Stuart Showalter is a child custody policy advisor to Indiana state policy makers as well as attorneys on child custody cases. For parents he offers child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives, increase their fitness as parents and manage their litigation so they can truly serve the best interest of their children. He provides this Law Blog as free opinion on various issues. Reader submissions of topics are welcomed. Send to Stuart@StuartShowalter.com
This time of year again reminds me of the simplicity with which adults lie to children and the cavalier attitude that they take towards doing such acts. The human specie requires the longest term of maturation of any life on Earth. From birth children trust their parents and must in order to survive. During periods of family upheaval such as divorce or separation that need is even greater as their foundation shatters and their risk of suffering harm increases.
It is this time of year that adults almost universally lie to children. They project a story of a mythical being who is all omniscient and doles out rewards for those who abide by an arbitrary standard of "right and wrong" while withholding such for those who have transgressed.
Adults support each other in perpetuating this fraud against the trusting and unsuspecting children. They often justify their conspiracy by citing that it is one of the "just for fun" childhood experiences. Ironically, many of these same adults will complain if their children lie about getting sh!t-faced drunk "just for fun".
No amount of rationalization negates the simple fact that parents lie to their children and then hypocritically expect their children to not do the same. A parent who uses bribery compounded with the threat of a third-party spy to ensure compliance with their arbitrary set of rules harms their children and their relationship to their children.
Discipline of children should be based upon mutual respect. Children want discipline. It is the responsibility of parents to effectively discipline their children which should not be done through threats or bribes.
When my son was three years of age I explained to him the concept of Santa Claus and the truth about the story as I have detailed here. At this moment, twelve years later, we have a rock-solid trusting relationship. There is no subject that he hesitates to broach with me when needing a truthful answer. He trusts my judgment because he knows that I trusted him with the truth. He has told numerous stories to me about the actions of his friends and he that few children would tell a parent. But I am not like most parents. I have been honest with him since birth and have built the foundation of trust that will last a lifetime.
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.
As I slept with the television on overnight I experienced some dynamic and somewhat cryptic dreams for which I seemingly had no control. I awoke from being in a library lecture hall where the subject was various types of body hair removal. Discussion of depilatories, electric shavers, razors and etc went on ad nausea. Many of the attendees cheered the results of the new product being promoted but I had no such excitement.
Television guides indicating a broadcaster as being "Science" or "Comedy" should be viewed much as one would a long-term weather forecast -- subject to change. So as I awaken to the headset clad beauty-queen wannabe with the pasted on make-up and chemically treated teeth that nearly outshine the over lit set touting this "breakthough" product I try to orient myself. It is then that the commercial goes to a commercial break.
In actuality the infomercial had ended which was a nice thing. So, before I can change the channel to something intellectually stimulating, or at least informative of something worthy of my attention, on pops a pimple-faced teen doting his face with some cream that gives him the appearance of having many miniature cupcake tops on his face.
The product is an acne treatment system named Proactive. The impetus for this posting is the guarantee offered by Proactive -- You will see results or your money back.
What they are hoping for is that the viewer hears "This is guaranteed to work as we have demonstrated or we will refund your payment." What I hear is in sharp contrast to that -- "Kiss your money goodbye you desperate sucker!"
Marketing often relies upon a visceral reaction to help you part with your money. So, it is important that you make decisions based upon logic and understand what the advertiser is saying. Proactive has claimed that "you will see results or your money back".
To properly examine this guarantee I will start with the word "results" as a noun -- that is the promised objective. Here is a definition of "results" -- something that happens as a consequence; outcome.
Here are some potential outcomes of applying a topical ointment to your face -- Pseudoporphyria, Urticaria, and a really adventurous outcome called Stevens Johnson Syndrome. It is a very rare, acute, serious, and potentially fatal skin reaction in which there is sheet-like skin and mucosal loss. Using current definitions, it is usually, possibly always, caused by medications.
The acne going away is a result. Getting a deadly skin reaction is a result. Essentially Proactive is guaranteeing that you will experience something between death or a completely clear face or you will get your money returned. That is where the analysis of that guarantee ends. Some guarantee!!!!
It is important that when engaging in any contractual agreement that you understand the terms. This is a dynamic that I often experience with parents going through child custody battles. They often hear what they want to hear instead of what is actually said, which can be very costly -- financially and emotionally.
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.
Today I review Cyrus from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Cyrus [2010] Written and Directed by Jay & Mark Duplass. Starring John C Reilly and Jonas Hill in the roles of a divorced man who becomes the suitor to the mother of the young man who still lives at home with her. Hill embarks upon a subtle campaign of sabotage to keep Reilly from surpassing him in gaining the attention of his mother played by Marisa Tomei.
The film provides a very comedic look at the dynamics of step-parenting and the conflict that often arises between child and the newcomer. Director of Photography, Jas Shelton, invites the viewer to be intimately connected to the film through a documentary style camera.
