Feedback is coming in response to my requests for investigation into the actions of Cynthia Dean and Child Advocates, Inc. They range from this is a form of bullying to the more common response that Dean needs to be removed from the case. As one attorney stated "it seems she definitely has a bias and has lost focus on which party she is to represent - the kids. Wow! ". That is the position to which I wholeheartedly agree. Here is the basis for my opinion.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Dean was or should have been fully aware that Judge Welch had instructed everyone on 13 June 2012 that the school which the children were to attend in the upcoming school year was not to be changed. This order from the bench was reduced to writing on 16 August 2012 along with an order on the father's motion for contempt against mother for changing the children's school. Here are both orders.
The Respondent, having filed his Motion for Rule to Show Cause on August 16, 2012, and the Court, having reviewed such Motion and being duly advised in the premises, now orders that:
1. Respondent's Motion for Rule to Show Cause is set for a hearing.
2. Mother, Kristy L. Moore is hereby ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of Court for her violation of the Court's prior order granting joint legal custody; she is to appear at 10:30 am o'clock on the 22nd day of August, 2012 for a hearing on this issue.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of August 2012.
The Respondent, having filed his Emergency Motion to Compel School Attendance on August 14, 2012, and the Court, having reviewed such Motion and being duly advised in the premises, now finds that the Respondent and Petitioner do not have permission of the Court to have the children attend a different school then [sic] they attended during the school year of 2011-2012 unless they both agree pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on December 10, 2009. If either party violates the Court's order, they may be found in contempt of Court.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of August 2012.
Dean had a copy of each order as she admitted to the father the next day when she sent this email to him.
From: Cindy Dean
To: brian moore
Cc: Del Anderson
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Moore children
Mr. Moore,
The GAL has been contacted by a Pendleton School professional stating you have informed the school that the children are no longer to attend Pendleton schools and a hearing is set for next Wednesday, August 22 at 10:30.
I have also received the three orders issues by the Court yesterday and I would direct your attention to the Order that states the children are not to attend Cornerstone Baptist but instead set this matter for hearing.
If both orders are read, it would appear the children are not to attend school until order of the court. I don't believe this is the intent of the Court particularly since CBA will not admit the children without a court order and the children are able to attend Pendleton at this time. Clearly, everyone should agree it is in the children's best interest to attend a school awaiting Court action.
I would like to hear from you as to whether the children will be attending school Monday through Wednesday at Pendleton. [emphasis added]
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
American Bar Association Family Law Section Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Child Custody Cases at Section III(I) states, "The lawyer should monitor the implementation of the court’s orders and address any non-compliance." Thus, Cynthia Dean had a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that she was adequately familiar with the Court's orders to a degree that she could ensure compliance. While a casual reader unfamiliar with the case may not understand from the ver batim language of the order that the children were to attend Cornerstone, anyone familiar with the case would understand this to be true. The Court at the 22 August 2012 hearing even stated that it didn't matter how the order was worded, everyone knew the intent was that the children do not change schools as was the oral instruction from the bench on 13 June 2012.
Rule 4.1(a) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct governing the behaviour of attorneys states, "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person"
Rule 8.4(c) states that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation"
A Judge’s Guide: Making Child-Centered Decisions In Custody Cases - Second Edition by The American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law at the Commentary on page 210 discussing misconduct by Lawyers and Guardians Ad Litems for children gives guidance to the court. "[T]he court oversees their conduct and can remove or admonish them for obvious misconduct" and also that "[T]he court is the ultimate custody decision-maker and should not give deference to a best-interests argument based on an inadequate or biased investigation."
Taken as a whole these standards require that Dean intimately familiarize herself with the case for the purpose of pursuing the objective, unbiased best interest of the children and that she convey her feelings to the parents while ensuring that they follow the Court's orders. Additionally she should be guiding the parents towards settlement as it is well understood that protracted litigation is not in the best interest of the children. I believe that Judge Welch conveyed the feeling quite adequately on 22 August 2012 that it would have been better for the children if Kristy had not refused to discuss the matter with Brian and instead demand a court decision.
Dean has failed in those objectives. At based she has displayed gross negligence or incompetence by directing Brian to violate the order on schooling. The downhill possibilities move from the display of an obvious bias all the way to collusion with Deenik who, as an officer of the Court, should have directed Dean and Brian to the correct meaning of the Court's orders. He didn't do so. Instead Kristy took the children to the Pendleton school on her next opportunity for which she was found in contempt of court.
Dean presented a defense that essentially the orders were ambiguous. I see no ambiguity in those orders. The children's school was not to be changed and Dean instructed the exact opposite.
Clearly Dean should be removed from the case for any one or all of multiple reasons as detailed herein. Further, Dean may now be presumed to hold a bias against the father because he filed a disciplinary complaint with the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court on the day following the contempt hearing. As Director of the Custody Program at Child Advocates it could also be presumed that the GAL, Del Anderson, and any other employee under the supervision of Dean would inherit the same bias or trepidation to work proactively with Brian towards the children's best interest.
I disagree with Brian's choice to file a disciplinary complaint against Dean because I believe that further muddles a clear case of why Dean should be removed from the case. From Dean's perspective she could argue that Brian was trying to get her removed by creating a presumed de facto bias in Dean through the adversarial position of the disciplinary complaint. It is not so much that he filed it -- it is confidential although I get them from time to time -- but that he sent a copy to her. I was planning to file a complaint against Dean and will be doing so soon. As advocates for children we are charged with a duty to ensure that all of our actions are balanced in a manner that achieves the best results for the greatest number of children. At times this may require self-exclusion from the child custody environment or the efforts on our parts to remove those who won't. This is one discipline where only the best of the best with the most honourable of motives should be allowed to exert their influence.
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, August 30, 2012
Child Advocates' Cynthia Dean should be removed from Moore v Moore case
Violating Joint Legal Custody and the Consequences - CONTEMPT
Lately my nearly exclusive focus has been on the case of Moore v Moore. This particular case has proved to be excellent fodder for doing such things as explaining joint legal child custody, the harm that third-party evaluators can cause, the importance of communication and finally, today, the consequences of intentionally violating a court's orders.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Starting at a time before reaching a settlement agreement in this case Kristy Moore appears to have embarked upon a nefarious plan to divorce her former husband from their children. Considering Kristy's personality type and the limitations of her intellectual disciplines one quickly realizes that she is not in this alone.
The account that I will provide to you here comes from court testimony, filings and written messages.
Kristy lived with her parents for about a year while amassing a $20,000 war chest for the purpose of deconstructing the Settlement Agreement which she had just signed. That agreement called for her and Brian, the children's father, to equally share joint legal and physical custody. The parenting time arrangement has generally been alternating weeks. Matters not specifically settled by the Settlement Agreement were resolved with the assistance of parenting coordinator John Ehrmann. This included the stipulation that the children would attend a private school located about half way between the parents' residences and in close proximity to the Indianapolis Public School where Kristy was working.
In well under a year after signing the Settlement Agreement, Kristy filed a motion to modify custody. In that motion she was seeking both physical and legal sole custody of the children. It was her contention that she did this "for the children". This was quite contrary to the recommendation of Ehrmann who opined that if Brian was awarded sole custody that Ehrmann was sure that Brian would still involve Kristy in the major life decisions regarding the children. Kristy though has stated that she wants sole custody because it would be easier and that she could just do things her way.
