can be employed. The type of help that is needed in such cases is beyond the scope of these Guidelines.

A new portion was added specifically related to the issue of high conflict parents. This is the area in which I specialize and was able to present my findings and anecdotes. It is encouraging to see that the DRC has included language particularly explaining that it is not lack of specific parenting skills but the nature of the continuing relationship between the parents that makes high conflict parenting difficult. Hopefully the inclusion of the following language will get some parents to understand that their ongoing battle is damaging to the children.

Here is the proposed addition in bold type --

The volatile relationship between high conflict parents adversely affects the children even though the parents are individually fit and able to nurture the children safely. “High conflict parents” mean parties who demonstrate a pattern of ongoing litigation, chronic anger and distrust, inability to communicate about and cooperate in the care of the child, or other behaviors placing the child’s well-being at risk. In such cases the court should deviate from these parenting time guidelines under Sections I, II, and III, to reduce the adverse effects on the child. The contact between high conflict parents should be minimized or eliminated, at least until the parental conflict is under control. Guideline V. discusses parallel parenting, which is one approach to reducing the conflict. A model parallel parenting plan order is provided in Appendix B.

There was extensive discussion about application of the amendments to the current parenting time orders. The DRC ultimately decided that it would intrude upon the current agreements made by parents that reference the IPTG. It was decided that the best route would be for a party seeking to include these revisions to try to obtain the consent of the other parties and absent that then to get the court to adopt the current guidelines.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Amendments

"Amendments to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines do not alone constitute good cause for amendment of an existing parenting time order;
however, a court or parties to a proceeding may refer to these guidelines in making changes to a parenting time order after the effective date of the guidelines."

The following commentary was added to ensure clarity that these amendments do not affect the current parenting time plans or orders.

Existing parenting time orders on the date of adoption of these amendments shall be interpreted according to the parenting time guidelines that were in effect on the date the parenting time order was issued.

The next section will cover specific parenting time provisions

If you need assistance with a child custody matter please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Amendments to Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Exchange of Information

After a two year process the proposed revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] have now been posted on the Indiana Judiciary web-page. The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center [DRC] -- the body responsible for writing the IPTG -- will be accepting public comment on the proposed revisions until Monday, 26 March 2012 .

For the past two years I have been attending the DRC meetings and presenting proposals or providing feedback as requested. I will be analyzing each of the amended sections individually and providing commentary. Today I continue with my fourth posting - Exchange of Information.

Previously the responsibility for obtaining and sharing information from service providers such as schools and medical professionals was the responsibility of the custodial parent. The basis for this rule had been that it was presumed that the custodial parent, the legal decision maker, was the party that had easiest access to the information since he or she was the primary contact with the service providers.

Some parents shirked this responsibility or intentionally tried to keep the NCP from having access to records or information as a way to inhibit that parent's involvement with the child. Those cases have necessarily required the coercive involvement of the courts. At other times I have had parents who wanted to use this rule to rack-up additional points for a contempt petition. It was not based upon being shut out or missing anything as they had already obtained the information on their own. I have sternly rebuked these contentions and refused to engage in such shenanigans.

Technological advances and law have made much of this requirement superfluous. Email notices, data sent to PDAs or the availability of web-based information place virtually no additional burden upon the service providers other than to enter a contact point or establish a password. Specific laws, which are noted later in this post, provide both parents with rights of access to records related to their children.

There is, however, a much more important reason for this rule modification. The DRC is very cognizant of the proposition that children thrive and do best following divorce or separation when they have two actively involved parents. This rule change is intended to reduce the burden on parents of providing copies of records and conflicts that may arise but also to get both parents known to and actively involved with the providers of services for the children.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Introduction

"Parents should obtain and share information about their children. Parents should take the initiative to obtain information about their child from the various providers of services. Each parent is responsible to establish a relationship with the child’s school, health care provider and other service provider. A child may suffer inconvenience, embarrassment, and physical or emotional harm when parents fail to actively obtain and share information."

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: School Records.

"Under Indiana law, both parents are entitled to direct access to their child's school records, Indiana Code § 20-33-7-2. Each parent should obtain school information on their own without depending on the other parent. A parent shall not interfere with the right of the other parent to communicate directly with school personnel concerning a child. The noncustodial parent shall be listed as an emergency contact unless there are special circumstances concerning child endangerment."

The commentary, citing the IC, has been adapted into the rule. One would think that an institution that is charged with the responsibility of training children to be a resource for corporate production would be run by overpaid administrators who are not functionally illiterate. Such is not the case though. I have often been sought to assist parents in obtaining school records and have had to read the law to the administrators to facilitate compliance. The parent having sent it to them was not enough so do not be surprised if it becomes necessary to read it for them.

