I have now posted 249 previous musings about child custody issues and other matters. I was trying to think of something significant to entertain you with for this milestone as my day was concluding and I began my bicycle ride to Lebanon. There were quite a few issues that came to mind as my journey homeward took me North from downtown Indy.
As I waited for the westbound turn arrow at 73rd and Meridian street the sweat poured off my body in the near 100 degree heat. Still it was an enjoyable ride and with the Tour de France under way at the time I did get some sort of satisfaction just from riding. The turn arrow came on, I proceed and apparently so did the young gal in the northbound lane next to me. As I motioned towards her red light and other cars honked at her she never let her eyes stray from looking at me.
So then it struck me. Whatever it was about me or I was doing was distracting her. I have been rightfully indignant about the recently enacted texting and driving law which I wrote about here. One of the points I made is that the paramount concern should not be with isolating one particular distraction but, instead, seeking ways to ensure that drivers are cognizant of the gravity of the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle.
Clearly this young lady was more focused on me than the red light that hung above her lane commanding her to wait. Fortunately, the other drivers in the opposing lane were more attentive to her than their green light and thus avoided a collision.
So while I can, I plan to keep riding my bicycle about the roadways. If past performance is any indication of future action though, I expect by this time next year that I may be relegated to the position of driver after being outlawed for being a distraction to drivers.
If you need assistance with parenting or other life 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.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Friday, July 29, 2011
My 250th Posting – I may get outlawed in 2012
Friday, July 22, 2011
Non-Custodial Parents and School Access
The most common complaint I have received from parents is specifically that the custodial parent has not been providing copies of report cards and other school communications or that the school will not allow direct access. These complaints have not missed the attention of the Domestic Relations Committee that is currently amending the Indiana parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG]
First, here is what the IPTG stipulate to parents regarding school communications:
Section (D)(1) School Records. Each parent shall promptly provide the other with copies of a child’s grade reports and notices from school as they are received. A parent shall not interfere with the right of the other parent to communicate directly with school
personnel concerning a child.
Most Non-Custodial Parents [NCP] believe that the obligation is upon the custodial parent to always obtain and then provide copies of school records and communications to the NCP. However, this responsibility in placed upon both parents, not just the custodial parent. This is important to know because failure to do so can result in a finding of contempt by the court.
The right to access school records does not originate under the IPTG. Instead it is a statutory right. The Commentary to the previously quoted section of the IPTG provides this information:
Under Indiana law, both parents are entitled to direct access to their child’s school records, Indiana Code ' 20-33-7-2.
This is a lucid statement; yet to school administrators it is often esoteric. Here is a quick analysis of that statement; 1) It refers to a law; 2) The law gives parents a right;, and; 3) That right is to access “their child's school records”. Categorically, Done!
When I have confronted some school administrators about this I have been told that after consultation with the school's legal counsel that I would receive a decision. My patronizing response usually includes a comment about obfuscating their “educational” job. Soon after, the expected response comes; just tell the parent to come in, the records are available.
Similar to school records is participation in school activities. The IPTG stipulates the following:
Section (D)(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.
Again, this is a lucid statement. The Commentary provides additional clarity:
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.
This responsibility goes both ways. The NCP should not deny the child the opportunity to participate in a school function and may be forced to relinquish some parenting time to allow the custodial parent to facilitate the child's participation. Equally, the custodial parent may need to offer to the NCP the opportunity to facilitate the child's participation.
Sometimes the complaint to me has played out in a manner like this: I went on-line and found out that my son is going to the museum and parent chaperones are needed, that his grades in three classes went down and that parent/teacher conferences are now being scheduled. His mother told me about none of this. Doesn't that violate the IPTG? I want to have her found in contempt. This ludicrous scenario is usually the result of an insatiable desire for retribution brought on by resentment towards the other parent. Something the child doesn't need to be brought into.
The scenario is not lost on judges, practitioners nor the Domestic Relations Committee that is currently revising the IPTG. So, I direct you to the introduction to the section about the exchange of information:
A child may suffer inconvenience, embarrassment, and physical or emotional harm when parents fail to actively obtain and share information. Parents should take the initiative to obtain information about their child from the various providers of services.
Here the writers have stipulated as to why “parents” need to “actively obtain and share information” about their child's school records, activities and other activities. The irony of the parent seeking contempt for not receiving information received won't be lost on a judicial officer and may result not only in not getting the desired result of a contempt citation but a stern lecture from the bench about parental responsibility and additionally the possibility of having attorney fees assessed against the parent bringing the contempt action.
The DRC has proposed changing some of the language in the IPTG relating to the exchange of information to reflect the expanding technological capabilities of schools and community organizations and to also promote greater involvement with the schools and the child's activities by both parents.
The proposed language will seek to encompass the following concepts; that each parent is responsible to establish direct relationship with school; that each parent should obtain school information on their own without depending on the other parent; and that the parent with knowledge of the event should promptly inform the other parent of the date, time and place of the event. It is their belief that if a parent feels that doing this is such an onus then that parent isn't really servile enough to the children to be acting in their best interest.