When Kristy was relocated by IPS to another school she refused to disclose to Brian the location of that school even though he was trying to find a school that the children could attend that would be convenient to both parents and possibly not result in tuition fees for either. Kristy alleged though that she was afraid to let Brian know the location. Del Anderson, The GAL, says that he believes that Brian is a "danger" to Kristy and the Children.
Kristy has clearly indicated that she has no interest in mediation and that even though the court has ordered mediation that she will not enter into negotiations in good faith. It is going to be her way, end of story. Attorney for the GAL, Cynthia Dean, agrees and has told Brian that he needs to compromise by agreeing to Kristy's demands and that if he doesn't then joint legal custody is not appropriate.
Kristy's strategy has been to keep Brian involved in continuous litigation in an effort to drain him financially and emotionally. For custody she planned to divest Brian of legal custody by demonstrating that child rearing had become a battleground. Once legal custody was established she said that she then wanted to enroll the children in Pendleton schools. This is within about a mile of her home and far from the school agreed upon by both parents and further from the marital residence in Broad Ripple where Brian lives. The proceedings have drug on though. It has now been about two years since Kristy filed for the modification and her patience or, more likely as she has said, the money she saved that is being used to pay the attorney is running out. Her solution was to enroll the children in the Pendleton schools for the 2012-13 school year after they began attending their agreed upon school, Cornerstone.
This was done without the consent of Brian or the Court. As far back as 13 June 2012 the issue of relocating the children's school was raised. At that time Judge Heather Welch told all parties, including Cynthia Dean, that the children were not to change schools until further order of the court. Upon a motion filed by Brian asking the court to determine the children's school for 2012-13 the Court reiterated its order on schooling. In the 16 August 2012 order Judge Welch said that the children were to remain at the same school as they had been in last year [Cornerstone] and that neither party could change the children's school unless by agreement or order of the court. The next day Cynthia Dean told Brian not to return the children to Cornerstone as ordered by the court. Brian did not take the bait and instead complied with the order.
Kristy did not. She enrolled the children in the Pendleton schools and took them there on Monday 20 August 2012 just two days prior to the scheduled hearing on a contempt petition against her for violating the joint custody agreement. There was also an emergency hearing for school placement scheduled to run concurrent. It was going to be up to Judge Welch to determine if Kristy was in contempt.
Judges aren't to show emotion from the bench that could be perceived to favour one party. In The Judge's Book, the National Conference of State Trial Judges states that the judge should “not engage in body language that inappropriately discloses [his or her] feelings or conveys a belief as to the weight of the evidence.” Judges should be cognizant that their facial expressions and even the nodding of their heads can have an impact on the parties’ perceptions of judicial fairness. However cognizant Judge Welch may have been of this it was apparent to me that she was displeased to put it in a polite context. She had good reason to be upset. Here is her order of 16 August 2012.
ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
The Respondent, having filed his Emergency Motion to Compel School Attendance on August 14, 2012, and the Court, having reviewed such Motion and being duly advised in the premises, now finds that the Respondent and Petitioner do not have permission of the Court to have the children attend a different school then [sic] they attended during the school year of 2011-2012 unless they both agree pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on December 10, 2009. If either party violates the Court's order, they may be found in contempt of Court. [emphasis added]
SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2012.
Heather Welch
Judge, Marion County Superior Court Civil Division Room 12
Distribution:
Cynthia Dean, Esq.
Jonathan Deenik
Brian Moore
The children attended Cornerstone Baptist Academy during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years. Judge Heather Welch said in court on 13 June 2012 that the children were not to change schools without her approval. Brian, Kristy, Cynthia Dean and Jonathan Deenik were all in court that day and heard that admonition. Reread the order an see if you can determine what school Welch has ordered that the children are to attend for the 2012-13 school year. Now it's time to play, Are You Smarter Than an Attorney for Child Advocates, Inc.? Here is the email that Dean sent to Brian the day following Welch's order of 16 August 2012.
From: Cindy Dean
To: brian moore
Cc: Del Anderson
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Moore children
Mr. Moore,
The GAL has been contacted by a Pendleton School professional stating you have informed the school that the children are no longer to attend Pendleton schools and a hearing is set for next Wednesday, August 22 at 10:30.
I have also received the three orders issues by the Court yesterday and I would direct your attention to the Order that states the children are not to attend Cornerstone Baptist but instead set this matter for hearing.
If both orders are read, it would appear the children are not to attend school until order of the court. I don't believe this is the intent of the Court particularly since CBA will not admit the children without a court order and the children are able to attend Pendleton at this time. Clearly, everyone should agree it is in the children's best interest to attend a school awaiting Court action.
I would like to hear from you as to whether the children will be attending school Monday through Wednesday at Pendleton. [emphasis added]
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
In a legal sense the children are not able to attend Pendleton by way of an order issued by Judge Welch from the bench on 13 June 2012 and reduced to writing on 16 August 2012. Cornerstone told Brian they would need a court order for the children to attend because Kristy had spoken to the principal there on Sunday 12 August 2012 and said she did not consent to the children attending school.
During the contempt hearing Judge Welch reiterated her 13 June 2012 order. She stated that she was sure that she told all the parties that the school was not to be changed. Cynthia Dean responded that she didn't recall that. Same for Jonathan Deenik. Kristy stated that she must have missed the part of the order that said not to change the school and didn't understand that they couldn't be sent to Pendleton. Welch went on to say that lawyers in the room know that joint legal custody requires both parents to consent.
In giving her ruling from the bench on 22 August 2012 Welch included some important dictum. Welch said that she had not wanted to decide on the children's school that day. No one had supplied information about schools to her. She knew that neither parent was able to pay for the children to continue at Cornerstone and that the children were currently at Pendleton Elementary School.
Both parents were scolded for their behaviour that is not in the best interest of the children. Brian was told that he gets agitated too quickly. Kristy was told that her refusal to communicate is causing problems for everyone.
It is no surprise that Brian gets agitated though. He has to deal with a parent who will not communicate, a GAL who won't do his job and an attorney for the GAL who lies to him about the children's schooling and has obviously sided with Kristy and her attorney. Of all the people involved Brian was the only one making an effort to provide some stability for the children's 2012-2013 school year.
Welch then ordered that the children were to continue attending Pendleton Schools because that is what she was forced into by mother enrolling them there and no one having provided details to her about other options. She then modified the parenting time order to ensure that the children would still have sufficient time with Brian.
Brian is to have the children every weekend from Friday after school until he returns them to school on Monday. Kristy is responsible to transport the children to Brian on Monday after school and then Brian returns the children to school on Tuesday morning.
Welch then gave her strongest rebuke to Kristy stating that Kristy's motivation was to get sole legal and physical custody of the children by changing their school to one closest to her home. Kristy was found to be in contempt of court. The decision on punishment was taken under advisement. Welch rejected Kristy's contention that she did not understand the order and said that Kristy's testimony was "not credible" -- the polite way to say you are a liar.
