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 III.
This is the best example I have found that exemplifies "having it all and throwing it all away." This is what the court said:
"After both Mother and [youngest child] tested positive for methamphetamine, a child in need of services (“CHINS”) action was filed regarding [both children]. In December 2005, Mother was charged with dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony, but the charges were later dismissed. On January 20, 2006, the CHINS court ordered that Father’s aunt, [XXXX], and her husband have custody of [both children] due to Mother’s drug usage and Father’s anger issues and inappropriate behavior. Father was allowed only supervised visitation."
The aunt and her husband later sought custody of the youngest child. Over the objection of the couple, the dissolution court granted custody of both children to Father.
At some point, the CHINS proceeding was dismissed. Following that, Mother filed a petition seeking parenting time with the youngest child. A short time later the dissolution court granted supervised parenting time to Mother. Just over a year following that Mother filed a petition to modify custody of the youngest child. The court appointed a CASA for the benefit of the child.
The CASA initially believed that placement of the child with Father was in the child’s best interest. As the CASA’s interaction with Father increased, she changed her mind. The child informed the CASA that Father punished him for stating that he wanted to spend time with Mother.
After filing her report, the CASA called Father, and Father hung up on her. When the CASA called back, Father said that she was not allowed to call him, that her report to the dissolution court was a lie, that she was “barren because it was God’s will,” and that she was a “spun Catholic.” Father yelled at the CASA, and the CASA testified that she felt intimidated by a parent for the first time in seven years in acting as a CASA. In his testimony, Father admitted making these statements to the CASA.
After receiving the CASA’s report, the dissolution court entered an interim order allowing Father and Mother to have equal parenting time. Judge Robert J. Pigman was obviously in a tough position here. We have what appears to be two, not good parents. I believe the proper decision here is Shared Parenting because I don't believe either of these parents possesses the skills to adequately provide the sole care, companionship and support to the child.
This is an arrangement that many fathers would feel blessed to be in. Not this father. He testified that the CASA’s report was not truthful, “so [he] figured [he would] enlighten her a little bit with the truth.”
In particular, the dissolution court found a substantial change in the “mental and physical health of the individuals involved.” which is one of the eight statutory factors that must be considered by the court.
The dissolution court found:
"Father’s anger towards the Mother which was evident in both his dealings with the CASA and during his testimony and time in Court is a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Father['s] demeanor while testifying, including pointing repeatedly at the Mother during his testimony, the tone of his voice, and body language made it abundantly clear that he possesses a high level of personal animosity and resentment towards the Mother. This fact was also verified by a number of witnesses who testified to the Father’s anger against the Mother." [emphasis added]
The dissolution court noted that “Father has yelled obscenities at the Mother in front of the minor child. . . . This conduct by the Father is completely inappropriate and not in the child’s best interest.” The dissolution court found that Father routinely referred to Mother as “whore” and “f***ing whore” even when the child was present.
The Court of Appeals in affirming the dissolution court’s decision said it was based mainly on Father’s demeanor toward Mother and inappropriate conduct in front of the child.
In another case Mother intended to relocate and Father objected. The court allowed the relocation based on the hostility between the parents. The court stated in its findings:
"In fact, [Father] testified he did not like [Mother] and would rather not have anything to do with her."
"The parties acknowledge an animosity between them that negatively affects their son. Relocation will allow the parties to minimize their contact with one another, while maintaining a high level of contact with the child on an individual basis."
It should have been no surprise to this man that when he says he doesn't want to have contact with the mother that the court will accommodate his wishes by allowing her to move across the country so as to greatly reduce parenting time exchanges and contact with the mother.
I have provided counsel to many people working in courts in at least 10 different counties in Indiana. I have seen the many differences and similarities in judges.
I have also seen the many differences and similarities in parents. What it comes down to is that nearly all are predictable. Yet somehow it appears that some of these litigants think they are going to be the exception.
Law can be learned from books. The procedures are set forth in the court rules. Pro se, also known as self-represented, litigants are entitled to represent themselves with the same force of law as those who have attorneys doing it on their behalf.
What I find missing in most pro se litigants and some represented parties is the knowledge of the necessary but unwritten court rules. One of these is courtroom demeanor.
Trial preparation as it relates to conduct is as equally important as the rules and facts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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