Saturday, April 28, 2012

The Underlying Hope That Leads People to Deny Their Potential

Success is not something to dream about, lament others for having or simply hope to achieve. Hope can be as damaging as fear. It is that fear that I want to explore today and how it prevents people from using their potential and achieving success. Successful people are not a special breed born with the attributes of success. Instead, they are simply the people who allow the potential for success that resides within all of us to manifest itself.

The past few days as I was riding my bicycle through the blustery cold morning air I was thinking about getting back home to mail more of the items that I had recently sold on eBay. Some of which sold for incredible multiples of what I had paid for them at garage sales last year. Ironically it was all stuff I had no desire for but purchased only to assuage the feeling that my time was wasted by going to a sale and not getting anything from my want list. But my time is never wasted as each sale has the potential to have the items I want.

So it was on my journey to the first sale I was going to on Thursday morning. It was at 2609 East 71st Street in Indianapolis -- just over 25 miles from home. The advertisement for the sale read
"EVERYTHING MUST GO!!! ~Priced to sell~ When: Thursday 26th and Friday 27th Where: 2609 East 71st Street Indpls, 46220 Time: 9AM-5PM Some of many items that will be sold too cheap: tv stands pictures dressers antique hats motorized scooters motorized bikes futons golf clubs tools art deco items baby items paintball guns/stuff (masks, hoppers, barrels, and paint) beds Serta pillow top mattresses (queen and full) expensive comforters movies (dvds) antiques living room furniture dining room set etc etc etc......too much to list!! "

I envisioned a successful transaction as I moved with the flow of rush hour traffic along 86th Street. I wanted the DVD's and was also interested in the art deco items. I knew I would also take some things I didn't want but would be priced low enough that I couldn't possibly not make a profit reselling the goods. We would both achieve success. I would get some movies I like, turn a profit on a few items that would pay for the movies and the proprietor of the sale would be able to discard some unwanted items and get some money at the same time. But such would not be the situation for us.

He brings out a box of about 30 DVDs nearly all having been popular video rental store titles. They appear disheveled and on an individual basis as though they may have been through a few cycles on a clothes dryer. In my quest to be expedient I always offer $.50 each for DVD collections although this was one of the worst I had ever seen. He quickly retorted that they are $3 each. So I peruse the titles and come across three that I would like to have. I reluctantly offer $5. He responds with $10 which brings about an amorphous contortion of my facial muscles to display the thought -- you are an idiot. Adept to my visual cue he says he has a booth at a flea market and gets $3 for them there. I responded -- then why didn't you.

That's my long winded introduction into this subject matter -- the fear that grips people and inhibits them from using their potential to achieve success. This man -- by his words -- had a buyer for these DVDs at $3 each but didn't take it. Alternatively he had a buyer at $.50 each, and again, didn't take it.

This man is reluctant to commit to closing the deal because he fears that there will always be the possibility that he could have gotten more for one of the movies than he was asking or had been offered. It is not an inhibition on his part that is without justification. Of his 30 discs there was one which in nice used condition could fetch about $5-$7 on ebay including shipping. Thus he should be able to get more than $3 for his through a face-to-face sale. But he won't. Skimming over his selection of movies one cannot discard the first impression that it is all junk.

In this man exists the potential to be a regular and successful seller of DVDs. His fear prevents that from happening though. He could have rid himself of stale, damaged and mostly undesirable stock and replaced it with fresh material for his potential customers. He made a conscious decision not to do that. He allowed his hope which is based upon his ignorance to manifest a fear which guided his actions.

He was hoping to get as much money as possible for his DVDs -- beyond market price actually. When he encountered me he was confronted by his ignorance of his so-called business. Once I selected 1/10 of his inventory and offered 1/3 of the price I had for all he knew that those must be the better movies. He aptly displayed his ignorance by guessing at a price -- raising his $3 each price to now being 3 for $10 because he feared that he had set the price on at least one of them too low.

This is the crippling paradox of hope. Hope is a restraint. It binds us not to the future but the past. I am confident that this man didn't sell his DVDs this weekend. He is holding onto hope that he didn't pay too much for them. He is too ignorant to know the market price of his wares. Thus his hope to achieve maximum profit coupled with his ignorance has manifest itself in fear that his best films will be cherry-picked at a profit but the laggards will have to be sold at a loss. That is where he currently stands. His movies have already been cherry-picked. As he said, he sells them at $3.

One cannot know everything. That maxim should not keep one from educating himself and seeking subject knowledge to which he is engaged. had this man done that he may be able to achieve success. He has the potential within him now. He also has hope and subsequent fear that paralyze that potential.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Divorce and Custody Movie Review - I am Sam

Today I review I am Sam from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.

I am Sam [2001] Written by Kristine Johnson and Jessie Nelson. Directed by Nelson. Sean Penn plays a father who has the intellectual capacity of a child only age 7 who is suddenly thrust into being a single father when the mother abandons the child at birth. The film is peppered with abstract references to Kramer v Kramer but naturally does not involve the confrontation between the birth parents.

Michelle Pfiffer portrays a self-absorbed attorney who Penn seeks to have represent him in the custody battle. Unable to afford her services, Penn is dismissed by Pfiffer who, with no intention to, says she will try to find someone to help him. She is pursued by Penn and eventually she takes the case pro bono in an effort to save face in front of her colleagues.

The film provides a visual context to the problems of dual-earner parents that I have written about where consumerism and materialism exceeds the needs of the child. Dakota Fanning is outstanding as the child in her early elementary years. The courtroom scenes are generally portrayed in a manner reflective of real-life situations.

This film should help to open the eyes of the general public about the stoic, non-comforting procedural rapid-fire caseload dispositions that is often employed by courts. The initial custody hearing is accurately portrayed and subtly highlights the effective use of a false-arrest and false allegations against a parent in a child custody battle.

Penn's character, while not fully able to provide the best parenting, makes an apt effort and provides valuable insight on what it takes to be a good parent.

Director of Photography Elliot Davis and Editor Richard Chew do a fine job of using camera movement and angles pieced together in a manner that immerses the viewer in the film and the emotional state of the players. This is a must see movie for anyone facing a contentious custody placement proceeding, especially one involving third party agencies.

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.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Divorce and Custody Movie Review - Fool's Gold

Today I review Fool's Gold from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.

Fool's Gold [2008] - You will thank me for bringing your attention to this story of a divorcing couple played by Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson on a search for a sunken gold treasure. The story takes place in the Caribbean where a fortune in minerals disappearing in 1715.

McConaughey plays a treasure seeker whose negligence leads to the loss of a boat borrowed from a small time island gangster to whom he is now indebted. All seems lost after eight years of searching for the Queens Dowry treasure until a new clue promises to reveal its true whereabouts.

The quest takes McConaughey and Hudson on a romp that exposes them to danger, humorous situations and, of course, every cliche that can be attached to the small-time hoodlums. Film suffers from Hudson's acting depth which is that of a rain puddle and McConaughey's talents being wasted on this poorly contrived screenplay. Director Andy Tennant, who also punished the world with Hitch, couldn't fill his grave too soon. Watching this movie could only put you one step closer to yours.

This movie has none of the emotion or dynamics typically experienced by persons experiencing divorce. McConaughey's and Hudson's divorce here is nothing more than a plot line. The only redeeming quality is the location photography by Don Burgess. I give it a resounding two feet down.

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.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Advising You and Your Attorney in Child Custody Matters

In the past few days I have received some requests to prepare legal cases and represent parties in court. However, because I am not an attorney that is precisely what I am prohibited from doing by the Indiana Supreme Court. In fact, I have been investigated by the Disciplinary Commission for the unauthorized practice of law [UPL]. There was no finding that I had ever engaged in UPL.

Instead of practicing law I am a resource of knowledge for litigants and attorneys to use in child custody cases. I help litigants to be better positioned to receive favourable rulings in child custody matters and in the process become better parents and more fully reach their personal potential.

I help attorneys to understand the nuances of child custody matters and all the possible actions that can be taken in their case. Last year while meeting with one of Indiana's top appellate attorneys I mentioned the possibility of filing a particular motion to which he said, "I would have never thought of that". When the Indiana Court of Appeals granted the motion and the three children were immediately returned to the father the attorney told the father not to thank him but to thank Stuart Showalter instead.

I do often find that people assume that I am an attorney which can put them in a precarious position. This is why it is stated in bold all caps type on my contract that I am not an attorney and cannot represent you in court. An Indiana State Senator, an attorney himself, was stunned to learn that I was not an attorney. I have written child custody bills and had them passed into law, I regularly testify on child custody bills and provide reports or consultation to legislators on child custody matters. Additionally, I have provided significant input to the development of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and have had additional subject matter added to the Guidelines.

Anyone considering using my services needs to be aware of the importance of my status as a non-attorney. This is best explained in a message from an attorney to one of my clients --

I was under the impression that Stuart was an attorney and that [attorney] referred you to him. If he's not, that's fine, but I just need to make sure you know that.
I did not tell you this up front, given that I had every reason to believe that Stuart was an attorney, but if another person comes to a meeting between attorney and client, confidentiality for that meeting is waived. It is not quite such a big deal since you had been talking to him about your case in-depth before I met with the two of you, but, in the future, I would caution you that if he is not an attorney, there is no confidentiality. I think he probably told you all this up front, but I just want to verify that you understand and already knew about that rule.
Also, you might want to know going forward that, if he is not an attorney, he is not permitted to try to impose on an attorney's professional judgment or give legal advice; however, as he did not try to impose upon my judgment and on at least one occasion he refused to give you legal advice, I think he's probably aware of those issues and discussed them with you as well. Please let me know if that was not the case.
Just making sure for my peace of mind that you already knew all this and that you know all the ethical considerations in case no one explained them to you before.


It may have slipped this attorney's mind or the attorney was busy organizing for our meeting but at the beginning, as I always do, I informed the attorney and my client that I am not an attorney and that there is no confidentiality. That at anytime, given the remote possibility that the opposing party could call me as a witness, if there is anything either do not want possibly exposed to simply ask me to leave the room momentarily.

As this attorney noted it is not my position to give legal advice. Instead I help attorney's and clients explore the nuances of child custody proceedings, understand all available options and see the contrary position to arguments. Additionally and most important to me is that a coach my clients in all aspects of life to help them become more financially secure, improve their well-being, be more satisfied with life, improve relationships and ultimately become better 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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Molecular physics: Suddens cannot exist as a whole

I have once again gotten into the argument about whether a Sudden can exist as a whole or only in halves. I accept the mathematical premise that two halves comprise all of something. However, I propose that when it comes to Suddens -- which exist in nature as the sole quirk of molecular physics ignoring all rules -- that it is impossible to combine them to make a whole. Thus, there can never be a whole Sudden but only compositions of halves of a Sudden.

Still I feel that the debate will rage on. I will attempt to make sense of the Sudden quandary herein but before doing so I have some petty annoyance which I wish to broach.

I have previously spoken about a language exam I took as part of a college course in which the query about sentence structure demanded that the test taker choose "which one is correct". I first eliminated "C - Both A and B" since that one response figuratively enveloped both sentences. I settled, after about 15 minutes of research and internal debate, upon A since the mood of sentence "A" was more reflective of the author's perceived intent while both sentences were structurally correct. When my answer was struck as incorrect I submitted this analysis to the professor. He quickly agreed that the test was flawed in that regard and noted that I was the first person to bring this to his attention in over 10 years of use of that quiz. I proposed rewording the demand to "select the response that you feel is most correct" and fired that off in an e-mail. No sooner did I send that then the banging my head against the wall in disbelief feeling overwhelmed me. I profusely apologized in a hastily written follow-up e-mail in which I proclaimed that feel should be struck and replaced with find. What was I thinking -- feel that a response to a structural quandary is correct. Jesus kayaking Christ on the Danube River you don't feel an answer to a logical question, you make a finding based upon the rules of composition and the information provided. Still, I often get stymied in conversation when I hear "what do you feel is the correct way . . ." while usually being able to proceed when "what do you feel is the best way . . ." is presented as best does not imply the finality of surety that correct does and therefore, in a sense, does allow for feeling. The quiz was changed to reflect the possibility of all three choices being correct.

I was recently talking to someone about speed and efficiency as it related to no longer having an automobile which I will elaborate on in its own post soon. I mentioned that it took exactly an hour for me to make the round trip from the court house to Kroger's and do my shopping. Then came the ire of one of my greatest annoyances -- having to repeat myself. Sure enough, this person asked, "Did that include getting back home?" If I lived at the court house it did. Regardless, I didn't answer. That conversation ended at that moment. Maybe I am the moron but I am not aware of a definition for round trip that does not include returning to the point of origin. Round trip does subtly imply more than there and back as it does relate to circularity and in a sense would involve use of a different return route. In its purest form a round trip would be the completion of one lap on a circle. However, in modern parlance there is no circular requirement. Still a round trip is more than there and back but not quite tour.

Finally came today and the true bane of logical interpretation and the greatest stress inducement in my life -- weather forecast of what is supposed to happen. Last night my mother called and discussed the chassis test going on at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway today. She mention that "it's supposed to rain in the morning but end by 11:00 a.m." Thus implying that I was going to get rained on while I rode my bicycle down here for my noon Life Coaching appointment with a client. I, naturally, was undaunted. My client raised the issue of his mother calling him and stating that he should change his weekend plans with his children to an indoor activity because "it's supposed to rain". "Remarkable!", I exclaimed then proceeded to recite the conversation I had with my mother last night.

To begin with quickly, forecast is to calculate beforehand. Supposed - in its verb form - is to believe or assume as true; take for granted. Forecast is a conjecture as to something in the future -- in contemporary usage is most often applied to weather in daily usage. However, its origins are based upon foresight in planning. Thus I feel, not find, that forecast is more accurately ascribed to measures based upon tangible past results such as profit/loss forecast by a business. Forecast can be used in the sense of to predict ahead of time based upon known and sure factual circumstances. Meteorologists, or "climactic atmospheric based entertainers" as I refer to those network television personalities, make weather predictions not forecast. Prediction carries the mood of a prognosticator along the lines of prophesy. Based upon the way many people treat their prognostications -- as though they were the divine words of a god upon which we must mold our lifestyles -- I do feel that prediction is more appropriate than forecast. Then there is supposed to which has surety of anticipated circumstances such as a 15tpi nut is supposed to fit on a 15tpi bolt. Supposed doesn't carry with it the full obligation through intent such as required but is closer in mood. Weather conditions are a natural phenomenon though. There is no contractual, moral, ethical or legal obligation by nature to do anything. I am going to stop there before I go into a diatribe about pessimistic personalities and http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifthe belief structure or mathematical and probability underpinnings related to a prediction of a 30% chance of rain and the statement "it's supposed to rain . . ." By the way, it didn't rain today.