Another point of discussion was listing the NCP as an emergency contact. I have been involved in cases where it became necessary to obtain a court order to compel the custodial parent to list the NCP as an emergency contact and I relayed these anecdotes to the DRC. Again, the idea is to have both parents involved with the service providers. Ensuring that both parents have an opportunity to participate in school activities is another way of accomplishing this goal.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: School Activities.

"Each parent shall promptly notify the other parent of all information about school activities, which is not accessible to the other parent. A parent shall not interfere with the right of the other parent to communicate directly with school personnel concerning a child's school activities. The parent exercising parenting time shall be responsible to transport the child to school related activities."

Commentary
Each parent with knowledge of the child’s event should promptly inform the other parent of the date, time, place and event. The opportunity for a child to attend a school function should not be denied solely because a parent is not able to attend the function. The child should be permitted to attend the function with the available parent. Scheduled parenting time should not be used as an excuse to deny the child's participation in school related activities, including practices and rehearsals.

In keeping with the spirit of only requiring the exchange of information necessary to accomplish the goal of parental participation and the involvement of both parents the rule was modified to only require furnishing information to the parent when it was not otherwise available. The commentary to this rule provides that it is applicable to both parents without regard to custodial status. All of this applies to other activities also.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Other Activities.

"Each parent shall promptly notify the other parent of all organized events in a child's life which permit parental and family participation. A parent shall not interfere with the opportunity of the other parent to volunteer for or participate in a child's activities."

Commentary
Each parent should have the opportunity to participate in other activities involving the child even when that activity does not occur during his or her parenting time. This includes activities such as church functions, athletic events, scouting and the like. It is important to understand that a child is more likely to enjoy these experiences when support by both parents.

I have added "when" above. The commentary to this section goes straight to the point of what I have been saying about the DRC trying to encourage the involvement of both parents. This is not so much new commentary as it is a rewording of the existing language.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Health Information.

"Under Indiana law, both parents are entitled to direct access to their child's medical records, Indiana Code § 16-39-1-7; and mental health records, Indiana Code § 16-39-2-9.
a. If a child is undergoing evaluation or treatment, the custodial parent shall communicate that fact to the non-custodial parent.
b. Each parent shall immediately notify the other of any medical emergencies or illness of the child that requires medical attention.
c. If a child is taking prescription medication or under a health care directive, the custodial parent shall provide the noncustodial parent with a sufficient amount of medication and instructions whenever the noncustodial parent is exercising parenting time. Medical instructions from a health care provider shall be followed.
d. If necessary, the custodial parent shall give written authorization to the child's health care providers, permitting an ongoing release of all information regarding the child to the non-custodial parent including the right of the provider to discuss the child's situation with the non-custodial parent."

Commentary
Each parent has the responsibility to become informed and participate in ongoing therapies and treatments prescribed for a child and to ensure that medications are administered as prescribed. An evaluation or treatment for a child includes medical, dental, educational, and mental health services.

Again, the citing of the IC has been moved from the commentary to the rule. Just like with school records one would hope that a medical care provider would be literate enough to read and understand the law. But such is not always the case. I once had to write a suit against a medical service provider who refused to allow the NCP access to the child's records.

This was after a lengthy email exchange in which the provider was furnished a copy of the law and rulings by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The mother, however, was an alienator who had engaged in every act of parental alienation and solicited others in her attempt to remove the father from the lives of the children. Once sued and after racking up almost $1000 in legal fees between two attorneys the provider furnished the records and became very cooperative.

The final portion relates to insurance information and has not changed. Parents are still required to furnish insurance cards or other documentation to each other.

The next section will cover scope of application.

If you need assistance with a child custody matter please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Amendments to Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Exchanges and Additional Time

After a two year process the proposed revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] have now been posted on the Indiana Judiciary web-page. The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center [DRC] -- the body responsible for writing the IPTG -- will be accepting public comment on the proposed revisions until Monday, 26 March 2012 .

For the past two years I have been attending the DRC meetings and presenting proposals or providing feedback as requested. I will be analyzing each of the amended sections individually and providing commentary. Today I continue with my third posting - Exchanges and Additional Time.

The exchange of children for parenting time is an important event in many aspects. As the IPTG suggest this is a good time for parents to exchange information and engage in any discussion about the needs of the child. There is also an unspoken yet very important dynamic to parenting time exchanges -- demonstrating to the children that what brought them to go their separate ways was not the children and that when it comes to the children the parents can set aside past conflict to facilitate an orderly exchange. And so I dream on.