Reilly has a very positive relationship and frequent interaction with his former wife, who had left him, and her about to be new husband. The film takes on a more somber tone as Hill manipulates himself into attending the wedding with Reilly and Tomei. There Hill physically attacks Reilly saying that Reilly will never come between him and his mom.
Reilly directly confronts denial when he proceeds to tell Tomei to wake-up and see what is going on. He then breaks off the relationship citing the potential for Hill to cause long-term damage. The film culminates with Hill, maintaining his manipulative style, managing to get Reilly and Tomei back together.
This film will resonate with adult children of divorce and those persons who are onto subsequent relationships while having an older child. The presentation of the difficulties and dynamics from the child focused perspective -- while maintaining some levity -- make this a film worth watching. Don't miss two of today's top comedic stars in poignant performances that demonstrate their true acting worth.
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.
On January first of this year I was asked where the S&P 500 would finish the new year after closing out the previous year at 1257. My answer was a resounding lower! This was in contrast to numerous analyst who were touting figures mostly ranging from 1325-1450. At that time the accounts under my management were 100% cash. Although I did miss some upside I have not succumb to the price declines felt by the buy-and-hold crowd or worse -- those who bought in during the first part of the year but sold after July.
Being an active manager has allowed me to beat the market by about 11.5% since the beginning of August after being 100% cash until that time. I do this by following what seems to be a self-evident principle that most investors and fund managers miss -- buy lower and sell higher. Instead of trying to maximize profits buy guessing the "low" and the "high" I simply seek a profit by buying lower and selling higher. Notice the fine distinction between that and "buy low and sell high" -- greed.
It is irrelevant what your buy-in price is as long as you follow this principle -- buy lower and sell higher. I trade the Standard & Poor's 500 ETF, referred to as the Spiders [referring to the Standard and Poor's Depository Receipts[SPDR] ETF, under the symbol SPY. Yesterday I got online at about 10:10am. I logged into the account and noticed that SPY was at 122.10. I had expected the market to weaken throughout the week after the exuberance of the non-event European Union agreement last Friday. I didn't bother looking for a trend, checking the news, volume or any of the comments by analyst and managers. Instead I followed my strategy of buy lower and sell higher. I placed a market order which hit at 121.957. That was lower than the price I had sold at over a week earlier. I was also hoping to strengthen holdings prior to today's unemployment report which I expect to improve slightly.
This decline also reinforces my conviction and basis for the prediction that the S&P 500 would finish the year lower. Regardless of what agreements may be reached by the European Union to prop-up member countries that have the potential to default on debt, no agreement will resolve the underlying issue -- governments are borrowing too much cash. Money that could be going into equities is going into bonds.
It is important to observe that most government and household debt is a result of the servicing of that debt -- the interest and opportunity costs. That is they are now paying the high cost of their procrastination and the opportunities they missed.
As we close in on two weeks to go the S&P 500 is down about 4% for the year as of Wednesday and is being guided by headlines from Europe. Specifically it is fear of a European contagion that is choking the US equity markets, and much of the world, at this time. Investors, reticent to ride the roller-coaster gyrations of the market, have been pulling funds out of US equity markets this year. The greatest amount was pulled out in August when prices were near their lowest for the year. Mutual funds have seen net withdrawals every month since.
This is going to be their undoing. Fear, an emotion, is being allowed to guide investment decisions. Instead, individuals should be assessing their personal financial situation and dedicating a proportional amount of their wealth to a managed US equity account based upon sound, logical principles.
This is unlikely to happen. In helping to manage the lives and custody cases of hundreds of people over the years I begin to see patterns. Being a student of Psychology and Anthropology reinforce the theories and conclusions gleaned from my observations of these cases. I suppose this is what makes me a successful stock trader, beating out three-fourths of professional fund managers who this year have not beat the S&P 500.
Fear and hesitation/procrastination will result in the loss of profit potential for many investors just as it will parenting time and other divorce settlement issues for many parents.
I am regularly contacted by litigants who are fearful of going into court, of making mistakes, of losing parenting time with or custody of their children. Often these parents have allowed their fear to paralyze themselves and then contact me in moments of desperation. In effect asking me to toss a life-preserver to them in an effort to rescue them from the anchor they have tethered to themselves which are now pulling them under.
Parenting, just as custody litigation, is not a moment-by-moment process to be addressed upon approach to a deadline or in response to an event. People that are effective in both view each as an ongoing process, a development, that must be tended to regularly. It is those who are proactive rather than reactive in their approach that achieve the greatest success.
In the coming year there will continue to be wild gyrations in the S&P 500. I will take a proactive approach and position my portfolios to take advantage of those. Unfortunately for most investors they will wait until the S&P 500 has maintained an upward bias with a floor of 1315 and much of the volatility has subsided before they reintroduce their money into the US equity markets. their investment decisions will be guided by fear of a loss and the hesitation to get in on a market until it solidly is moving up. That is called chasing profits. Their lack of foresight will cost them nearly all of any potential profit.
In the coming year I will continue to have parents come to me to "prepare for a custody hearing next week". This reactionary approach will continue to daunt many and leave children in a situation that is less than optimal -- fear and hesitation will continue to rule. Their lack of foresight will cost them financially and personally - missing out in the lives of their children for which they profess to care so much about.
Others will come to understand the importance of planning, receiving guidance and being proactive in their lives and that of their children. If you want to be one of these people 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.
Today I review Big Daddy from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Big Daddy [1999] - Adam Sandler plays Sonny, a man age thirty-two who has no direction in life and was recently dumped by his girlfriend. While at the apartment that he shares with his roommate Kevin a child is dropped off. The boy, Julian, who is age 5 was accompanied by a note from his mother that says she is unable to take care of him and that Kevin is the child's father. But, Kevin is away on business and it is up to Sonny to figure out what to do.
The note instructs Kevin to deliver the child to social services if he will not take responsibility for him. As it is Columbus Day, social services is closed so it is left to Sonny to care for the boy. He contacts social services but then decides to keep the boy as a way to impress and improve his status with the girlfriend who recently ditched him. His friends advise against it but Sonny is not dissuaded. He calls social services and says he has decided to keep the child.
An assortment of comedic situations join moments of relationship building between Sonny and Julian. The legal procedures that take place in this film do not follow with real life such as Sonny getting to keep the child temporarily although paternity has not been established nor has an adoption proceeding. Eventually social services learns that Sonny has been pretending to be his brother and demands to take custody of the child. Sonny's decides to fight for custody of Julian. His father comes from out-of-state to assist in the custody fight that is peppered to testimonials and pleas from Sonny and a usual cast of misfits while courtroom procedures are ignored.
The film contains numerous examples of positive parenting techniques as Sonny lavishes the boy with attention and guidance while providing him with freedoms and responsibilities. However, the film suffers from lack of a plausible storyline, unrealistic or contrived situations and the aforementioned legal deficiencies. Sandler and his usual cast deliver an entertaining and uplifting film but don't rely upon it to help model your behaviour for a custody battle or prepare you for the courtroom process.
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.
Today I review Domestic Disturbance from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Domestic Disturbance [2001] Written by Lewis Colick, William S Comanor and Gary Drucker; directed by Harold Becker. Starring John Travolta, a boat builder, as the father of a young boy and Vince Vaughn, a wealthy investor, as the soon to be new husband of the boy's mother. Both men maintain an amicable relationship with each other as they explore their roles in the boy's life while being refereed by the mother. Travolta eventually discovers that Vaughn is not what he appears to be and has a past that is being resurrected by a former associate played by Steve Buscemi. The film culminates in a life and death struggle between to two men and the young boy.
This is a well written film that takes a very realistic approach to the roles of parents and subsequent partners following a divorce. The dynamics of the relationship between the characters is thoughtfully explored and the feelings of the boy, from his perspective and that of the adults makes this film worth watching. The film directly confronts the manipulation of the parents by the boy who plays them off each other in a power struggle. Buscemi, one of my favourite actors, gives a stellar performance in the manner that only he can deliver.
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.
In the last segment I detailed how Americans are choosing luxuries over free time. Larger homes, more and bigger cars which they drive further, and more food which more of is being prepared by hired help. This need for greed is being driven by a proletariat and bourgeois envious of and striving to be the affluent, if only in appearance. Yet, the greatest needs are being neglected and that is having a huge and damaging effect on our society. The health, welfare and development of children as a whole is being damaged by parents who needlessly devote greater time, attention and dedication to the wants of their employers than their own children. This final installment will be the more didactic portion of this subject.
In the previous segment I told you about how the excessive need for greed is evident in the daily lives of most Americans. Today I will begin by telling you of the disastrous effect it is having on our children's physical health. I left off by showing you the rates at which adult Americans are overweight as a demonstration of the clear excesses that Americans by a large majority participate in. Now let's look at the children.
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that an estimated 16.9% of children and adolescents aged 2–19 years were obese. That has remained relatively flat since the 1999-2000 survey indicating that progress has been made in at least stopping the upward trend. The 1976-1980 survey indicated a rate of obesity at around 5-6%. This coincides with numerous metrics of adolescent care. The development of consumerism and the "me" generation was in the period immediately preceding this explosion in the rate of childhood obesity.
Additionally, policy and practice began to dictate that children not exercise. You have likely heard the stories from an elder about how he or she had to walk five miles to school, in a foot of snow, uphill each direction. An exaggeration of course but it illustrates the point: that generation did not scoff at having to exert effort to accomplish a task. According to researcher Salon, [2004], in the 1960's 90% of children who lived within a mile of their school walked or biked to school. By 2000 that had been reduced to 31%.
Here is another of the contributors that coincides with the rise in childhood obesity. In 1988 about 15% of children in the age range of nine to seventeen years regularly prepared meals for themselves. 10 years later that had tripled and it is not getting better now. The rate of obesity and the rise in children preparing their own meals nearly parallel each other. This is the result of two factors; parents not supplying sufficient guidance about proper nutrition and parents employing others to prepare meals whose motivation is financial profit rather than the health of children.
As far back as 1990 having dinner as a family was significantly waning. Two-thirds of respondents to a CBS News poll reported having five to seven family dinners in the preceding week yet 85 percent reported having such when they were the age of their children. That downward trend has continued through today. If parents are not there to model good nutrition and healthy eating habits then it is difficult for the children to learn and do it on their own.
But most children are left to fend for themselves now. According to the Center for American Progress on the topic of work and family life balance, “in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70 percent of American children live in households where all adults are employed.” This has resulted in dependence upon baby farms. This general cultural ethos of self-centeredness, self-gratification, self-indulgence and materialism has relegated children to the position of an accessory to be brought out for show when needed.
Around 10 years ago a study by four universities found that only 15% of child warehousing centers were excellent while 70% were "barely adequate" and the remaining 15% were rated as abysmal. Do you honestly think that as their use is expanding that they are getting better? Parents that use these child warehouses know the answer. They know they are neglecting their children and harming them but choose to do so anyway. They try to rationalize their abuse through lies they tell themselves.
The biggest lie is that they need the extra money. If this was true then higher income families would not define their incomes the same as those near the poverty line. Both often cite their incomes as "enough to get by". The truth is though that many career oriented parents have elevated their perception of "needs" to match their income in an effort to justify their prioritization of career.
The reality is that secondary earners generally cost a family more than their incomes generate towards discretionary spending. The bulk of the earnings go towards higher taxes followed by transportation and institutionalized child warehousing. There are significant ancillary cost such as hiring food preparers and servers for meals, and stress related health costs which includes mental health counseling and more frequent general illnesses that children suffer when they do not have a stay-at-home parent. There are concomitant cost that can include higher rates of loss from theft of personal property, additional service cost such as lawn maintenance to home and auto repairs. Dual earner families also spend more on entertainment or toys to satisfy the appetites of children who are deprived of personal interaction with those parents. More important though is the costs that cannot be quantified in dollars.
A Los Angeles Times poll found that women with household incomes that would exceed $75,000 now were more likely to say that children interfere with a career. Only 11% felt that their children suffer because of their career choice but 66% felt that they personally suffered. They also said that "working mothers are better mothers than stay-at-home moms." Can you conceive that this "it's all about me" attitude would not be transmitted to the children either through spoken words and actions whether direct or indirect? It hasn't been missed by the children.
Students at Annapolis High School in Maryland conducted a survey of what they thought contributed to violence by children. The number one answer was "lack of parental attention and guidance." A boy who is age 12 says, "I think that if the parents spend more time with their children, they will become better people in life."
When the Colorado Psychiatric Society came up with an essay topic for students the answers again reflected this. Students were asked "What are the issues behind [suicide, depression, eating disorders, drug addiction] that adults need to understand in order to be more helpful?" The consistent and practically universal answer was that parents should be more available to their children, "to listen to us", "Just talk to me . . .make more time in your busy schedule to learn more about me." This is consistent with the measures of harm to children from single parent homes, where parental involvement is often much lower than in comparative single earner, two parent homes.
Children in single parent homes have a greater risk of abuse and neglect, violence and living in poverty. Additionally, the children exhibit increased levels of stress, depression, anxiety, mental illness, substance abuse, delinquencies and poorer academic performance. These measures are now more closely being correlated to dual earner families also as their children suffer emotional and physical neglect.
Physical neglect is apparent based on Heymann’s Urban Working Families study. In that study more than 40% of parents reported that their working conditions negatively affect their children’s health in ways that range from a child missing a needed appointment with a doctor to a child failing to receive adequate early care and causing an illness or condition to worsen. This means that in 40% of the surveys parents were willing to admit to neglecting the healthcare needs of their children because of a higher priority placed on satisfying their employer.
A 1999 study found that high levels of work related stress for both mothers and fathers led to higher levels of conflict between parents and their adolescent children and lower levels of adolescent psychological well-being. Parents who have higher work demands seem to be unable to compensate for this and provide the care that stay-at-home parents do. This time crunch not only creates more hostile home environments but also leads to less interaction with the children and the use of more conveniences such as processed foods and non-stimulating leisure activities such as banal television viewing. A parent who comes home, heats and serves and then vegges out on the couch is not exhibiting a sufficient parenting role.
