I have seemed to run across a few instances lately where custody of children was reversed or lost in the initial phase because of clearly poor judgment by one of the parties. So, here is part II.
This case was heard by the Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade in the Gibson Circuit Court. I apply the term Honorable to Meade in reverence to the careful considerations he made in this case. It could have been easy to follow the common procedures but instead Meade did what he is mandated to do; make a judgment. He did so with honour.
Experienced attorneys and lobbyist have crafted laws designed to favour the destruction of the life of a child for the purpose of profit and winning a child custody award. There is a typical pattern among child abusers; abscond with the child, falsely claim domestic violence, deny the child access to the other parent, then seek sole custody based upon the other parent's lack of involvement with the child while the child was deprived of that necessary parenting.
Fortunately for many children this strategy is being aggressively challenged by judges and legislators. This is one such instance.
In this case the court entered an Order Entry on child issues, awarding primary physical custody of the children to Father, setting out a parenting time schedule for Mother, and setting the child support amount to be paid by Mother. The Order Entry includes the following sua sponte findings by the court:
FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS: It is noted that neither party requested the Court find the facts specifically and state its conclusions thereon. However, the Court feels compelled to highlight a few of the many factors considered:
First, the Mother’s removal and taking of the Children to a shelter comes to mind. This was done after one of the Children had made allegations of sexual abuse by one or more of her cousins on the Mother’s side. The Mother, without notice to the Father, and no notice of where she and the Children were, took the Children while he was at work, and moved to a shelter near her home town at or near Danville, Indiana. For approximately twenty (20) days the Father did not get to see the Children, and more importantly, the Children did not get to see their Father. The Mother admitted the Father did not physically abuse her or their Children.
Coupled with this was what Father’s counsel described as a “bogus” Ex Parte Protection Order the Mother procured against the Father. The Court notes that while the Order itself was legitimate since signed by a judge, that much of the information used in obtaining the Order was in fact, bogus. Specifically, the Mother in her petition for the protection order alleged the Father had left “threatening cell phone calls[.”] The Court would submit that any parent, upon returning home from work to find that their [sic] spouse had packed up and left with their three little girls, might perchance have several questions for that spouse. Perhaps, “where are you?”; “what in the world is going on:”; “where are the girls?”; “are they okay?”, just to name a few. What the Mother put the Children through by taking them away from their Father in this manner and getting an order preventing him from contacting them is inexplicable and disturbing.[emphasis added]
Judge Meade also made a finding about the way Mother handled the allegations by the parties daughter that she was sexually abused by a cousin while under the care of Mother. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence presented did not support the finding by Judge Meade and thus remanded with instructions for a finding consistent with the evidence and a custody order consistent with the new findings.
The Order Entry includes the following sua sponte findings by the court as it relates to the alleged sexual abuse:
The Mother’s obvious disbelief of her daughter’s allegations is another point that comes to mind. It is clear to this Court that the Mother did not want to believe what her daughter had alleged as it concerns inappropriate sexual activity of children in her Mother’s family—activity that has not been sufficiently recognized or addressed, and a family that the Mother was wanting to, and did, move closer to.
With regard to the daughter’s allegations is the fact that the Mother obviously never really investigated the statements to see if they could be true. The Mother, a nurse no less, simply stated that a physician had inspected the child and had observed no signs of sexual abuse and that was good enough for her. However, questioning by the Court of a witness revealed that the child had not alleged vaginal penetration (that might have left evidence), but anal penetration (that would not have left evidence), something the Court believes a nurse would have known, should have known, or could have known with a little effort.
Also curious was the Mother’s response to this testimony—absolutely no observable reaction. The Father’s response—he immediately broke down crying and struggled to regain composure as the hearing continued.
I have just written about providing opportunities for sexual abuse of children in which I noted situations such as this one and the need for parents to believe their children.
The Court continued its findings with this mention of extra-curricular activities:
The Court could go on and on addressing a considerable number of factors that favor the Father in this case, but will suffice to list one more, that is, the number and types of extracurricular activities the Mother has the Children involved in. No consideration whatsoever was given for Father’s parenting time. One example would be the Mother signing all three little girls up for cheerleading through a youth football league, which by the way, was not through the schools. What the Mother obviously does not, or chooses not, to understand is that she was setting the Father up to fail. In short, young Children should never be forced to choose between an activity and time with a parent. [emphasis added] Parent[s] should beware [sic] of sacrificing their children’s interests on the alter [sic] of their vindictiveness.
In a fractured family it is important to try to maintain routine and activities for the children but care should be used to observe the need for the children to have meaningful time with each parent. When the children are participating in activities in which parents are welcome both parents should attempt to attend and do so in a manner that is not disruptive.
The Indiana parenting Time Guidelines include these sections on children's activities:
"2. School Activities. Each parent shall promptly notify the other parent of all school activities. 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
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. In such instance, 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.
3. 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
A child is more likely to enjoy these experiences when supported by both parents. Each parent should have the opportunity to participate in other activities involving the child even if that activity does not occur during his or her parenting time. This includes activities like church functions, athletic events, scouting, school photographs, etc."
The Court concluded its findings with this:
In sum, the Mother, with no notice or explanation, stole the Children away, then used a “bogus” protection order to keep the Father away. Next, she sought to press the advantage of having the Children with her by getting them entrenched in her hometown area and immersed in activities that filled their time and encroached on their time with their Father. The Father testified that if he were the primary residential parent he would not enroll the children in any extracurricular activities that in any way compromised the Children’s time with their Mother. This Court believes him.
The cry of domestic violence has been called a woman's "silver bullet" because it has often led to complete control over the lives of the children and the removal of their father from their lives, sometimes for life. Often times this has been done without any evidence of violence. It has become a practical reality that a man must disprove the allegation in order to protect the needs of his children to maintain contact with him. Thus, the effectiveness of this ploy.
The Court of Appeals noted that in her brief Mother contends the Court did not appropriately weigh the factor of domestic violence. Mother felt that she was entitled a finding by the Court attributing an act of domestic violence to Father because she had made the unsupported allegation.
The Court of Appeals noted "By referencing Mother’s admission that Father had not physically abused the family, the court in essence found her reason for going to the shelter, fear of Father, not credible. Still, Mother contends that there is no evidence that the dissolution court “appropriately weighed” the factor of domestic violence in determining custody."
Fortunately Judge Meade saw this ploy for what it was, a trial strategy designed to alienate the children from their father.
On the opposite end is Judge Rebecca McClure in Boone County. There a mother absconded with the children to Pennsylvania while the father was at work. She did not inform the father of her whereabouts or allow the children to have any contact with him for thirty-nine days.
What did the GAL Kandi Killin recommend for this admitted longtime cocaine user; that she have custody of the children because to "relocate" them back to Indiana [their lifelong home] would not be in their best interest. Judge McClure did make specific findings in her order giving mother full legal and physical custody of the children, including that they had established residency in Pennsylvania.
What was the first thing that this woman alleged was her reason for absconding with the children; domestic violence. This accusation was completely rebuked upon an examination of the woman while under oath.
It is important to note that domestic violence is a reality. I was subjected to acts of violence by my ex-wife, Elica Talbot, for years. This included being threatened with a gun if I were to seek sole-custody of our son. While still in the marital residence she also pointed a gun at our toddler son and threatened to kill him if I didn't do more for her.
However, false allegations of domestic violence hurt the real victims because doubt lingers over every accusation that it may just be part of the proliferation of false allegations that have erupted in child custody proceedings.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment