The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center had been scheduled to meet on Friday, 21 October 2011 but that session was canceled. The next session of the DRC will be on Thursday and Friday, 17-18 November 2011.
The Committee has been working on amending Indiana's Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG]. Public input has been received and numerous recommended changes will be proposed.
Among the notable changes will be a simplification of the Winter Break/New Years Day schedule. Also, the ambiguous language surrounding resumption of the regular parenting time schedule following a change because of the holiday schedule will also be included. Since its first publication the rule regarding whether a parent can have only two consecutive weekends or three has confounded parents, attorneys and judges.
It is the express intent of the Committee that the time children spend with both parents is maximized and that the Guidelines be used as guidelines only and are not viewed as the default parenting time schedule as has been commonplace since their inception.
Language will be included to instruct parents, lawyers and judges that the Guidelines are to be used as a starting point from which individual parenting time plans, conducive to the best interest of the children while maximizing their time with the parents, can be constructed.
In addition to the Parenting Time Guidelines the Committee also prepared rules for Parenting Time Coordination. These rules will be integrated with the IPTG.
The final proposed draft of the amended Guidelines will be presented to the Indiana Supreme Court for adoption.
Generally the adoption of rule changes become effective on January 1 of the following year.
If you need assistance with parenting time or custody issues please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Domestic Relations Committee to meet in November to Finalize Proposed Amendments to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Divorce and Custody Movie Review - Falling Down
Today I review Falling Down from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.
Falling Down [1992] - Written by Ebbe Roe Smith; directed by Joel Schumacher. Starring Michael Douglas who portrays a divorced man on a mission to see his daughter on her birthday. It is subtly implied that his intolerance and anger issues have led to his divorce which he blames on his mother. A month after being dismissed from a defense contractor job he unwinds while sitting in stopped traffic at the beginning of his day. Throughout the day he unleashed his brand of justice upon anything or anyone he perceives as not meeting his standards. As he closes in upon the home of his ex-wife and daughter he envisions that "Everything will be just like it was before".
Director of Photography Andrzej Bartkowiak does an excellent job of bringing the viewer into the picture. The story is well delivered by Schumacher who shows enough action and violence to convey the story without going over the top. Although Douglas is given the appearance of some justification in his actions it is well demonstrated and aptly so that he was clearly not a stable parent nor acting in the best interest of his child. The story is predictable but compelling to view as Douglas' character teeters on the brink of falling apart while coming to realizations about himself and the ultimate consequences of his actions.
If there is a movie that you would like reviewed please send a request to me. The complete list of movies I have reviewed may be viewed here.
If you need assistance with parenting time, custody or support issues please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The Benefits of High Unemployment
With the official unemployment rate persistently hovering above 9% and new applications for unemployment compensation exceeding 400,000 weekly many pundits and politicians lament this scenario and offer dire warnings. However, I do not believe that a high unemployment rate is a precursor to the doom and gloom prognostications that spill forth from the lesser enlightened.
My compendium of the benefits of high unemployment will focus on four main areas: government, business, economy and society.
Government
Much of the panic in financial markets that opened the month of October was speculation that one of the world's most socialist governments, Greece, may default on it's loan obligations. Greece is currently being funded by other European Union countries and the International Monetary Fund so that it can cover it's pension and welfare payments. But, the funding is conditional. Greece has been forced to agree to austerity measures; financial reforms that reduce government spending in an effort to achieve a budget surplus so that the loans can be repaid.
The United States has been operating in much the same manner as its more extreme socialist counterparts. Standard & Poors recently downgraded the debt rating of the United states Government based upon a high ratio of debt to production, known as the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. Since the US Government obtains most of its revenue from personal income taxes and embedded taxes paid by consumers, a high unemployment rate will reduce government revenue.
To maintain its high rating and to continue to ensure that nations such as China continue to buy our bonds and fund our deficit spending the US Government will eventually need to cut spending. As the riots in Greece demonstrate the populace is not in favour of cuts that directly withdraw welfare payments from the citizenry.
Some of those cuts are exactly what we need such as raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to 85. Common sense approaches such as that are very unlikely from a Congress that is having difficulty in facing statutory debt limits on a regular basis. Although recent deficit spending produced a 2.5% growth rate in GDP the next danger to financial markets will be a potential US downgrade based upon lack of Congressional action.
We do have the benefit of grass roots activists such as the Tea Party bringing forth the reality of government waste and invasive programs that should be slashed or eliminated. The first that comes to mind is the Department of Education. Nowhere in the US Constitution is education founded upon the federal government. In fact, it is constitutionally specifically reserved as a state issue.
The avarice of "educators" has been a significant burden on taxpayers as has the entire educational superstructure. It is no secret that I am a longtime iconoclast of that educational superstructure and will go into the crippling effects of that later.
Areas where the federal government has been intrusive into our individual rights and the purview of the many states should be the first to go in an effort to sustain a balanced budget. Projected long-term unemployment will help the Congressional Budget Office make realistic revenue expectations and help Congress make these necessary cuts.
Business
Traditionally, economic contraction has been seen as a bad thing. The logic was that reduced economic activity leads to layoffs which leads to fewer people having money to spend which leads to further economic weakness and thus lower corporate earnings. In the past few years we have been operating under a new corporate paradigm.
Consistently high unemployment is a good thing for business. Recently I saw where a company had approximately 100 job openings and received 25,000 applications. This allows that company to select new employees from within the top 1% of applicants. This will surely lead to increased employee productivity as the company needs only to hire the best possible employees. Not only will the new employees be more productive but the current employees are put on notice that there are 24,900 people waiting in line to replace them if their productivity is insufficient.
As corporations facilitate the use of technology and outside suppliers they become less subject to the bane of their need for employees. Machines do not demand outrageous benefits or sue them for every perceived intrusion upon "their rights". As an entrepreneur 20 years ago I submitted a declaration to the Indiana Department of Revenue that I would never have an employee. Through the use of technology and the occasional use of independent contractors I have managed to avoid the suffocating stranglehold of having an employee. Corporate America has recently come to the same conclusion.
A corporation that experiences a sales reduction requires less manufacturing, distribution or office space as their specific operational needs may require. Just as with employees this allows the corporations to choose to maintain only those lease agreements that provide the greatest return thereby again increasing corporate profits.
Additionally, the reduced demand for manufacturing, distribution or office space allows the corporations to demand lower lease payments and thus they do not finance the former opulent lifestyles of the land corporation executives. The supply and demand equation is now working in favour of the corporations much to the chagrin of the formally trained economists who do not comprehend this new paradigm.
Proof of the benefits to corporations of high unemployment are already appearing in government measures of payroll and employment costs. While overall productivity is increasing as less productive workers are dismissed the rate of increase in the cost of wages and benefits is decreasing. Benefits, which account for about 30% of employee cost, saw the greatest reduction.
Economy
The reduction in GDP, particularly two consecutive quarters of contraction, which defines a recession, has gotten the financial markets spooked and resulted in a near 20% sell-off in the major indexes since the highs set in the Spring of this year. Here is where I stand poised to create significant returns in equity investments. I understand how the persistently high unemployment will be an economic benefit.
Since this beginning of this month, when it took a statement from the Federal Reserve Chairman for many pundits and traders to realize what I already knew, there have been major declines in interest rates and commodity costs. You have likely already seen this in the sudden drop in gasoline prices. Metals such as Copper and Silver saw about a 1/4 decline in one week. That means everything from household appliances to paper clips and every means of transportation or energy production would cost less.
The third quarter GDP report released this week showed a modest 2.5% increase, much higher than expected and not pointing to a recession although I believe a deeper analysis does. This helped to boost commodity prices as traders saw this growth leading to greater demand for raw materials. If employment was higher then demand would follow as would inflation.
Borrowing costs for those who have already deleveraged will be going down. Mortgage rates on new homes are in the sub 4% range. Credit card and automotive interest rates are also declining as are the borrowing costs for school corporations and local government entities which account for much of our property tax expenditures. The tax demand is now being reduced.
Consumer buying power and discretionary spending will be increased by this lower demand scenario. The cost of driving to work for those that do and getting foods to the grocery store have now gone down.
This paucity of increased discretionary spending will not be enough to drive our economy back to a sustainable level. Businesses and consumers need tax relief to allow the financial market to operate. If the US was to adopt the FairTax as proposed by Fairtax.Org we would not be in the current financial predicament that currently plagues the country.
It is not the panacea that will cure all of our ills but in comparing the tax structures that the European countries experiencing economic doldrums operate under it is clear that the FairTax is a viable solution.
Fewer workers is not directly related to a declining economy or lower standard of living. To the contrary I argue that under this new paradigm it leads to a healthier economy. Those who have failed to adjust to or understand this may feel that the country, or world for that matter, is on the verge of an economic cataclysm. However, it is not.
Society
So what does this all mean for you and me, society? Long term unemployment simply means that we are reverting to a former time when there were fewer job positions and a low unemployment rate. This should be and will become the norm. The pundits and politicians who are trying to convince us otherwise are simply wrong.
All euphemisms aside there is a large portion of our society that simply doesn't want to work but instead want to sponge off of those willing to make personal sacrifices. There is a large portion of our society that should not be home purchasers. We are currently experiencing the resulting economic repercussions of irresponsible bums who are defaulting on home loans. We have always sustained those who defaulted after sudden calamity such as divorce or illness. I have no affinity for those who have destroyed large portions of equity in homes for those of us responsible enough to pay our bills because they chose not to pay for their homes. Coincidentally, many of those who refused to be responsible for repaying their loans are also now unemployed.
Those who do want to are working. Those who do want to be financially responsible are doing so. The market has finally adjusted to this lack of job demand and financial irresponsibility.
The demand of the mendicants does still remain high and the politicians are playing to that crowd. Ultimately they will lose and the lethargic who have no desire to be productive members of society will live on the fringes of survival. Such is what is now happening in Greece.
CNBC reports that there are 3.2 million unfilled job openings in the United States. The latest government figures show that the number of job openings in manufacturing rose from last year and the number of open construction jobs as of July is up 267% from July of last year. Yet Obama wants to further increase our national debt by implementing a jobs bill to create construction jobs at a cost to taxpayer's of about $250,000 per job.
The proletariat may postulate that the current high unemployment is the result of a result of lack of job opportunities and the need for government to create jobs. To the contrary it is a result of government action. Particularly paying people not to work. CNBC has also recently reported that many of the people receiving long-term unemployment compensation have stated that they are not planning to get a job as long as they can receive those taxpayer funded payments.
Another fabrication being promoted by politicians is the false premise that a lack of formal and expensive education has resulted in the high rate of unemployment. This push for more formal training/education is the antithesis of employment. The resources and money being expended on wasted education has resulted in less opportunity for consumers to distribute discretionary dollars to employers and for the employers to hire.
A nation full of trained monkeys will not lift us out of an economic abyss. People who have a desire to be educated and apply that knowledge are much more productive than trained automatons. "Self-education is the best there is" - Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer speaking on Steve Jobs lack of college education and his development of the world's most valuable company. This axiom is well-known and embedded into the minds of our best entrepreneurs but lost among the docile masses.
The high unemployment rate and the redistribution of labour demand will have a positive impact on our family structure. This must be considered the pinnacle benefit of this new employment paradigm.
One of the results of the pursuit of full employment for all adults, parents of children living with them in particular, has been the travesty of the systemic abuse of children being raised in institutional babysitting centers.
Higher unemployment places more parents in the home with their children. The loss of extra disposable income should, I emphasize should, lead to healthier home-cooked meals being prepared for the children. At least one parent will be available for providing necessary life-skills, education and nurturing that are some of the neglectful aspects of the institutional centers. A vestige of this once viable and successful family structure now rarely lives on outside the Hollywood reproductions but could see a resurgence based upon continued high unemployment.
Another positive is that the divorce rate has declined and should continue to decline under a high unemployment, single earner family structure. High unemployment has removed some of the profit incentive from divorce, especially since men have been affected by job loss in a significant and disproportionate way.
Ultimately it is the private sector, the free market that will have the greatest impact on employment. It is then incumbent upon the so-called workers to posses the skills and desire to work if employment is to increase. But as I have illustrated here, there are significant benefits to a smaller labour force and we should not see high unemployment as a bad thing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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. 
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Bill for Presumptive Joint Legal Custody headed to the Indiana General Assembly
The Indiana Child Support and Custody Advisory Committee [ICSSAC] of the Indiana General Assembly [IGA] met in open session on Wednesday 26 October 2011 to discuss and receive testimony about a proposal requiring judges to presume that both parents involved in a divorce should continue to share joint legal custody of the children following dissolution. Additionally, two proposals to amend the age of emancipation of a child whom a parent is obligated to pay support to were also heard. I wrote about those here.
I will cover only the joint legal custody issue today and later present to you additional reading about Joint Legal Custody and Shared Parenting.
Longtime Committee member and state representative Phyllis Pond broached the subject of Joint Legal Custody and Shared parenting in general. She introduced 3067 which establishes a presumption that divorcing parents are both entitled to maintain legal custody of their children following dissolution.
You may read about the introduced bill from the 2011 session of the IGA here.
The proposal does not affect parenting time or establish a requirement for joint legal custody. This proposal does not engender any new rights upon a parent but simply requires that cause be shown before stripping a parent of his or her legal right to be involved in the decision making for major issues of their children which that parent possessed while married. These are delineated by statute at 31-17-2-17 and includes education, health, religion and generally discipline.
In past years similar legislation has failed to win support and get passed into law. The arguments against this proposal usually fall within the realm of increased litigation and conflict among parents. Further speculation by opponents suggests that an abusive parent will use the presumption as a tool to further harass or harm the other parent.
During Committee discussion Magistrate Kimberly Mattingly, a new member, echoed that viewpoint and also stated that she believes that it will create a greater burden upon judges to justify a sole custody decision.
Senator Greg Taylor who is also a family law attorney retorted that a person who is responsible for making a decision that can affect a child for the rest of his or her life should have to expend some effort and careful consideration into that decision. Senator Susan Glick alleges that this presumption will put children in the middle and causes conflict and stress on the children. However, studies of the psychological impact on children indicate that Joint Legal Custody can mollify parental conflict and benefit the children.
Senator Taylor was adamant that Indiana needs to send a clear message that it takes two parents to parent a child. Joint Legal Custody appears to be an important symbolic statement that serves to preserve and encourage continued commitment to the role of parent and involvement of nonresidential parents in the lives of their children.[fn1]
Following some discussion Representative Pond requested that two votes be taken; one that includes paternity cases in the proposal as written and one that excludes paternity cases. The argument propounded against inclusion of paternity cases is that parents out-of-wedlock have not established a relationship such as that which married parents have.
After a period of rumination the Committee Chair, Senator Steele, asked Representative Pond which way she wanted out-of-wedlock parents treated in the proposal. She was quite candid and in true political fashion stated that she wanted a vote on whichever status would get Committee approval. The vote was called for on the proposal as written.
Members voted as follows;
OPPOSED
Peter Nugent
Magistrate Kimberly Mattingly
Senator Susan Glick
SUPPORTED
Kathryn Hillebrands Burroughs
Representative Randy Frye
Senator Greg Taylor
Representative Pond
Bruce Pennamped
Chairman Brent Steele
The proposal passed from ICSSAC with a recommendation to become law by a vote of 6-3.
23 other states have a presumption or preference for joint custody parenting. This may include both physical and legal custody in some states. A preference requires that a court first consider joint custody so long as it is not contrary to the child's best interest. A presumption requires the court to presume that joint custody is in the best interest of the child but allows for a rebuttal of that presumption. A presumption is the stronger of these two classes.
Fathers being relegated to a secondary class of parent is an arcane concept that is not fitting with today's societal norms where women are often the primary earner or worker and numerous fathers provide primary parenting of the children. It is time for Indiana to bring it's statutes within the norms of the reflection of modern family structures and make Joint Legal Custody a presumption for divorcing parents.