Attorney’s have ethical obligations which, in this case, were not met. Here, a well thought out strategy of stop communicating, then get sole legal custody, then move the children's school and then seek sole physical custody fell apart over a two year period.
Kristy said it was her priority to keep paying her attorney, Jonathan Deenik. She also said she had no money to pay for the children's school. When asked if it was more important to pay an attorney than send her children to school she said, "That doesn't make sense." But it probably sounded like it made sense when it was told to her -- "It would be better to keep paying me instead of paying for the children's school because we are going to get the school changed to Pendleton and then you can get sole physical custody." I am only speculating but at this juncture does it seem like anything else is probable.
So here is what happens when a nefarious plan goes awry. Legal custody does not get modified but it now appears that Brian may be more likely to get sole legal custody if Kristy continues her refusal to communicate. Physical custody does not get modified but Kristy's parenting time has been reduced from every other week to Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from when she gets home around 5:00pm until the time she leaves to go to work the following mornings at 6:30 am. Figuring on eight hours of sleep for the children her parenting time is now 16.5 hours per week. That is a significant reduction and sends a clear signal.
Summary
When courts issue orders it is expected and incumbent upon the parties to adhere to them in both form and spirit. Failure to do so except under exceptional circumstances is likely going to raise the ire of the judge. It is a form of disrespect. If a party feels that an order is unreasonable or no longer effectively serving the purpose for which it was issued then there are due process procedures by which one must follow. In this case Kristy was found to be in contempt of court. The judge has taken her punishment under advisement.
More difficult for Kristy is the presumption that she now faces -- past behaviour is generally acknowledged to be a predictor of future behaviour. Thus, a power shift in the custodial arrangement is now more likely that would put Brian in the position of having authority and delegating that to Kristy. Said another way -- Brian would be the appropriate parent to have sole legal custody. They should seek to enter into mediation as expeditiously as possible.
Parents became parents through their union during the time of conception. Whether during a long standing marriage or a fleeting relationship that existed for only moments after meeting parents will remain parents of their children so long as those children live. This is going to require communication and cooperation for the benefit of the children. Continued animosity and acrimony on the part of parents takes a significant toll on the wellness of parents and more acutely on the children. Mimi Lyster, an expert on parenting plans, in her book Building Agreements That Work discusses the benefits of negotiation: "Most researchers -- especially those who study the effects of divorce on children -- believe passionately that using the court to resolve custody issues is a mistake in all but a few cases. It is far better, in the opinion of these researchers, for parents to negotiate their own parenting agreements, with the help of outside experts such as mediators, counselors, and lawyers on an as-needed basis."
Forgiving past transgressions of the other parent and embracing dialogue will have a profound effect on your productivity, enjoyment of life and the well-being of your children. After all, do you want your child to be placed in the position of giving birth to your grandchild without you being there because she didn't want to offend either of you by deciding which one of the two parents "who can't be in the same room together" to invite to the birth?
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, August 29, 2012
PART V - Child Advocates, Inc. Attorney Lies About Court Order
Thus far I have provided to you a simplified background of the case of Moore v Moore [Part I], information about the parents [Part II], reviewed the third-party players and their respective roles [Part III], and analyzed the communications between the parties [Part IV]. Today I present to you the final installment. The smoking gun -- the email from Cynthia Dean instructing Mr Moore to violate the Court's order.
Child custody decisions by far can be the most complicated, emotional, divisive and difficult judgments that parents, lawyers and judges can make. While we have great insights into child development, research data confirming likely outcomes and knowledge of best parenting practices, a child custody decision still involves people. The most important of these people are the children, often times mute in the eyes of the Court.
As the arbiters between parents who have a child in common but not residence nor a desire for lifelong unity, judges are in the unenviable position of having to make decisions that may affect a child until his adult life and thereafter. This awesome responsibility often includes making a determination as to which parent can provide the best environment for the child, whether either or both parents represent a threat to the child's well-being, who gets to make major decisions for the child and ultimately what is in the child's best interest.
Judges place their trust and reliance then in the third-party players - mental health professionals and other evaluators - to make recommendations or gather information to assist the judge in molding a child custody order that best suits the needs of the children. Parents may posture for the court, lie to his or her attorney and even justify their adverse actions to themselves. For the neutral third-party examiner though this veil of deception is to be easily pierced so that a factually correct, evidence based recommendation to the Court can be made about the parents and what an appropriate custody arrangement would be. Judges are free to accept or reject any or all of these recommendations.
It is then imperative that these third-party professionals possess not only the skills necessary to assist the Court but that they maintain the highest level of ethics and integrity. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the confidence in the judicial process and the lives of children. I stress the importance of this because these people are often in the position of determining the last vestige of a past life to which a parent may cling. There is a war saying - The fiercest enemy is the one that has nothing left to lose - that is also applicable to these proceedings. Once a parent's home, dignity, savings, possibly job, mental stability and finally children have all been lost the foundation is set for a violent rebuke of a custody decision. For the safety of all parties involved these decisions should be made fastidiously and be based upon the best knowledge available.
There are times in my life when I see such a grave injustice that I put the rest of my life on hold as I become fixated on remedying a wrong. As you can see through my writings of the past week this is a such a case.
In a series of emails sent by attorney Cynthia Dean of Child Advocates she tried to coerce a father into violating a court order by lying to him about the Court's orders. Please read on to see the evidence for yourself.
In Kristy L Moore, Petitioner v. Brian S Moore, Respondent [49D12-0810-DR-44790] Robin Pannell of the DRCB recommended that custody by modified to give Kristy Moore sole legal and physical custody of the parties children.
One must wonder what evidence the DRCB based this decision on. Considering the evidence and why the parties are still embattled in a custody fight would seem to contradict that recommendation. It was Del Anderson, the GAL who has not completed his report, who said to Pannell that Brian represented a threat to Kristy and the children.
Quite to the contrary though I have seen no evidence of a threat by Brian towards Kristy or, of all people, the children whom he shares in common with Kristy that he cherishes. If you read Part IV you have seen the conciliatory mood that Brian possesses while Kristy's appears bitter and combative. It was Brian who sought to mediate this latest custody action which was filed by Kristy.
Please carefully read the following email exchanges involving Cynthia Dean. Use your best judgment to determine if you feel that she exhibits any bias, incompetence or maliciousness in her words. But most important, determine if you feel that she should be entrusted with assisting a court in the awesome responsibility of making a child custody determination.
Here is an email dated 10 July 2012 from Cynthia Dean to Brian
Mr. Moore,
Please see the following response that I received from Mr. Deenik. He states Kristy Moore will agree to mediation as long as it does not delay the trial; which I believe you agree as well with this term. The second term is that you pay the costs. I am guessing you would have preferred to divide the costs. In deciding if these terms are acceptable, I suggest you consider that it is always better to reach an agreement than to proceed to Court and to allow a Judge to make decisions concerning your children. Secondly, successful mediation results in less “damaging words and statements” between you and Ms. Moore which will make it more difficult to co-parent in the future.
I have sent an email to Chris Barrows to determine if he has time available and his current rate to give you an idea of the expense and if scheduling prior to trial is possible.