When parents overwhelm themselves with their careers, love affairs, image building and relationship problems they are more likely to be emotionally neglectful of their children. Their denial based perception that school programs, child warehouses, or organized sports and other structured activities will make up for that necessary one-on-one personalized attention is wholly misplaced. They rarely see it until it smacks them in the face.
It often takes a concrete ultimatum for these parents to set aside their need for greed. This may come in the form of an arrest, pregnancy or hospitalization. When the child's needs are of an emergent nature parents are then more likely to cut back on work to care for their child. In a 2004 study specifically focused on children with mental health disorders, 48% of parents reported that at some time they chose to quit work to care for their children. Another 27% allowed their employment to be terminated to allow themselves time to tend to care responsibilities. Some steadfastly held career as the top priority though.
The Los Angeles Times reported about a boy, age eight, who was suffering from migraine headaches lasting for months. Doctors were unable to find a cause. However, when his father transferred to the local Navy base the headaches disappeared. The doctors concluded that the extended absences of his father were the cause. His father's response, "It's my job. It's what I do. It's what I signed up to do. I love what I do, and I have to provide for my family." That is a man experiencing a tremendous amount of denial and selfishness.
When he became a father he signed up to be a father, for life. He loves his job more than his child. He doesn't provide for his family. His children need him not a bigger house, more toys or Happy Meals. Instead, his son got suffering which this father is prepared to reintroduce should his career demand it. Although this is an example of an acute response to neglect the broader responses exhibited by children are much more pervasive and long-lasting.
Imagine the amount of personal and societal financial costs that was incurred because these parents chose not to tend to their children's needs in a preventative manner. Compound that with the needless pain and suffering that these children have suffered and may affect future generations. Of course not all mental health problems can be eliminated through responsible parenting but the evidence consistently shows that children of dual earner parents suffer more mental health issues than those who have significant ongoing contact with a parent at home. It is not just the children who suffer emotionally though.
A national study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrated that individuals who faced work-family conflict were two and a half to three times more likely to suffer from a mood or anxiety disorder, respectively, than individuals who did not face such conflict. Parents who are unable to reconcile employment and family conflict become overwhelmed psychologically by this conundrum. Their mental distress additionally creates a more neglectful living environment for the children as well as increased substance abuse by the parents.
Adolescents who spend more than 40% of their time outside of school by themselves are more likely to have lower self-esteem, feel less happy and active, and are less likely to enjoy what they are doing. Children today generally have less respect for authority figures because parents have abdicated their parental responsibility. When they are not there to enforce limits on behaviour and the recreational activities of their children then the children are left to regulate themselves. These parents, who are focused on their careers, sex lives and other gratifications, are left to wonder why their children engage in often risky or destructive personal gratifications.
Amazingly, our society seems surprised when our inexperienced, immature, valueless, and undisciplined children behave in exactly the same way. Children don't respect their parents, care about what their parents think of their behaviour or even fear their parents. Instead of investing time -- which children correlate to love -- parents relegate the needs of their children below that of material acquisitions and employment. This communicates to the children a fundamental disrespect for them that the parents will pay for in the long run.
But that doesn't matter to most neglectful parents as long as they can pay with money. They are happy to have the so-called benefits of their employment; more money; higher social status, self-gratification, and freedom from familial responsibilities. Now they can hire a nanny.
Need more proof that it is all about the money? A 2010 report from the Georgetown University Law Center provides the following; Having access to short term time off that is paid is the primary factor in parents’ decisions about staying home when their children are sick. Working parents who lack such paid time are one-fifth as likely to care for their children at home when they are sick as compared to parents who have such paid time. Said another way, 80% of parents surveyed said they would only take time off of work to care for their sick child was if their employers paid them to provide such care. Four out of five parents rated getting paid as more important than the child's needs. It's no wonder that children are suffering more illnesses and disease than in the previous generation.
There is an overriding theme that I see among parents of minor children. From media to courtrooms and across the span of my daily excursions into the world I see and hear this attitude; raising children is a burden. Some even go so far as to make the unbearable abusive claim that their children owe them something. Instead of providing the love, companionship, nurturing and guidance that children need far too many parents are trying to disguise their contempt for the child-rearing process by insisting that they need to work extended hours that interfere with their opportunity to fully dedicate themselves to their children.
Likewise children are starting to exhibit these traits. They participate in an unknown competition by displaying their most ostentatious material goods as compensation for the lack of love and dedication that should have been provided to them by their parents. A new generation is learning that children are not something which we make sacrifices for but instead that which is sacrificed for our self-gratification.
Clearly children are getting this message, be it through imitation or having highly marketed, pre-packaged garbage shoved down their throats by parents too busy to take the time to prepare a healthy meal for them. That message is that consumerism, materialism and the need for greed trump self-sacrifice and dedication to family and children. Homes are now filled with the milieu of materialism instead of the personal interaction and family time that makes a home, "home".