One of the most common questions I get asked is 'How much time do I have to wait when the other parent is late?" To this I generally say 15 minutes. Things happen -- traffic snarls, someone won't stop talking or your lose track of time. Common courtesy says make a call to the other parent. High conflict parents rarely embody the spirit of courtesy though. There are also those parents who are intentionally late just for the purpose of tormenting the other parent while not being cognizant of the effect on the child -- projecting the message that the child's schedule, thus the child, is not a high priority.

After careful discussion and deliberation it was settled upon amending the portion of the IPTG relating to punctuality. The intent is to provide guidance in resolving the tardiness of a parent and also discourage the intentional acts.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Punctuality

Punctuality. Each parent shall have the child ready for exchange at the beginning and at the end of the scheduled parenting time and shall be on time in picking up and returning the child. The parents shall communicate as early as possible regarding any situation that would interfere with the timely exchange of the child. Both parents have a duty to communicate any time the exchange is delayed. When no communication is initiated by the delaying parent, and pick up or return of a child does not occur within a reasonable time, the time and conditions of the exchange may be rescheduled at the discretion of the parent not responsible for the delay.

With this language added the parent who is inconvenienced no longer has to keep waiting, return or wait until the inconsiderate parent decides to facilitate parenting time. The inconvenienced parent will be given the power to decide when the exchange shall occur.

Most non-custodial parents embrace the opportunity for additional parenting time while some custodial parents steadfastly seek to obstruct any such opportunities for the child. This is another area that has confused many and elicited questions by my clients.

The reviewing courts have provided some guidance on when the opportunity for additional parenting time must be offered. Consistent with these rulings and upon discussion about the input from the community the DRC has provided clarification.

Here is the proposed -- revised in bold type -- portion: Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time

Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time. When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost. and without effecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.

The original intent of this section was to give the other parent more time with the child if the parent who had the child at the time needed to have an additional party provide care for the child. It was not intended to foreclose having a family member such as sibling or subsequent spouse providing that care. It was also not meant to be triggered merely by the event of needing care but that such care would be for such a great amount of time that it would justify removing the child from one residence to the other.

In this regard I have heard it all. Keep in mind that I specialize in high conflict custody cases. I have had parents want to file contempt on the other for having the child cared for by the staff at a gym in their play facility while the parent worked out for a half hour. Others have complained of subsequent spouses tending to the child or that grandparents came to the house to do so. There has been the absurdity of a parent 400 miles away not getting notified about a three hour period of hired child-care and wanting to file for contempt.

Arguments regularly erupt over who is a "family member". The courts have interpreted that as being someone who lives in the household not a grandparent, cousin or other, who in some cases may have required a further drive than to the other parent's home to provide the care. The proposed amendment, consistent with the higher courts rulings, now states that the family member must reside in the household.

There has also been consideration given to the reasonableness of the time which will trigger the opportunity for additional parenting time. I have generally espoused the view that if the transportation time does not consume more than one-fourth of the total time that care is needed then it should trigger. "Reasonableness" will always be subject to interpretation but I feel that my guidance is quite on point as it is usually based upon actual court cases.

Finally, so as to eliminate any argument the Guidelines, as proposed, will place the transportation burden on the parent exercising additional time unless the parties agree. As a whole this section is written without regard to the custody status of the parents. It is applicable to the NCP who has the same responsibilities when he or she needs outside care during his or her more limited parenting time.

Here is the revised commentary in its' entirety --

The rule providing for opportunities for additional parenting time promotes the concept that a child receives greater benefit from being with a parent rather than a child care provider. who is not a household family member. It is also intended to be practical. When a parent's work schedule or other regular activities require hiring or arranging for a child care provider, who is not a household family member, the other parent should be given the opportunity to provide the care.

Distance, transportation or time may make the rule impractical. The period of absence which triggers the exchange will vary depending upon the circumstances of the parties. Parents should agree on the amount of child care time and the circumstances that require the offer be made. It is presumed that this rule applies in all cases which the guidelines cover; however, the parties or a trial court may, within discretion, determine that a deviation is necessary or appropriate. Any such deviation must be accompanied by a written explanation. See Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006).

This section is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the “right of first refusal.” It is more accurate to refer to this section as an opportunity to exercise additional parenting time.

The commentary is rather self-explanatory so I won't go into detail about it. The one point to make is on the closing paragraph. This rule is often incorrectly, or possibly wrongly, referred to as the “right of first refusal.” However, it is more accurately an opportunity for additional parenting time. This important language distinction denotes the importance of parenting time.

The next section will cover sharing information.

If you need assistance with a child custody matter please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.