Senator Zakas has introduced a bill that would a court to obtain a DNA sample from juveniles found to have committed certain offenses. At first blush these types of expansion of government data bases offend me. Upon careful consideration the DNA identifier can now be seen as the modern day fingerprint which was once highly regarded as a unique identifier which replace the 19th century physiology measurements that was the previous standard.
I do see two benefits to this bill which were likely not intended by the author and supporters. The first is related to its intended purpose which is an identifier of perpetrators of future crimes. The alternative benefit is its exclusion of suspects. Law enforcement, like any branch of human activity, seeks the easiest route to a conclusion. That is why there have been a great number a false convictions of people ultimately exonerated through DNA evidence. Rarely were these people strangers to the law enforcement community. Usually they were criminals who didn't commit the particular crime for which they were convicted. This bill would allow detectives to quickly eliminate these juveniles – who may fit the profile of the offender – from the list of suspects when there is clear DNA evidence of the perpetrator.
Senate Bill 0003 affects the following citations: IC 10-13; IC 31-37. The synopsis is as follows:
Juvenile DNA testing. Requires a juvenile court to order a child found to be a delinquent child for the commission of an act that, if committed by an adult, would be: (1) burglary; (2) residential entry; (3) a crime of violence; or (4) a sex offense; to provide a DNA sample to the agency having supervision of the child or to the county sheriff. Makes conforming amendments.
DNA is the new fingerprint. This bill is keeping criminal justice records consistent with the technology. Another potential benefit is that it may be able to act as a deterrent and possibly provide a child with an excuse to peers pressuring him to participate in a crime, not to get involved.
I would like to see a court having jurisdiction in a paternity or dissolution having access to the DNA sample. Counties that are part of the Odyssey System would be able to provide this information live to a judge on the bench. This would provide greater judicial economy in paternity proceedings as a parent seeking to establish or deny paternity would be able to supply a DNA sample and have paternity decided without having to obtain an additional sample from the child.
If you are having difficulty disciplining your child 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 3 - DNA Samples of Juveniles - Legislation Part 14
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Indiana Senate Judiciary to hear Child Custody bills on Wednesday 30 January 2013 - Legislation Part 13
The Indiana Senate Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled to hear four child custody and well-being related bills on Wednesday 30 January 2013 beginning at 900 a.m.
The bills to be heard are;
SB6 which makes technical change to the child support emancipation age law enacted in 2012.
SB125 Establishes the committee on child services oversight to oversee the delivery of child services in Indiana.
SB164 allows a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a child in need of services [ChiNS] petition.
and SB202 requires disclosure of related cases in child custody modifications.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Brent Steele. The commottee meets in Room 130 which is in the lowest level to the left about 50 feet when exiting the main elevators.
If you are involved in a child custody proceeding and want to ensure the best outcome 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 347 being heard today - Legislation Part 11
Senator Randy Head has introduced a bill to increase the penalty for Child Solicitation when committed using a computer network. Child Solicitation is what that show Dateline NBC was about. It is someone at least age 18 asking a child age 14-16 years or someone at least 18 years of age asking a child age 14 years or less to engage in a sexual activity.
Senate Bill 0347 affects the following citations: IC 35-42-4-6. The synopsis is as follows:
Child solicitation. Increases the penalty for child solicitation to a Class B felony if a person commits the offense by using a computer network and travels to meet the child. Increases the penalty for child solicitation to a Class B felony if the person committing the crime has a previous unrelated conviction for child solicitation.
While I understand Senator Head's intent there is one huge problem that I have with the Child Solicitation statute that I have wanted changed for years but I have been concentrating my efforts in the custody area. What I would like to see done is an exemption added for parents, spiritual advisors, or persons acting as part of a sexual education or abstinence program or for others not making the request as a means of satisfying their own sexual desires. Current law provides that it is the crime of Child Solicitation to “urge” or “command” your child, age 16 years or less, to wait until marriage, after completing college or some other future adulthood time to start creating his or her own children through the natural method – sexual intercourse.
In addition to being unable to support this legislation for that reason I also don't want to elevate this offense to being the equivalent or greater than killing a child through negligence or neglect, or getting drunk and plowing through a bus stop filled with children and killing them.