Best regards,
Cindy Dean
This is the email from Jonathan Deenik setting forth the terms for acceptance of mediation to which Dean referred.
From: Jonathan Deenik [mailto:jdeenik@cpwglaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:58 PM
To: Cindy Dean
Subject: RE: Moore v. Moore
She is agreeable to mediation so long as it doesn’t delay our trial, and Mr. Moore forwards the cost.
Do you have an ETA on the GAL report?
Jonathan R. Deenik
Certified Indiana Family Law Specialist-
Family Law Certification Board
Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey & Glazier, P.C.
Meridian Mark II
11711 N. Meridian St, Suite 100
Carmel, Indiana 46032
T: 317.582.1040| F: 317.582.0240
http://www.cpwglaw.com/
Cindy Dean wanted Brian to accept Kristy's terms -- that the trial not be delayed and that Brian bear the cost of the mediation. However, that day the Court had ordered that each party pay half the mediation fees.
ORDER
The Respondent, having filed his Motion for Mediation on June 26, 2012, and the Court, having reviewed such Motion and being duly advised in the premises, now orders that:
1. Respondent’s Motion for Mediation is GRANTED.
2. The parties shall agree upon a mediator within 10 days and report such to the Court along with the date for which mediation has been scheduled. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, then the Court shall provide a striking panel or appoint a qualified family law mediator.
The parties are to each be responsible for paying half of the mediation fees and shall make arrangements with the mediator for payment of those fees.
With each party paying half they are both invested in the process and more likely to reach resolution. When only one party is responsible for the costs then it allows the other to enter the negotiation unmotivated to efficiently resolve the matter. A vindictive party could use it as an opportunity to inflict financial pain upon the paying party by dragging out the negotiation in a malicious manner not in the spirit of settlement.
Brian contacted Dean at the end of July regarding trying to resolve the issue of the children's schooling for the 2012-2013 school year. Essentially school would be starting in less than two weeks and Brian was wanting to agree upon a school that would not be costly to both parents. Time was of the essence because, per the agreement of the parties and the order of the Court which Judge Welch reiterated during the 13 June 2012 hearing, the children's school cannot be changed without agreement of the parties or order of the Court. .
From: brian moore [mailto:indymastercraftsman@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:16 PM
To: Cindy Dean
Subject: Re: Disappointing News
7/31/12
Ms. Dean,
Thank you for your quick reply. Unfortunately, I do not know the name of the elementary school in Pendleton Kristy proposes the children attend. She never communicates with me about such matters. Frankly, I have not bothered to research it much because the idea is so unreasonable.
I know it is about 26 miles from my house to downtown Pendleton; this would result in over 100 miles of driving for me each day I have the children and they attend school. I would seek reimbursement for extraordinary travel expenses associated with this at the IRS mileage rate of about $0.53 per mile, resulting in an expense for Kristy of over $50 per day. Additionally, I would have the opportunity cost of nearly three house of lost work on those days. These far exceed the cost of tuition at Cornerstone.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Brian Moore
Cindy Dean responded in the following email message
From: Cindy Dean
To: brian moore
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: Disappointing News
Mr. Moore,
I do not share your opinion of the email from Kristy Moore concerning mediation. If you were hoping to begin a true negotiation, Kristy Moore was likely expecting some offer of concession from you as opposed to your arguing the merits of your position. Although you are convinced of the merits of your argument, Kristy Moore is likewise convinced of the merits of her arguments. If neither party is willing to consider a different opinion then mediation is likely to fail.
If you would like to work towards a resolution with Ms. Moore then I suggest you offer to accept some of Ms. Moore’s position.
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
Kristy's position had been made quite clear -- the children would be enrolled in Pendleton Schools and Kristy would have no financial or transportation responsibilities. Use your own judgment to determine if you feel it is a reasonable proposition. Why did Dean not suggest to Kristy that she accept some of Brian's position?
On 02 August 2012 Brian took the proactive role of filing a Motion to Determine Children's School. He was seeking the court's clarification as to whether the court would do nothing, in which case the children would continue to attend Cornerstone as agreed by the parents, or whether a change would be made. The motion did not get ruled upon in a timely manner because Judge Welch was sitting in another court for a two week jury trial.
Mediation had been scheduled for 09 August 2012, the day before school resumed, but was canceled upon the request of Jonathan Deenik on 07 August 2012.
Jonathan Deenik had not sought any intervention by the court since his request to have the matter heard on 13 June 2012 was denied by the Court or since he sought on 07 August 2012 to have the mediation session set for 09 August 2012 rescheduled.
As of 09 August 2012 the Court had yet to rule on his motion so Brian paid the fees for the children to begin attending Cornerstone during the 2012-2013 school year. He notified Kristy by email the next morning that he had complied with his obligation under the Settlement Agreement adopted by the Court. He provided information about what she still needed to do during the time she would have the children the following week. He also offered to assist her with any logistical needs she may have.
From: brian moore
To: kristy moore
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:21 PM
Subject: Kids' School
Friday, August 10, 2012
Kristy,
Today was the kids' first day back to school at Cornerstone Baptist Academy. Unfortunately, they were not able to attend due to [Child 1]'s illness. [Child 1] felt so bad this morning and was having diarrhea so frequently that she and I did not think she could even ride in the car while I took [Child 2].
[Child 1] and [Child 2] have attended Cornerstone for 2 1/2 years, beginning in January of 2010 when Dr. Ehrmann instructed us to do so as Parenting Coordinator. Since you and I had not discussed or agreed upon a different school, and since the Judge had not ordered otherwise, this means the kids needed to stay in Cornerstone. I did not want them to be truant, either, and I am sure you would agree.
The kids will need to be at Cornerstone for the start of school Monday (8/13/12) by 8:00 AM, the same time as last year. I do not know exactly what time before-school care opens. Also, you will need to stop by the office and sign your Financial Agreeent [sic] and pay the matriculation fee ($300) and tuition for one child. I went to the office yesterday and signed my Financial Agreement and paid; there was no other paperwork that needed to be done since the kids were simply returning students.
If there is anything I can do to help with the logistics in the mornings please let me know.
Thanks,
Brian
On 13 August 2012 early in the morning Kristy acknowledged that neither parent has the legal authority to enroll the children at a school. Thus they will have to continue with their formal education where currently enrolled -- Cornerstone Baptist Academy -- as agreed upon by the parties. But, she also stated that she was not going to comply with Indiana's compulsory attendance law and send the children to school. Yet, IPS chooses to employ someone who won't send her pre-adolescent children to school or provide for their education at home.
From: Kristy L. Moore
To: indymastercraftsman@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 5:19 AM
Subject: school
Brian,
Neither one of us can legally enroll the kids until the judge decides on our case. Deenik will make a motion today for a special hearing for the school decision. Since you are working today, Leesa will be watching the kids.
Kristy
Brian responded within an hour, prior to the start time of school for the day.
From: brian moore
To: Kristy L. Moore
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: school
8/13/12
Kristy,
I object to what you are doing regarding the kids and school. [Child 1] and [Child 2] need to be in school. I talked to the Court last week and found out that Judge Welch is in a two-week jury trial, which is why our trial was vacated. She will not be able to address this issue for some time. In the meantime, the kids need to be in school.
You are incorrect that "neither of us can legally enroll the kids until the judge decides on our case." First, we could agree to a school. Second, and more importantly, the kids were already enrolled at Cornerstone. I did not have to fill out any enrollment forms last week, as they had never been withdrawn from Cornerstone.
As we discussed on the phone a few minutes ago, I want to exercise Right of First Refusal today and each day this week. It sounds like you leave your house at around 7:00 AM each morning, based on what you just said on the phone. I don't see why you cannot get the kids up at around 6:00 AM and bring them with you; I used to get them up at 6:00 AM every morning I took them to school without any problems.
Please let me know where and when you will pick the kids up this afternoon.
Brian
After the morning emails were sent one of the children became ill. Kristy did not take them to school but instead to their pediatrician where she was met by Brian. They both amicably participated in that doctor visit. That morning Brian had already taken the proactive step of seeking a court order to compel Kristy to facilitate the children's formal education based upon statements she had made to him that she did not want the children in school. Unbeknownst to Brian, Kristy contacted Cornerstone and stated that she objects to the children's continued education there.
The next day, Tuesday 14 August 2012, Brian picked up the children for an opportunity for additional parenting time and took them to Cornerstone. There he was informed [wrongly] that the children could not attend because Kristy had objected. Also that day, knowing that she had no legal authority to do so, Kristy unilaterally enrolled the children in the South Madison schools. Deenik, showing that he is well aware that joint legal custody requires consent of both parties or the court to make a change, also filed a motion to set a hearing for the issue of schooling. This was after the school year had begun. Here is a paragraph from that motion.
2. The parties share joint legal and physical custody of the children and have reached an impasse regarding where the children should attend school.
The GAL left a telephone message for Brian around 3:00 pm. Brian returned call by around 3:30 and left a message. Shortly thereafter, around 4:00 pm, Brian received an email from Cynthia Dean, attorney for the GAL, inquiring about the children's school attendance and the need for such.
From: Cindy Dean
To: 'Jonathan Deenik'
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Moore children
Gentlemen,
The Guardian ad Litem has contacted Cornerstone Baptist and Pendleton Elementary School. It is our understanding that although both schools have started as of today, the Moore children are not enrolled in either school and home-schooling has never been mentioned.
I understand Mr. Moore filed a Motion with the Court for assistance concerning the school choice on August 2; however I have not received an order setting an emergency hearing. I have also not received available dates for mediation from Mr. Deenik or Mr. Barrows confirming a new date.
Clearly, it is in the best interests of the children to be in school. Do the parents intend to take action immediately to get the children in school?
Thank you,
Cindy Dean [emphasis in original]
Cynthia Dean then sent an email solely to Brian. Although she does not give any indication who the GAL would recommend as the sole custodian of the children, when read in conjunction with the email about mediation and the email sent the day after this one there is a clear inference to be made.
From: Cindy Dean
To: brian moore
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Moore Children -- School
Mr. Moore,
I have to assume your concern for the children’s safety has been eliminated.
As to the school issue, I understand you are opposed to the children attending Pendleton Schools. However, Ms. Kristy Moore has stated numerous times that she is unable to afford CBA and it is no longer located near her employment. The school issue may need to be decided by the Honorable Judge Welch. If Judge Welch is required to determine which school the children should attend then I believe a strong argument may be made that Joint Legal Custody is not possible between the parents. Clearly attending school is in the children’s best interest, an issue arose concerning the children’s attendance at CBA and both parents were aware of the issue; the parents were unable to amicable resolve the issue.
I will await to receive a copy of your filing but I do cause [sic] you that if you and Ms. Kristy Moore are not able to work together to resolve fundamental matters concerning your children then it leaves little room for the Guardian ad Litem to recommend Joint Legal and Joint Physical custody.
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
On Thursday 16 August 2012 the Court issued its orders on schooling and contempt.
[T]he Respondent and Petitioner do not have permission of the Court to have the children attend a different school then [sic] they attended during the school year of 2011-2012 unless they both agree pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on December 10, 2009. If either party violates the Court's order, they may be found in contempt of Court.
Clearly the Court has ordered that the children are to attend Cornerstone unless the parties agree to a change. The Court set the contempt hearing for Wednesday 22 August 2012.
2. Mother, Kristy L. Moore is hereby ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of Court for her violation of the Court's prior order granting joint legal custody;
Not being presented with every piece of communication involving Cynthia Dean, Jonathan Deenik and Brian Moore it may not be clear to you that Deenik and Dean are operating in collusion against Brian and the best interest of the children. I, having read all the correspondence, see what appears to be a pattern of Dean trying to coerce Brian into fulfilling the wishes of Deenik. If you have any doubt that Dean holds a position against Brian then keep on reading because here it is.
NOW FOR THE SMOKING GUN! Here is the text of the email sent by Cynthia Dean in which she tries to get Brian to violate the Court's order by not sending the children to Cornerstone.
From: Cindy Dean
To: brian moore
Cc: Del Anderson
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Moore children
Mr. Moore,
The GAL has been contacted by a Pendleton School professional stating you have informed the school that the children are no longer to attend Pendleton schools and a hearing is set for next Wednesday, August 22 at 10:30.
I have also received the three orders issues by the Court yesterday and I would direct your attention to the Order that states the children are not to attend Cornerstone Baptist but instead set this matter for hearing.
If both orders are read, it would appear the children are not to attend school until order of the court. I don't believe this is the intent of the Court particularly since CBA will not admit the children without a court order and the children are able to attend Pendleton at this time. Clearly, everyone should agree it is in the children's best interest to attend a school awaiting Court action.
I would like to hear from you as to whether the children will be attending school Monday through Wednesday at Pendleton. [emphasis added]
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
Just five paragraphs preceding this is the relevant text of the Court's Order -- Per the Settlement Agreement adopted by the Court the children have attended Cornerstone and the Court's order directed that this was to continue. Dean was told in court on 13 June 2012, as recalled by Judge Welch, that the children were to continue at Cornerstone unless she ordered otherwise. Dean also stated that the children are able to attend Pendleton although that is a direct violation of the Court's order. CINDY DEAN LIED TO BRIAN AND TOLD HIM TO DO OTHERWISE.
Brian was not tricked into succumbing to what appears to be Dean and Deenik's nefarious plan. Instead, on Friday, after receiving the order in the mail, Brian contacted Kristy about trying to reach agreement on the school which they would like for the children to attend. I present that email in its entirety as it clearly exemplifies the extent to which Brian values and seeks Kristy's input as well as provides a model of what I feel is the proper form for effective co-parenting communication.
Subject: Important School Issue
From: brian moore
Date:Fri, Aug 17, 2012 4:03 pm
To:kristy moore
I just received in the mail some Orders from the Court regarding school for [Child 1] and [Child 2]. Have you gotten copies yet or heard from Mr. Deenik about them? I thought you should be aware of them, so I am emailing you. A hearing is set for Wednesday, August 22nd at 10:30 AM.
I would like for you to understand, as is my understanding of it, that the Order on Respondent’s Motion to Compel School Attendance allows us to both agree on what school our children attend. Otherwise, the Judge will decide for us.