To resolve an additional complaint that the child's school registration is devoid of any mention of the NCP in an effort to alienate that parent from the child or school the DRC has proposed adding this requirement:
The noncustodial parent shall be listed as an emergency contact unless there are special circumstances concerning child endangerment.
As I tell most of these parents who bring this type of complaint about communication to me their focus should be on the child. They apparently discovered the necessary information on their own. Do they feel it is necessary to condescend the other parent or can they rise above, take the initiative, be the bigger person, be the proactive parent who takes the initiative with the school and their child's needs?
It is going to happen whether they can. It is not an onerous task to get involved with their child's school unless that school is intentionally circumscribing itself from you. It is the responsible thing to do for all parents to do and the sagacious have already done.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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. 
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
On-Line Background Check and Faulty Reasoning
Recently I had the opportunity to be watching television and did. What made this particular episode of my rare television viewing worthy enough to draw me into writing about it was that I actually saw a commercial. My missed opportunity with the remote led to my viewing of the attempt by beenverified.com to mollify those in the dating scene.
My ire was raised by the statement made by the actress portraying a confident woman saying, “there's a lot to be said about a mother's intuition, but isn't it better to know for sure”. The implication is that beenverified.com provides that surety.
They profess to provide security through knowledge about the potential lurid past of the subject person for which you inquire. However, they do not interview the subject, query collateral sources or engage in any type of surveillance. Instead, they are nothing but an for-profit depository of public records related to court convictions.
I have often warned against using tools like sex offender registries as the basis for a determination as to scrupulousness of a person. I am keenly aware of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in many cases, particularly sexual offenses. I previously wrote about the false sense of security that these background checks provide.
Databases should be nothing more than a tool. When it comes to your personal safety or that of your children I recommend intuition over beenverified.com any day. Intuition is a function of the subconscious that analyzes a lifetime of events made applicable to a current situation and then renders a feeling. The human mind is a far superior instrument to the for-profit collection and dissemination of data provided by beenverified.com.
It is the role of marketing to get you to disengage your mind from a natural postulate and then be susceptible to reconditioning to accept a paradox. The veracity of beenverified.com's claims are spurious. I suggest that, for your safety, you avoid using this service if you believe it will inform you if the person has committed a crime.
Keep in mind -- Casey Anthony, as a rule of law, has not harmed a child; she has lied to police. O.J. Simpson, as a rule of law, has not murdered anyone. Not all people are convicted the first time they commit crimes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Best and the Worst
I have been traversing the countryside and nearby towns lately perusing yard sales. This multifaceted endeavor, usually accomplished on my bicycle, is providing for at least a nominal degree of exercise. I am also getting the benefit of acquiring some useful, sometimes previously unknown to me, products that may just make my life a bit easier.
Often times I am getting the tried and true, quality constructed small kitchen appliances that simply can't be found at the modern mass-merchandisers. Commensurate to these benefits is the savings realized by often paying only about 10-25% of retail price. Topping this off is my acquisition of goods that I manage to resell for a profit which culminates in my ultimately having no final cost in my acquired goods.
Before this becomes soporific let me be succinct about the purpose of today's posting. Today two yard sales reminded me of the desultory fashion by which some parents approach their child custody matters.
I first stopped at a sale where the tables were uniformly arranged and the wares were separated by category. The CD's were even stacked label-side up and separated by genre. Everything was individually priced or signs on the table clearly indicated the prices such as CD's or toddler clothing. I came away with a book and a CD.
A few other sales occupied my time and curiosity until I came across what I have to describe as the most cursory yard sale I have come across to date. This was advertised as: 106 N. Main St.-Whitestown Everything must go! Glassware, furniture, golf cart, Harley stuff, 86 Dodge 300 convertible-original, signed baseball from 1950 's era. Too much to list all!!!
What I believe this actually is was an attempt to comply with a health department order. The items were strewn about a yard, most appeared rain damaged and nothing was priced. There was also a sign that directed shoppers to the spurious sale continuing inside a pole barn. Once in there I was treated to the delight of what appeared to be a squatters residence. There was a couch, television, bedding linens and various instruments of domestication.
So in this day I have faced the best and the worst of yard sales that I have been to this year. I was struck by the similarity to parents involved in child custody hearings.
Earlier this year I was called to meet with a parent well over a week in advance of the hearing. This parent was cognizant that adequate preparation was a precursor to a successful hearing. Just as the initial yard sale of this day, everything she had was sorted by subject, clearly labeled and organized in to folders such as evidence, law, pleadings and communications. Considering the voluminous data to comprehend and then convey to the attorney it couldn't have been done without her organizational skills.
Then there is the opposite. It was the email that arrived in the afternoon immediately preceding the hearing the next morning. The reply to the contract and scheduling information sent a month earlier had arrived to my scheduler seeking a meeting with me that evening and an appearance in court the following morning. For that type of person I have two words; good luck.