Parents who truly love their children and care about them can take the proactive steps necessary to show it to them. Turn off the televisions, put away the electronic gadgets, prepare and eat meals with your children and listen to them. Turn down the overtime or cut back your hours until you no longer tell your child, "I'm too tired." Let your children guide you while you maintain appropriate boundaries. Get them out of the warehouses and back into their home with you. Teach them from home or get more involved with their school and school work. Give them your time. Instill in them a sense of worth by demonstrating that they are more valuable to you than all others, especially an employer.
An investment of your time in your children will pay off in rewards far more than you can imagine. If you are still too self-centered and greedy to do it for your children then do it for yourself. Parents who invest in their children receive rewards for themselves.
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.
Today I review Le Divorce from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Le Divorce - Written by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and James Ivory; directed by Ivory. Starring Kate Hudson and Naomi Watts who play stepsisters brought together in Paris when Watts is abandoned by her husband. The relationship lines get tangled when Hudson fancies an older gentleman related to Watts' husband.
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.
Today I review Heat from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Heat [1995] - Written and directed by Michael Mann. This action thriller pits Al Pacino as an LA detective against Robert De Niro as the leader of a high stakes burglary team. The firm opens with a brazen and deadly armoured car heist and culminates with the mono-e-mono confrontation between the two lead characters following a charged shoot-out during a bank heist. A strong support cast and well developed characters by Mann make this an excellent cops and robbers film.
On of De Niro's squad, played by Val Kilmer, is married to and has a son with Ashley Judd. Problem with Kilmer is his gambling and consistent loses which leave Judd without the funds to maintain the lifestyle she desires. Add to the mix her extra-marital affairs and the stage is set for a child custody battle. Pacino is paired with a single mom and her daughter. The daughter desperately seeks to maintain a relationship with her birth father but he is a regular disappointment who never appears for scheduled parenting time. At the same time, her mom and Pacino struggle with the demands of police and his absence from family life. The mental anguish proves to be too much for the young lady.
The divorce and custody related issues are presented in a very natural forum that subtly prods the viewer without making these a focus of the film. Mann does an outstanding job of including controversial custody matter in the film without making a controversy of the subject. Dante Spinotti is dead on as usual in bringing the viewer closer to the action without dizzying in-your-face camera work.
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.
Next Tuesday will be Organization Day at the Indiana State House for the 2012 session. Organization Day is established by the following statute:
IC 2-2.1-1-2 Sec. 2. (a) The first regular session of each term of the general assembly shall convene on the third Tuesday after the first Monday of November of each even-numbered year to do the following:
Members generally start arriving to the State House around 10:00am. The schedule provides that the House will meet in session at 1:00pm while the Senate will meet at 1:30pm. The day generally concludes around 4:00-5:00pm.
While not in session or caucus members are free to tend to their own business or meet with constituents.
Members of the public are invited to attend Organization Day so I encourage you to do so. If you are interested in affecting child custody or child welfare legislation and would like to meet your legislator that day please call me at 317.474.3143 or contact me by email.
If you would like assistance with child custody issues 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.
Previously I had compared the employment schedules of modern Americans, Europeans and Americans from two generations ago. I noted that worker productivity had increased 400% yet the workweek hours have increased, not declined. I concluded that contrary to the self-prescribed purpose of the increased work week, which is the need to maintain the standard of living, is actually the need for greed. This will be an abstruse concept for many but a reading of this article may bring clarity.
I can recall the year before my wife abandoned my son and I. We lived in a modest ranch style home in the country, had one car and enjoyed a comfortable but not extravagant lifestyle. She worked part time at a daily child warehouse center earning a little over minimum wage. Our monthly expenses were almost $1000.
Today I have reduced that to about $700 per month for myself. I don't live in abject poverty. I abnegate most luxuries or conveniences but still avail myself of all necessities. I support my son, I am in excellent health with all of my healthcare needs being met, I live in suitable housing, I have a functioning automobile and I have most of the amenities that have become customary in American society. I travel by foot or bicycle about as much distance as I do the car in warmer months. Still, I rode from Carmel to Lebanon on Wednesday during high winds and sub-40 degree temperatures after working a few hours.
In 1965, a U.S. Senate subcommittee predicted that as a result of increasing labour productivity from automation and “cybernation” Americans would be working only about 20 hours a week by the year 2000, while taking seven weeks or more of vacation a year.
As I had previously said I am in someone's employ an average of about 10 hours per week. I am a cost-conscience shopper and more the antithesis of a consumer. To see if the theory plays out that the modern worker need only have an 11 hour workweek, or even 20 hours, I will compare the early post World War II era standard of living to the cost to maintain such in the modern era.