In conclusion I am returning to Suddens. As I said, I propose that Suddens ignore the laws of molecular physics and cannot be combined to form the whole or all. By its very nature a Sudden can only exist in nature in clear and distinct halves. Scientists using the Large Hadron Collider have still not been able to create a whole Sudden. Einstein gave up on it long ago. Yet, in our contemporary American culture there is a vast, and I believe, growing belief in the proposition of Sudden singularity. I don't buy into it though. I am steadfast in my belief that a Sudden occurs without transition from the previous state -- an abrupt change. So try it sometime when you hear a discussion about Suddens -- say "There cannot be all of one but only two halves of a Sudden."

Deer in the headlights. Mark my words!!!

If you would like to expand your opportunities in life, improve your health and realize your full potential 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.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Public Comments on 2012 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] Under Review

The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee [ADR] of the Indiana Judicial Center met in joint session on Friday 30 March 2012 to begin reviewing the public comments submitted on the proposed IPTG revisions. The day was spent reviewing the Parenting Time Coordination portion which has been integrated into the IPTG. Future sessions will include review of comments pertaining to specific portions of the IPTG.

The final version of the proposed IPTG must be submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court by 01 July 2012. It is anticipated that the amended IPTG will go into effect at the end of September 2012.

The deadline for submission of public comments was 26 March 2012. If you have comments that you would like to have considered but did not get submitted by the deadline please send those to me. I cannot guarantee that your comments will get considered by the DRC but I will attempt to ensure that your concerns are made known.

If you need assistance with a parenting time or child custody matter 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.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Governor Daniels signs law reducing Emancipation Age in Indiana - Senate Bill SB 18

2015 Indiana Child Support Guidelines
review scheduled for public comment



On 19 March 2012 Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law Senate Bill 18 which reduces the duty to support a child from 21 years of age to 19. Indiana had been one of only three jurisdictions that continued a support obligation through 21 years of age sending the message that we are a state with immature young adults.

A child who is receiving child support under an order issued after July 1, 2012 will be presumed emancipated upon attaining the age of 19. Those under prior orders will still be presumed to be emancipated upon attaining the age of 21. The emancipation age does not include support for educational needs

There are some exceptions to the presumption in the law as follows:
(1) The child is emancipated before becoming nineteen (19) years of age. In this case the child support, except for the educational needs, terminates at the time of emancipation, although an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
(2) The child is incapacitated. In this case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court.
(3) The child is at least eighteen (18) years of age; has not attended a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution for the prior four (4) months and is not enrolled in a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution; and is or is capable of supporting himself or herself through employment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Divorce and Custody Movie Review - Audrey Rose

Today I review Audrey Rose from my collection of divorce, child custody and child support related movies.

Audrey Rose [1977] - Based on the Novel by Frank De Felitta; directed by Robert Wise. Starring Anthony Hopkins as the father of a girl killed in a fiery auto crash who believes that she has been reincarnated in the body of a girl 11 years of age named Ivy. This film does not explore child custody from the typical perspective but does examine it from the legal battle that ensues when Hopkins is criminally charged with abducting Ivy. Hopkins and Ivy's father, played by John Beck, do battle physically and emotionally while Ivy's mother, played by Marsha Mason, is torn between loyalty to her husband and her desire to seek the truth about her daughter. Very well constructed plot line that mimics the conflict often faced by women torn between their child's father and their subsequent partner/husband.

Numerous facets of child custody matters including peripheral issues are brought forth and subtly introduced while others such as the abduction allegation and who is her true father are brought to the fore. This film stimulates the debate of whether the mind or body is the essence of the person. If a possession or reincarnation is possible then the body belongs to one set of parents while the mind belongs to another set of parents.

This type of debate can't be separated from child custody matters in divorce and paternity cases where a child may be in the physical custody or one parent while the child's allegiance to or desire is for the other parent. Such a conflict can be an inducement to parental alienation and while not played out in Audrey Rose the battle between Hopkins and Beck is well developed.

Wise does a superb job in maintaining the suspense of this taught psychological thriller. Hopkins is at the top of his game and is well supported by a very aptly selected cast. A must see film for the supernatural aficionado as well as those in a battle for the affections of a child.

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.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.