In these situations I usually tell my scheduler to send a reply the following afternoon stating that he needs an application to be mailed, as previously instructed, and then he will schedule an appointment.
No amount of frenetic planning or indignant discord is going to get me to provide assistance to this type of parent. There is nothing mysterious about what type of parent does this. The only mystery is the motivation and why they even bother with the process in their seemingly perfunctory manner.
I know this is an inveterate behaviour on the part of the parent that does not serve the child's best interest. It is indicative of the sporadic parenting in which this type of parent engages. I would not advocate for this parent but I would help. It is not my purpose to help a parent win a child custody battle though. I certainly don't want to be a party to compelling a child into a custody arrangement with a parent who he going to ignore the child's needs, miss important dates and treat the child as a bane as much as the impending court hearing.
There are situations where a child needs for me to assist a particular parent in a custody proceeding. More often though it is a parent who needs for me to ameliorate prior acts or those inveterate behaviours that led to a restriction on parenting time. Parents should always keep in mind that it is not about winning a case but, rather, trying to ensure that the child has the care, companionship and support of two loving parents.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals Remands Scarberry Custody Case to Commissioner Pancol
My head is spinning as I try to wrap my thoughts around the practicality, or lack thereof, of the Order from the Indiana Court of Appeals issued on 30 June 2011 in the case of Scarberry v Scarberry.
Briefly, Craig Scarberry is the Anderson, Indiana man who lost custody of his children in November 2010 because Madison Superior Court Master Commissioner George G Pancol found that Craig had changed his religion from Christian to agnostic and was therefor unfit to have custody of his children. The order was appealed and a Motion to Stay (not enforce) the order was filed which was granted, resulting in the children being returned to the previously practiced 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. Pancol recused himself during that process.
The immediate Order states, “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B), this cause is remanded to the Madison Superior Court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. No hearing shall be held nor new evidence received. This Court retains jurisdiction over this appeal. The Madison Superior Court is ordered to file with this Court new findings of fact and conclusions of law that are compliant with Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) within (20) days of the date of this order.”
Here is Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B) “Effect of Remand. The Court on Appeal may dismiss the appeal without prejudice, and remand the case to the trial court, or remand the case while retaining jurisdiction, with or without limitation on the trial court's authority. Unless the order specifically provides otherwise, the trial court or Administrative Agency shall obtain unlimited authority on remand. “
My understanding of this Order is, the Court of Appeals does not believe that there is sufficient findings and conclusions upon which they can review to determine if custody of the children was properly modified and therefore the trial court needs to redo its findings and conclusions. The argument before the Court was not whether the trial court improperly modified custody, but rather, whether the modification was improperly based upon Mr Scarberry's religious preference. It is clear upon a reading of the so-called findings and conclusions that such was the case.
I have previously written An Examination of the ORDER in Scarberry v Scarberry where I detailed the deficiencies in the Order and the basis for the modification being based solely on Craig's religious preference. By statute the trial court was required to examine and make its judgment based upon no less than eight detailed factors. See IC 31-17-2-8.
The remand Order seems contrary to the purpose of this appeal and the facts as they stand. Of great importance is that Master Commissioner George G Pancol has already recused, that is he abdicated in this matter. Yet, the Court of Appeals is now, in effect, giving Pancol a chance for a “do over”. I don't believe that anyone can have a doubt that Pancol will not issue new findings that are prejudicial and biased against Craig. In Pancol's bizarre and rambling Order of Recusal he so much as stated that he was correct in making the order but will recuse anyway.
The attorney handling this appeal, Indiana Civil Liberties Union director Ken Falk, is in no enviable position. Normally a reviewing court would “vacate and remand” with instructive guidelines for a new hearing. This means that the order having been appealed would be tossed-out, as though it never existed, and that a new hearing would be held. The trial court would then issue new findings consistent with instructions by the Court of Appeals. In this case it would be that the judge is not to use the parents' religious preferences as a basis for determining custody.
However, Pancol abdicated. The normal procedure then would be to select a new judge. In the recent Oklahoma decision in Casey v Casey the Court of Appeals ordered that “The cause is reversed and remanded with directions for the trial judge to certify his recusal and for the case to be transferred to a different judge for determination of the property division.” In Scarberry v Scarberry the issue is the division of time with the children and who gets to make those important decisions regarding their health care, religion and education, not property as in Casey v Casey. Just as in Casey the new judge could look at the record [transcript of the hearing] and make a judgment.
It is difficult to understand why, here, the Court of Appeals wants the judge who is no longer the presiding judge in the case to go back and rewrite his so-called findings and conclusions. I will be fervently searching for any such precedent.
Ultimately, I see this case being litigated again based upon the continued failure of the mother, Christine Porcaro, to act as a responsible parent and her continued facilitation of violence and threats of violence towards Craig occurring around the children.
If you need assistance with child custody issues or coaching to improve your parenting skills 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.
©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