I think your input is imperative about what school the children attend. That is why I emailed you early in the week about the issue. I would welcome and request your ideas on the schooling options I suggested in that email, as well as any other ideas you may have. I think “brainstorming” about all possible ideas is important, so no suggestions would be considered out of the question.
I want [Child 1] and [Child 2] to attend a school that is first and foremost suitable to meet their needs. It also must to be convenient to both parents so that each of us can have the maximum opportunity for involvement with the kids in their educations, both in and out of school. As I am sure you know as a teacher, children with both parents involved in their educations thrive more that those who don’t have both involved. I want to do everything I can to ensure we agree on a school that affords us each with the greatest opportunity for involvement
I am aware that you don’t currently agree with Cornerstone due to cost and distance issues. I do value your input, and am willing to pursue less costly education options. As one example, I believe financial aid is available at Heritage Christian School. We could also look in to education vouchers.
As I said in Tuesday’s email, perhaps there is some way I could assist you in the mornings regarding getting the kids to school. After all, I should be your primary support network regarding the kids.
What suggestions do you have? I would like to hear any ideas – perhaps you can elaborate on the suggestions I made Tuesday in my email about IPS schools, other private schools, or online schools. As a teacher, you probably have exposure to lots of information about school options.
I am not aware of where you are teaching. I felt you did not want me to know when I asked you in emails two times this summer and you did not respond. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to trying to select a school that accommodates your travel routes to and from your school.
There is a likelihood that on Wednesday the Court could determine that our children attend a school other than either Cornerstone or Pendleton Elementary. I know I would like to have input on where the kids attend school, and think you would also. That is why I think we should try to agree on their school over the weekend. If we could agree over the weekend, we could go to the chosen school together Monday and enroll the kids. They could start Monday without ever missing a day. I think that would be great
As we are both aware, the events of the past week have been disruptive for [Child 1] and [Child 2]. I know we would like to avoid further disruption for their sakes. I think it would be best if we could agree on a school that the kids could attend for at least the rest of this year without changing. Therefore, I think it is in the children’s best interest for us to work together this weekend to try to select the best school for them.
Please contact me either by phone or by email as soon as you feel like addressing this. I will change whatever necessary in my schedule to work with you on this tremendously important issue.
Thanks,
Brian
I will now be filing a complaint against Cynthia Dean for her various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in her attempt to get Brian Moore to violate the Court's order and collusion with opposing counsel.
I will then seek an investigation into Child Advocates, Inc. and an audit of cases in which they have provided GAL services to see if there is a similar pattern in other cases.
The applicable Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g) engage in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate this subsection. A trial judge's finding that preemptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this Rule. [emphasis added]
Here are some relevant standards from The ABA Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases
I. Enforcement
The lawyer should monitor the implementation of the court’s orders and address any non-compliance.
As a general rule Best Interests Attorneys should encourage, not undermine, settlements. However, in exceptional cases where the Best Interests Attorney reasonably believes that the settlement would endanger the child and that the court would not approve the settlement were it aware of certain facts, the Best Interests Attorney should bring those facts to the court’s attention. This should not be done by ex parte communication. The Best Interests Attorney should ordinarily discuss her or his concerns with the parties and counsel in an attempt to change the settlement, before involving the judge.
7. Whom to Appoint
Courts should appoint only lawyers who have agreed to serve in child custody cases in the assigned role, and have been trained as provided in Standard VI-B or are qualified by appropriate experience in custody cases.
If you have been involved in a case utilizing Child Advocates, Inc., Cynthia Dean or with Jonathan Deenik as opposing counsel 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.
Monday, August 27, 2012
PART IV - Proper Communication for Joint Legal Child Custody - Indiana case law
Thus far I have provided to you a simplified background of the case of Moore v Moore [Part I], information about the parents [Part II], and reviewed the third-party players and their respective roles [Part III]. Today I move on to an exploration of the communication between the parties and an analysis of those communications. In the final posting [Part V] I will present to you the smoking gun -- the email from Cynthia Dean instructing Mr Moore to violate the Court's order -- my efforts to get a formal investigation by state agencies into the actions of Child Advocates and Cynthia Dean, and the ruling by Judge Welch.
My analysis of the communication by the parties will generally be segregated from the actual texts of their messages. I do this so as not to prejudice your conception of the content of the messages. Thus, the string of exchanges will be titled based upon the overall theme which I will then refer to in my analysis.
Kristy has stated in her 2010 petition that she is the parent that is fit to have sole legal and Physical custody of the children. She then has the burden of demonstrating this to the court. Following are some case law references related to modification of child custody and parenting time orders.
The party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing custody order is unreasonable because, as a general proposition, stability and permanence are considered best for the child. Haley v. Haley, 771 N.E.2d 743, 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
[W]hen a parent blatantly disregards a court custody order, a trial court can draw a reasonable inference of future lack of cooperation. See Bays v. Bays, 489 N.E.2d 555, 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 18 1986), trans. denied.
We cannot allow a parent with primary physical custody but joint legal custody to sow seeds of discord and then seek to obtain sole legal custody because of that discord. See Pierce v. Pierce, 620 N.E.2d 726, 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied. Where a parent with physical custody voluntarily causes joint legal custody to become unreasonable, that parent may lose custody of the children. Id.
The following narrative includes the ver batim communications between Brian and Kristy about scheduling accommodations and schooling, court orders and motions by the parties as well as recollections of court testimony. For brevity I have not included entire texts of these communications but can provide such -- including full headers -- for any legislator, regulator or media. The court testimony is public record but has not been transcribed at this point. Now onto the communication between the parties.
Pursuing Cooperation
The evening of 22 May 2012, following the status hearing, Brian sent a lengthy email to Kristy which expressed his frustration over her unwillingness to cooperate towards achieving a beneficial outcome for their children as well as themselves.
You asked me for a change in parenting time a few days ago to accommodate your schedule this week. I granted it without hesitation, and look at the “thanks” I got today in court.
Although in an email dated 17 May 2012 Brian had asked Kristy about establishing a Summer parenting time schedule she requested a court hearing on the matter.
Deenik said you want to have a hearing over summer parenting time and “right of first refusal.” Given that I had indicated in the email a few days ago that I wanted to accommodate your schedule, and that I would even consider letting Pat watch the kids, I had certainly demonstrated that I was willing to talk. I, for one, was trying to act like an adult. Why do you want to take simple issues to court? Have you ever considered talking to me reasonably? Do you have to let other people make all your decisions for you? Do you enjoy paying Deenik?
Brian again offered to be accommodating of Kristy's schedule in trying to establish a Summer parenting time schedule.
IPTG indicates that I should have the kids Memorial Day weekend from 6 PM Friday until 7 PM Monday. In general, we have followed IPTG; however, we have also adhered strictly to our alternating week schedule sometimes instead. I would be willing to discuss this weekend’s schedule with you. You have some options: 1.) You can spend a bunch of money and have Deenik contact me about Memorial Day weekend. 2.) You can opt to let the court decide June 13th, which would be too late. 3.) You can email me with your suggestions. Maybe even try being nice. Once again, I might be easier to deal with than you suspect.