To read more about how you may unknowingly be a sex offender click HERE.
if you need assistance in a child custody proceeding or life improvement 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, January 28, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 332 Parental Rights - Legislation Part 10
A longstanding principle in the Unites States is that of unalienable rights. The rights that we possess for no other reason than being people. The courts have provided interpretation and direction as to the extent of these liberties and the limits upon which government may subjugate or infringe upon those.
Senate Bill 0332 affects the following citations: IC 31-10-2-2.The synopsis is as follows:
Parental rights. Provides that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. Provides that Indiana law shall be administered, implemented, and interpreted consistently with this right. Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not burden this right unless the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The United States Supreme Court has articulated that a parent’s interests in raising his or her children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests,” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000), and the Indiana Supreme Court has described it as “one of the most valued relationships in our culture,” Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147 (quoting Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 285 (Ind. 2003)). The bill proposed by Senator Kruse adopts common caselaw language related to government intrusions into the personal lives of the citizenry such as “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means” and moves it into the statutory child custody scheme.
The particular text of the bill is as follows: “Indiana law shall be administered, implemented, and interpreted consistently with this section. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. A governmental entity may not burden a person's right described in subsection (c) unless the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
It should be this way. Even in consideration of my vast experience, research, observation and knowledge of the realm of issues related to overall child well-being I still do not feel that I am in a position to direct others as to how to raise their children. I make recommendations, I provide input and guidance to policy makers, I express my disagreement when I see child rearing techniques used that I feel are not best practices. But, in the end, the reality is that I do not know what is best for any child in any particular circumstance. The world has no certainties but is controlled only by possibilities and probabilities. I certainly don't want the government intruding into my family life absent near certainty that my actions would surely result in harm and I don't want it done to anyone else on my behalf.
Reproduction is an experiment. The scientific community knows not to limit experiment to only hypothesis with probable affirmative results because it is the improbable that may just as well produce the most significant advancement. While children may not be lab rats a historical analysis of past “best practices” reveals that man has collectively “known” far less than he surely has.
State actors, emboldened with the authority of the state and imbued by title or rank may become overzealous in their well meaning attempts at doing what is best for the children. However, they may need a check on their intentions which could just be a parent, not savvy in legal research and caselaw analysis, challenging them with the language that Senator Kruse proposes to arm them with. While the state may come armed with what seems like unlimited resources to impose action upon a parent or family that often lacks resources this bill could provide them with just the armament they need to remain a family -- “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means”.
If you need assistance with a CPS case or any other action that threatens your parental rights 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Overcoming Bias Against Men to Win an Indiana Child Custody Proceeding
From the outset I am going to confess that the title to this posting may be somewhat misleading. Although I can formulate the individual strategies to help men get a favourable child custody decision this post we deliver more general advice. Rather than attack any presupposed bias that courts hold against men I intend to elucidate the basis by which child custody decisions are disproportionately favourable to women and why men perceive a bias. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Child custody decisions are not about the law, but are judgments based upon parenting skills and behaviours. In my practice I find a notable difference in the manners by which men and women generally communicate and perceive the custody decision arena. My study of gender based linguistics and argument generally follow with my observations based upon personal experience.
Both genders come to me seeking what they frame as getting the court to make a fair decision that is best for the children. The dichotomy that tends to befuddle the quest of men and favour that of women in this expressed universal motive is their methodology. While more favourable results usually occur for either gender that I am coaching they are the result of very different styles. Men tend to approach me demanding that the court honour their rights. They present a logical roadmap – usually obfuscating some necessary elements – as to why the court should grant his demands. My voice becomes strained by the vigorous repetitive attempts to drown out the incessant banter so that my thoughts expressed in words can be heard. With women however, a delivery of my thoughts is more akin to a gentle skimming of a lakeside in a small sailboat. The conveyance of ideas, wishes and proposed actions seems to flow as smoothly and gently as the tributaries feeding the serene body of water.
It is this subtle distinction that is more often unknown or unrecognized by parents, practitioners and the judicial officers hearing the cases that may be perceived as a bias against men. Identical circumstances, evidence and requests can be presented by men and women and yet the results will be different. The differences will be expressed in males requests being honoured less often than that of the females. This I attribute not to a cognitive bias but, instead, an intuitive bias.