[1] A Psychological Perspective on Shared Custody Arrangements; Wake Forest Law Review, Summer 2008; Christy M Buchanan & Parissa L Jahromi.
If you need assistance with a child support or custody issue 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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Bill to reduce Indiana's Age of Emancipation for Child Support headed to the Indiana General Assembly
The Indiana Child Support and Custody Advisory Committee [ICCSAC] of the Indiana General Assembly met in open session today to discuss and receive testimony about two proposals to amend the age of emancipation of a child whom a parent is obligated to pay support.
Additionally a bill requiring judges to presume that both parents involved in a divorce should share joint legal custody of the children was also presented and heard. I will cover only the emancipation issue today and leave the joint custody issue for later in the week.
Both proposals seek to lower the age of emancipation in Indiana from 21 to 19 years of age. Indiana is currently one of three jurisdictions with the highest emancipation age. The others are Mississippi and Washington D.C.
Preliminary Draft 3237 provides that child support, except for educational support, shall cease at age 19 unless certain conditions are met. This proposal was discussed but not voted on.
Preliminary Draft 3266 provides that child support, except for educational support, shall cease at age 19 unless the parent receiving support petitions the court prior to the child's age of emancipation for the support order to continue. Courts may consider the ability of the child to provide for some of his or her own support and modify the payment amount consistent with that contribution. This proposal was discussed and passed with unanimous support by all members in attendance.
This proposal would also add a provision to Indiana law that a child shall be considered emancipated and support shall cease once the child marries. Under current law parents my still be required to pay support on married children under the age of 21.
Testimony in favour of the proposal was received by prosecutors and, specifically, Carla Mantia of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. No one spoke in opposition.
The prosecutors and Ms Mantia stated that Indiana is losing federal child support incentive payments because of the low compliance rate with support orders for children over the age of 18 years. They testified that many parents, including custodial parents, believe that the age of emancipation in Indiana is 18 and support is no longer ordered after that.
I would like to again state that no circumstance, including your own death [per caselaw], absolves you of the obligation to comply with a child support payment order unless you get that modified by the court that issued the order.
Because so many parents have quit paying support upon the child reaching age 18 there is a huge arrears that goes uncollected in Indiana. One prosecutor testified that only 7% of the support for children age 18-21, with no other children on the support order, is collected in her jurisdiction. This rate skews Indiana's collection rate lower and is causing the state to lose significant federal dollars.
ICCSAC has been proactive in seeking ways to ensure compliance with child support payment orders and also reduce the payment burden or eliminate barriers to compliance on parents subject to those orders. Last year the Committee examined ways to help non-compliant parents receive assistance to modify support orders or opportunities to become compliant. Details about some of these proposals are in the ICCSAC 2010 Annual Report.
If you need assistance with a child support or custody issue 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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Indiana Legislative Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee to meet on 2011-10-26
The Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee [ICSSAC] to the Indiana General Assembly [IGA] will meet in public session on Wednesday 26 October 2011. This is the first meeting of the ICCSAC for the 2012 session of the IGA.
Senator Brent Steele is the chairman of the committee.
Details are as follows;
Meeting Date: October 26, 2011
Meeting Time: 10:00 A.M.
Meeting Place: State House, 200 W. Washington St.,Room 431
Meeting City: Indianapolis, Indiana
Meeting Number: 1
MEETING AGENDA
(1) Call to order.
(2) Discussion and consideration of PD 3067 (Joint legal custody).
(3) Discussion and consideration of PD 3237 (Duty to support).
(4) Discussion and consideration of PD 3266 (Duty to support a child).
(5) Consideration of final report.
(6) Adjournment.
The meeting will be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend. Please click here.
I plan to introduce a request that the Committee consider legislation for establishing maternity and methods by which a male donor can be protected against being held responsible for support of any child conceived.
The Indiana Court of Appeals in two separate opinions mentioned that the IGA has not established statutory law for these issues and that such should be done.
If you need assistance with child custody issues please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