Brian also made reference to Deenik lying about whether he had rested Kristy's case-in-chief at the 19 September 2011 trial.
Deenik lied to the court today, deliberately misrepresenting what happened September 19th. He said we had spent nearly a full day in court, had wrapped up most of the issues, and that there were only a few things left to discuss. He knew I had not presented my case, and maliciously lied in an effort to prevent such. Fortunately, the judge has a tremendous memory, and recalled what had actually happened. To her credit, she graciously agreed to give me ample time to present my case.
Let's select a school
Two days prior to the 13 June 2012 hearing on Summer parenting time Brian asked for Kristy's input in helping to select a school that would be convenient for both parents. It is not explicitly stated in this email that Brian is seeking information for the purpose of selecting possible schools for the 2012-2013 school year but it is apparent in context if you are intimately familiar with the case.
"Kristy,
The kids told me this morning that you would not be teaching at IPS #103 next school year. If this is correct, please let me know what school you will be teaching at so that I can begin to plan accordingly.
Thanks,
Brian"
However, Kristy again has not respond to date to this request.
In an email dated 19 June 2012 from Brian to Kristy he asked for her input about a parenting time exchange and also, again, mentioned the issue of selecting a school and requested that Kristy inform where she is currently employed so that he could investigate school that would be proximate to their respective places of employment and homes.
Kristy,
1.) Will you please give me the name and address of the IPS school where you will be teaching in the fall? I need to know this in order to start investigating school logistics and choices for [child 1] and [child 2].
2.) I will be working during the day both Thursday and Friday of this week. Therefore, I am fine with just having the kids overnight Thursday night (6/21/12). Could we do the exchanges Thursday evening at 5:00 PM and Friday morning at 10:00 AM, both at the WalMart on Pendleton Pike? Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Brian
Here is the response from Kristy which was sent on 20 June 2012.
Brian,
I'm not paying for private school. I can't afford it.
I'm fine with meting [sic] you at walmart, but I thought the time was 6:00.
Kristy
The Philosopher
On 31 July 2012 Brian sent a very long, philosophical email to Kristy. He raised numerous issues. These include the costs to the children of protracted litigation, the damage it can do to the parent's relationship, the financial cost of the battle and his desire to avoid litigation.
Please bear in mind that you are currently the only person who can stop this fight. Deenik will not advise you to stop it, and will encourage you to keep it up for his own selfish gain. However, you have the authority to stop this nonsense by instructing Deenik to withdraw your motions.
If you and I agree to something, the battle can be over. I do not believe the GAL or the DRCB have any reason to continue the case. I think you and I have come far enough in the last few years to be able to arrive at an acceptable plan. I think if this fight was over we would both feel a huge burden lifted. We would then be able to move on with our lives and co-parent effectively for the benefit of [child 1] and [child 2].
Most important though were these thoughts.
The trial will be long after the school year has begun, so school choice will have to be decided either at mediation or at a hearing. Since school is a big issue, getting a hearing long enough and soon enough will be difficult. Therefore, we will probably have to decide the school issue on our own for the wellbeing of the kids.
Here is Kristy's response in its entirety.
We will be going to court. If you keep extending this process, I will be forced to move back in with my mom.
Enrollment Day
On 09 August 2012 Brian notified Kristy by email that he had complied with his obligation under the Settlement Agreement adopted by the Court regarding schooling for the children. He provided information about what she still needed to do during the time she would have the children the following week. He also offered to assist her with any logistical needs she may have.
[[child 1]] and [[child 2]] have attended Cornerstone for 2 1/2 years, beginning in January of 2010 when Dr. Ehrmann instructed us to do so as Parenting Coordinator. Since you and I had not discussed or agreed upon a different school, and since the Judge had not ordered otherwise, this means the kids needed to stay in Cornerstone. I did not want them to be truant, either, and I am sure you would agree.
The kids will need to be at Cornerstone for the start of school Monday (8/13/12) by 8:00 AM, the same time as last year. I do not know exactly what time before-school care opens. Also, you will need to stop by the office and sign your Financial Agreeent [sic] and pay the matriculation fee ($300) and tuition for one child. I went to the office yesterday and signed my Financial Agreement and paid; there was no other paperwork that needed to be done since the kids were simply returning students.
If there is anything I can do to help with the logistics in the mornings please let me know.
On 13 August 2012 early in the morning Kristy responded by acknowledging that neither parent has the legal authority to enroll the children at a school. Thus they will have to continue with their formal education where currently enrolled -- Cornerstone Baptist Academy -- as agreed upon by the parties. But, she also stated that she was not going to send the children to school.
Brian,
Neither one of us can legally enroll the kids until the judge decides on our case. Deenik will make a motion today for a special hearing for the school decision. Since you are working today, Leesa will be watching the kids.
Kristy
Brian responded within an hour, prior to the start time of school for the day.
You are incorrect that "neither of us can legally enroll the kids until the judge decides on our case." First, we could agree to a school. Second, and more importantly, the kids were already enrolled at Cornerstone. I did not have to fill out any enrollment forms last week, as they had never been withdrawn from Cornerstone.
Kristy followed-up with an email to Brian on Wednesday 15 August 2012 indicating that she had changed the children's school enrollment.
Brian,
I was upset to find that you did not pay the doctor bill on Friday like you told me that you did.
Also, I have enrolled the kids in Pendleton Schools this morning because I cannot afford Cornerstone.
kristy
The children were now enrolled and attending two different schools dependent upon which parent was exercising parenting time at the moment.
Deenik knows
Kristy's attorney, Jonathan Deenik, showing that he is well aware that joint legal custody requires consent of both parties or the court to make a change, filed a motion on 14 August 2012 to set a hearing for the issue of schooling. This was after the school year had begun.
2. The parties share joint legal and physical custody of the children and have reached an impasse regarding where the children should attend school.
The GAL is alive
On Tuesday 14 August 2012 the GAL left a telephone message for Brian around 3:00 pm. Brian returned call by around 3:30 and left a message. Shortly thereafter, around 4:00 pm, Brian received an email from Cynthia Dean, attorney for the GAL, inquiring about the children's school attendance and the need for such.
Gentlemen,
The Guardian ad Litem has contacted Cornerstone Baptist and Pendleton Elementary School. It is our understanding that although both schools have started as of today, the Moore children are not enrolled in either school and home-schooling has never been mentioned.
I understand Mr. Moore filed a Motion with the Court for assistance concerning the school choice on August 2; however I have not received an order setting an emergency hearing. I have also not received available dates for mediation from Mr. Deenik or Mr. Barrows confirming a new date.
Clearly, it is in the best interests of the children to be in school. Do the parents intend to take action immediately to get the children in school? [emphasis in original]
Thank you,
Cindy Dean
Cindy Dean then followed-up with an email on Wednesday 15 August 2012.
Mr. Moore,
I have to assume your concern for the children’s safety has been eliminated.