In 1950 the average square footage of the American home was just under 1000 by 1970 that was 1400 and by 2009 it had ballooned to 2700. It could be argued that this provides more living space but I contend that it is the result of the consumer society. The additional space is used to warehouse more stuff. In fact, housing alone has not proven suitable enough to store all the stuff as there are over 50,000 self-storage facilities in the US now. In 2007, 10% of American households used a storage facility. That could be because there is no garage space left because of the number of cars in there.
Before I start getting into price comparisons let me give you a baseline using the Consumer Price Index [CPI] as reported by the US Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics. I will use 1950 as 100. 1960 is 123%; 1970 is 161%; 1980 is 342%; 1990 is 542%; 2000 is 715%; 2010 is 905%. This means that the same basket of products that cost $100 in 1950 would now cost a bit over $900.
The CPI is generally the best measure for adjusting payments to consumers when the intent is to allow consumers to purchase, at today’s prices, a market basket of goods and services equivalent to one that they could have purchased in an earlier period. The CPI also is the best measure to use to translate retail sales and hourly or weekly earnings into real or inflation-free dollars. This allows for a comparison of the cost for an item at different times and also wage hours that it takes to purchase the item such as a new car.
The American automobile has long been an integral part of American culture. Americans love their automobiles and in true consumer fashion want more and more. According to the US department of Energy, in 1950 there were .7 registered automobiles per driver. By 1985 it was 1 for 1 and by 2007 that had increased to 1.21. The average cost of a new car in 1950; $1,510.00. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, as of 2010 the average cost of a new car in the United States is somewhere around $28,400, about a 1900% increase or more than twice the rate of inflation.
The straight numbers comparison in automobile costs is not a truly accurate comparison though. The 1950 automobile had fewer electronic gadgets such as heated seats, auto door locks and windows, motorized trunk latch, built-in televisions and all the amenities such as AC, stereo system and electric seat adjustment that are now considered standard but were luxury options in 1950. So, Americans have actually chosen to spend more money, which is hours worked, on their vehicles which makes some sense being that they spend more time in them as their cost of driving has decreased.
According to AAA the cost of a gallon of gas in 1950 was 27 cents. Today it is almost exactly 13 times that here in Indiana. That straight number doesn't mean it cost 13 times as much to travel now though. In 1950 the average passenger automobile had a fuel efficiency of 15 miles per gallon. By 2008 that had increased to 28 mpg. So the actual cost per mile has only increased about half the cost of fuel or 650% which is substantially less than the 900% of inflation. Yet Americans are still spending more on travel costs because they are traveling further in their automobiles.
It is generally estimated that the typical American driver is logging about 14,000 miles per year now while drivers just one generation ago drove about 2,000 miles less per year as did the generation prior to that who drove under 10,000 miles per year. So, travel costs have increased based on additional driving. Also, the fuel efficiency ratings do not take into consideration the increase in urban usage of larger trucks and SUV's which are not included in fuel economy standards.
In 1973 adult bicycle sales were about 10 million units and bicycle sales outpaced passenger vehicle sales in that and the following year. That translates to about 6% of the adult population buying a bicycle that year. Today that number has remained the same although our population has increased significantly, about 50%. As with most exercise equipment purchases usage is minimal.
The average miles ridden by all adults in the US is only 23 miles. Neither is enough to be considered a factor in the overall miles traveled. However, bicycle usage provides a fortunate opportunity to examine wants versus needs. I do submit that while technology has allowed many of us to work from home or otherwise be less dependent on personal travel we nevertheless do need personal transportation, but not to the extent that it is being used.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration [NHTSA] conducted a telephone survey to determine bicycle usage by Americans. The numbers provided here include riders and non-riders. People with family incomes under $20,000 average only about 18 miles per year. People with family annual incomes of over $100,000 average 34 miles year. This paradox can be explained in that the poor often ride out of necessity, may not be employed and rely regularly on public transportation. The wealthy on the other hand have both the time and money to do more recreational or competitive riding.
Support for my contention of Americans actions being based upon greed and convenience comes from families whose income is in the $20,000 to $35,000 range. Members of these families have the lowest ridership rate at only 13 miles per year per person. Report analysts theorize that this group has the resources to afford an automobile but finds that it is more convenient than bicycle travel.
The automobile usage and bicycle dependence clearly illustrate how Americans demand for excess and convenience, rather than need, has contributed to increased costs and the so-called "need" to work more and thus earn more. But it doesn't stop there. American's have been conditioned to believe that wants are actually "needs".
This isn't just a theory of my own creation based upon my personal observations. Social scientists have written on the multiple reasons for why people consume beyond what they need for survival which includes status, convenience and marketing. (Wilk 2002). The last of which I am quite adept at avoiding the influence of having grown up around and participated in the marketing industry.
In the movie "Lover Come Back" an introductory narrator states how Madison Avenue decides what we do: "This is Madison Avenue, the nerve center of the advertising world. Here are borne the ideas of what we the public will eat, drink, drive and smoke. How we will dress, sleep, shave, and smell."