Acknowledgment and conditioning toward ameliorating this intuitive bias is a reality that cannot be undone through legislation, logical argument or review by a higher court. It is based upon a simple predisposition; when overtaxed the brain will resort to laziness. That is our problem solving mechanism first deduces a solution based upon feeling or intuition. The logical or formulation response requires a conscious effort to analyze the various inputs and then emit a response based upon a predefined structure. In short, a child custody decision is more apt to be made upon the higher weight attributed to feeling and less so on the structural argument based upon statutory law.
So this is where most men are disadvantaged. They tend to stand fervently in favour of their reasoning ability and carefully constructed outline of the matters to be presented. It is the sense of pride and “correctness” that often provides the greatest barrier to attaining the child custody decision they desire and to which they may rightfully be entitled.
Unfortunately for many litigants law schools have not provided the necessary training to ensure that the counselors churned out now how to recognize these intuitive demands and nuances of the child custody spectrum. But no amount of training or research will likely mitigate these shortcomings of the system. It's the difference between what you may commonly know as 'street smart' and 'book smart'. One without the other may leave you exposed to the dangers and trappings of navigating the custody hearing.
In Indiana there is no presumption favouring either parent. Some judges have expressed to me that they go out of their way to ensure that men are being afforded their "rights". Men may have the upper hand when it comes to the law, the evidence, and the assertion of their rights. Yet, the winds seem to effortlessly propel the decisions of the family law courts in favour of those whose demeanor and assertions most reflect that of the general female population. Until such time as the court officers are provided with ample hearing time and then a masseuse to facilitate a relaxed state while they ruminate about the appropriate decision then we can expect to see this “bias” continue.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Friday, January 25, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 202 Child Custody Modifications - Legislation Part 9
Senators Bray and Broden have introduced a bill affecting child custody modifications.
Senate Bill 0202 affects the following citations: IC 29-3-2-7; IC 31-14; IC 31-17-2-26. The synopsis is as follows:
Petitions to modify custody and visitation. Provides that if a person files a petition to establish or modify a guardianship, visitation, or child custody, the person shall state in a verified petition whether the person has been the subject of a department of child services (DCS) investigation, whether the child has been the subject of a DCS investigation, or if the child has been determined to be a child in need of services.
This bill was prepared by the department of child services interim study committee during the summer of 2012.
Child custody placement is always based upon the pinnacle of factors being the arbitrary and subjective best interest of the child. While this bill may provide an additional cost and challenge to litigating parents it does serve a legitimate and useful purpose. That being to provide the court with additional information that may be of benefit to the judicial officer making the placement decision.
Indiana Rules of Evidence 201(b) as amended on 01 January 2010 allow a court to take judicial notice of any other docketed case sua sponte. This was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Paternity of P.R. and A.R.; H.B. v. J.R. However, the challenging party was still encumbered by having to be aware of those ancillary proceedings. Now the parties to custody litigation will be required to make verified statements as to any other cases involving the child. This will allow courts to more efficiently assess the dynamics of the parents and make a placement decision that should more reflect the best interest of the child.
In my posting yesterday about SB174 I suggested that language be added that requires a court to take notice of any pending or former child custody cases involving a party seeking to terminate a parent-child relationship based upon the allegation of rape. SB202 would be similar in effect requiring disclosure of prior cases by DCS involving the child of a custody, guardianship or parenting time modification or the parent or guardian of the child.
Generally, I am reticent to apply more power or credence to DCS as I believe that the agency performs in an intervention rather than a prevention construct which is not fully supportive of the best interest of children. With that said and knowing that we must still function with what we have the additional information providing to judicial officers making these determinations against the potential harm weighs in favour of disclosure. It is for these reasons that the senators and this bill should be supported.
If you are involved in a child custody modification proceeding and wish to ensure the best outcome for the child and yourself 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 0174 Parental Rights of Rapists' - Legislation Part 8
Senator Ed Charbonneau has this session resurrected a previously introduced but not heard bill that would allow a parent who is the victim of rape to petition a court to terminate the parental rights of the alleged rapist. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Senate Bill 0174 affects the following citations: IC 31-9-2-0.9; IC 31-17-6-1; IC 31-35-3.5. The synopsis is as follows:
Terminating the parent-child relationship. Allows a parent who is the victim of an act of rape from which a child was conceived to file a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator of the act of rape. Requires a court to terminate the parent-child relationship if the court finds: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape against the parent who filed the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship and that the child was conceived as a result of the act of rape; and (2) that terminating the parent-child relationship would be in the best interests of the child.