As to the school issue, I understand you are opposed to the children attending Pendleton Schools. However, Ms. Kristy Moore has stated numerous times that she is unable to afford CBA and it is no longer located near her employment. The school issue may need to be decided by the Honorable Judge Welch. If Judge Welch is required to determine which school the children should attend then I believe a strong argument may be made that Joint Legal Custody is not possible between the parents. Clearly attending school is in the children’s best interest, an issue arose concerning the children’s attendance at CBA and both parents were aware of the issue; the parents were unable to amicable resolve the issue.
I will await to receive a copy of your filing but I do cause [sic] you that if you and Ms. Kristy Moore are not able to work together to resolve fundamental matters concerning your children then it leaves little room for the Guardian ad Litem to recommend Joint Legal and Joint Physical custody.
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
Seeking Resolution
On Friday 17 August 2012 after receiving the court orders issued on the prior day Brian reached out to Kristy in an effort to resolve the schooling issue before the upcoming hearing scheduled for five days later.
Kristy,
I just received in the mail some Orders from the Court regarding school for [child 1] and [child 2]. Have you gotten copies yet or heard from Mr. Deenik about them? I thought you should be aware of them, so I am emailing you. A hearing is set for Wednesday, August 22nd at 10:30 AM.
I would like for you to understand, as is my understanding of it, that the Order on Respondent’s Motion to Compel School Attendance allows us to both agree on what school our children attend. Otherwise, the Judge will decide for us.
I think your input is imperative about what school the children attend. That is why I emailed you early in the week about the issue. I would welcome and request your ideas on the schooling options I suggested in that email, as well as any other ideas you may have. I think “brainstorming” about all possible ideas is important, so no suggestions would be considered out of the question.
I want [child 1] and [child 2] to attend a school that is first and foremost suitable to meet their needs. It also must to be convenient to both parents so that each of us can have the maximum opportunity for involvement with the kids in their educations, both in and out of school. As I am sure you know as a teacher, children with both parents involved in their educations thrive more that those who don’t have both involved. I want to do everything I can to ensure we agree on a school that affords us each with the greatest opportunity for involvement
I am aware that you don’t currently agree with Cornerstone due to cost and distance issues. I do value your input, and am willing to pursue less costly education options. As one example, I believe financial aid is available at Heritage Christian School. We could also look in to education vouchers.
As I said in Tuesday’s email, perhaps there is some way I could assist you in the mornings regarding getting the kids to school. After all, I should be your primary support network regarding the kids.
What suggestions do you have? I would like to hear any ideas – perhaps you can elaborate on the suggestions I made Tuesday in my email about IPS schools, other private schools, or online schools. As a teacher, you probably have exposure to lots of information about school options.
I am not aware of where you are teaching. I felt you did not want me to know when I asked you in emails two times this summer and you did not respond. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to trying to select a school that accommodates your travel routes to and from your school.
There is a likelihood that on Wednesday the Court could determine that our children attend a school other than either Cornerstone or Pendleton Elementary. I know I would like to have input on where the kids attend school, and think you would also. That is why I think we should try to agree on their school over the weekend. If we could agree over the weekend, we could go to the chosen school together Monday and enroll the kids. They could start Monday without ever missing a day. I think that would be great
As we are both aware, the events of the past week have been disruptive for [child 1] and [child 2]. I know we would like to avoid further disruption for their sakes. I think it would be best if we could agree on a school that the kids could attend for at least the rest of this year without changing. Therefore, I think it is in the children’s best interest for us to work together this weekend to try to select the best school for them.
Please contact me either by phone or by email as soon as you feel like addressing this. I will change whatever necessary in my schedule to work with you on this tremendously important issue.
Thanks,
Brian
The result of that attempt to resolve the schooling issue over the weekend -- Kristy sent an email on Monday stating that the children were in school, would ride the bus to her house and Brian could pick them up there.
The Harmful Cindy Dean
Mr. Moore,
I understand the children are attending Cornerstone Baptist school today. The children are having to endure the trauma of attending one school on Monday and a second on Tuesday. Where do you intend to send the children the remainder of your parenting time assuming there is no order from the Court tomorrow which directs what is in the children’s best interest?
Sincerely,
Cindy Dean
Brian's frustration with Cindy Dean is expressed in his response --
Ms. Dean,
I intend to comply with the Court's Orders and to KEEP YOUR MEDDLING TO A MINIMUM to prevent further disruption for the children.
Brian Moore
ANALYSIS
What I find here is that there are two parents who may appear to be dug-in on their position as it relates to schooling for the children. This issue of schooling was raised near the end of the 2011-2012 school year prior to a 13 June 2012 hearing. Although it was known to be a contested issue and the GAL had been appointed months earlier the GAL appears to have avoided involvement until the time that his attorney, Cynthia Dean, states the children "are having to endure the trauma of attending one school on Monday and a second on Tuesday."
Brian has made numerous overt conciliatory gestures to Kristy [Pursuing Cooperation, and Enrollment Day] and rigorously sought to discuss the issue of selecting a school for the children [Let's select a school, The Philosopher, and Seeking Resolution]. Kristy had no intention of budging on the issue of the children's school. To her the children would be attending Pendleton Elementary School and no one was going to change that. Cindy Dean certainly appeared to side with Kristy in her immovable position. In Part V I will tell you what Judge Welch had to say about those tactics.
Del Anderson has recommended that Kristy be given sole legal and physical custody of the children. Reviewing the relevant case law that I have presented herein and the behaviours of the parents, particularly Kristy who has failed to communicate and has made joint custody a battleground, one must wonder what is Anderson's basis. Anderson, by his words, is that he believes that Brian is a "danger" to both Kristy and "the children." Yet no action has been taken by any party to limit Brian's access to the children. In Part V I will tell you precisely what Judge Welch had to say about the parents and the limitations placed upon parenting time when she modified the current agreed upon schedule.
Brian is clearly frustrated by the battle harming the children and progress, or lack thereof, [The Philosopher] and particularly Cindy Dean's involvement [The Harmful Cindy Dean]. Has Brian hit upon something in alleging that Deenik and the third-party evaluators are motivated by their own financial gain and not the best interest of the children?
My take on this, which I didn't adopt until more recently after attending the hearings and seeing all of the correspondence, is now that Brian is dead on in his analysis. Deenik, I am convinced, has engaged in a strategy that is harmful to the children and is motivated by greed. Additionally, I firmly believe that Jonathan Deenik is a liar whom I emphatically denounce knowing the legal consequences of defamation. As for Cynthia Dean, this is a person who is abjectly harmful to children. She has demonstrated to motivation based upon a true desire to help children. Her bias in favour of the parent perpetuating conflict and harm to the children is well established. Moreover I believe absolutely and with the same consequential cautions that Cynthia Dean is a liar and is sociopathic. I will aptly demonstrate this in Part V when I present the Smoking Gun. Her involvement with the courts should immediately be terminated before harm befalls more children upon her urging. She has abused her position and is abusing children in the process.
Be sure to read the upcoming next and final installment in this five part series about Child Advocates, Inc. Upon reading the evidence that I present you will likely agree that my efforts at pursuing investigation of Child Advocates, Inc. by the Indiana General Assembly, the Indiana Attorney General, the Indiana Supreme Court, the Department of Child Services and various members of the media whom I know are well justified.
If you would like to develop a strategy for communication and interaction with the other parent that will be seen as most favourable by a court 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.