I have long stated that Americans wouldn't buy 90% of their wants unless someone told them too and 90% of their needs would go unmet if not for a biological function such as hunger. Consumerism has been driven by advertising. Spending on product promotion boomed, from $6 billion annually in 1950 to more than $13 billion by 1963. That number was a staggering $42.8 billion in 2007, slightly under the rate of inflation.
Marketing professionals have captured the zeal of political populists who used an egalitarian attitude for their gain and transformed that to consumerism for the gain of their customers -- the producing corporations.
Now back onto housing where costs have far exceeded the rate of inflation. In 1950 the average cost of a new house was $8,450.00 while average wages per year were $3,210.00. This produces a ratio of 2.63 to 1. That is it would take about 2 5/8 years to earn the money to buy a home. Now that ratio is 6.52 to 1 based upon average annual income around $46,000 and the average cost of a new home in 2007-2008 being about $300,000. No surprise here being that the average new home is almost three times the 1950 size. Maybe housing needed to augmented corresponding with the people themselves.
The 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that an estimated 34.2% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or more are overweight, 33.8% are obese, and 5.7% are extremely obese. This produces an estimated prevalence of adults being overweight at almost 3/4 of the total population. The 1960 Survey indicated that an estimated 31.5% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or more were overweight, 13.4% were obese, and 0.9% were extremely obese. That produces an estimated prevalence of adults being overweight at easily under 1/2 of the total population. It wasn't until the early 1980's that it reached 1/2. Although numerous factors contribute to being overweight nothing can better explain it than excess. Calorie consumption that exceeds necessity.
A clear demonstration of greed versus need is evident in food consumption. One would expect that as automation and a move away from labour intensive employment has expanded over that past two generations that caloric demand per capita would decrease. To the contrary, the level of food energy in the US food supply increased from 3300 calories per capita per day in 1970 to 3900 calories in 2000. This 15% increase reflects higher levels of all three food groups, carbohydrates (grains & sweeteners), fats and proteins (grains, poultry & cheese). Total calories in 1909 is estimated to have been 3400 calories per day, so the level was flat for several decades before the recent increase.
Ironically it is these behemoths of our society that I have found being the most vocal about the high cost of living and need for more employment. These people pay for the convenience of having professionals prepare and or serve unhealthy meals to cram into their burgeoning bodies. They amass a collection of exercise equipment that collect dust in corners, basements or self-storage lockers. They drive to the gym and circle the parking lot while ensuring they get the closest open space to the entrance. They use a button to roll up the windows and are so lazy, that to lock the door and honk the horn to announce that a path needs cleared as they will be waddling in, all that is needed is to press a button.
I have not included interest payments in any of the cost calculations. Debt service as a percentage of household income has increased substantially over the past two generations. The Federal Reserve reports that average household debt in 2008 was $93,850. Of those households that carry credit card debt the average was $15,800 with an interest rate of 14.67%. That translates to over $2300 per year in credit card interest -- about 5% of total household income or two hours per week of full-time employment. This type of debt was practically non-existent two generations ago before the age of consumerism developed where the typical consumer tried to emulate the wealthy.
Numerous metrics, including many not examined here, consistently point to the era of 1950-1970 being a time where social change that enveloped consumerism and the need for greed evolved. Although advances in automation and electronics, particularly computers, should have allowed for the workweek to at least be cut in half, Americans instead find themselves working more for income. Almost three times as long to purchase a home, about double for a car and significantly more for food. So, it is true that the workweek could be 20 hours or less but the average American has decided to instead spend more time working to satisfy an insatiable appetite for more, more and more.
Their purported reasoning belie the actual purpose which is to satisfy themselves. It is the me generation. Americans covet the lifestyle of others and base their own existence and so-called needs upon the media projections of what they should be. It is the lack of fortitude for self-direction that drives Americans to overwork and neglect their children.
I have yet to touch upon the cost of medical and sick-care which I will do in the next segment. This excessive need for greed by non-caring selfish parents is having a substantial impact on children's physical and mental health as well as education and overall life satisfaction.
Parents have allowed their role to degenerate to that of solely being a material provider. In the next and final segment, Part III, I will tell you how the pervasive need for greed is specifically harming our children and what you can do to reverse harmful decisions or habits. After you peruse that final installment you will hopefully find that you are of the responsible minority or be able to transcend from selfish consumer to supporting parent.
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.
As a child custody policy advisor I have written and had child custody related legislation passed into law. My counseling of lawyers and appearances as an expert witness have helped them achieve more favorable results for their clients including winning appeals, gaining parenting time, reducing conflict, and mediating agreements. Additionally I made important contributions to the amended Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that went into effect March 2013 and am currently formulating recommendations for the Indiana Child Support Guidelines which are to be amended this year. For parents I offer child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives and increase their fitness as parents so they can truly serve the best interest of their children.