Rape is defined in IC 35-42-4-1 as;
Having sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when:
(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be given.
During the previous session when this matter was discussed with me everyone seemed to be in agreement that it should be adopted. That is always a red flag moment for me for when there is unity of opinion that is a strong indicator that the nonconscious or emotional portion of the brain is driving decision making. When logic is applied there is often disagreement and sometimes opposite positions. This is usually seen in the scientific community and results from alternate points of view or framing. I don't believe that such is the case here but still there should be a logical effect examination.
This bill provides that the act of rape is prima facie evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the child is in the best interests of the child.
In simple terms this is saying that at first glance it is assumed that it is not healthy for a child to have a relationship with his or her parent who is a rapist.
The court shall terminate the parent-child relationship if the court finds:
(1) by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations in a petition described in section 4(2)(A) and 4(2)(B) of this chapter are true; and
(2) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child
The clear and convincing standard is what is called the mid-level burden-of-proof. In criminal trials the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is generally attributed to certainty of about 95% or greater. In civil actions the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means 51% or more of the evidence is in favour of the verdict. Clear and convincing is used in civil actions where there may be a substantial loss of liberty involved such as in this scenario or when CPS initiates a custodial action. Clear and convincing requires much more than a preponderance - >50% -- but not beyond a reasonable doubt -- >95%. It is generally attributed to a level of certainty of about 75%.
I am initially disturbed by this legislation in that as a specialist in high conflict child custody cases I immediately see the potential for abuse. Just think of the false allegations that are often made in petitions for protective orders that are used as part of a child custody litigation strategy. I was falsely accused of rape in a protective order petition once. The police actually came and testified against my stalker accuser. One only need look to The Innocence Project to see the list of “rapists” who were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt but later release upon a showing that they could not have been the perpetrator. Imagine being sent to prison for the duration of the childhood of your son or daughter and losing all custody rights in the process all based upon a false allegation.
I would first like to see language added to this bill that requires disclosure of any other current or past child custody proceedings involving the accusing parent. This would allow both the judge and accused parent to examine if the accuser has a pattern of this type of behaviour or may be using it as part of a child custody strategy. Further, that this law cannot be used as an independent action if a divorce or paternity proceeding is currently pending between the parties. Finally, that if the alleged victim of rape did not make a prior report to law enforcement or at a minimum have a rape kit test performed then there is a presumption that there was no rape and that the alleged victim must first establish that a rape occurred before proceeding further.
If you have been falsely accused of any type of substantive matter in a child custody proceeding then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
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, January 23, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 0006 Child Support Emancipation - Legislation Part 7
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
This bill is introduced by Senators Steele and Talian who are members of the Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee. The bill makes technical corrections to a law enacted last year. This bill will bring continuity between the portions related to dissolution of marriage and paternity. It will be retroactive to July 1, 2012 when the law went into effect. Passage is assured.
Senate Bill 0006 affects the following citations: IC 31-16-6-6. The synopsis is as follows:
Synopsis: Petitioning for support for educational needs. Adds certain provisions in the paternity statute regarding petitioning for educational support to the dissolution of marriage statute. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the Indiana child custody and support advisory committee.)
Here is the text of the language copied from the dissolution section that is to be added to the paternity section.
(c) A child who is receiving child support under an order issued before July 1, 2012, may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age.
(d) A child who is receiving child support under an order issued after June 30, 2012, may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age.
An emergency is declared for this act.
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
23 January 2013 hearings on SB0105 Child Abuse - SB120 Cursive Writing - Legislation Part 6
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hear two child related bills on Wednesday 23 January 2013. Members of the public are invited to appear and observe or present testimony.
Senate Bill 0105 affects the following citations: IC 31-33-1-2 The synopsis is as follows:
Synopsis: Child abuse and neglect inquiries. Provides that when confronted with a potential case of child abuse or neglect, any law enforcement employee, judiciary employee, medical doctor, employee of a medical doctor, or school official may contact a local office of the department of child services to report and inquire about the suspected child abuse or neglect.
Currently any person who suspects child abuse or neglect has a duty to make a report to the department of Child Services or the local law enforcement agencies. The applicable statute is found at IC 31-33-5 et seq. I generally am required to make a few of these reports each year.
The entire text of the statute that Senator Steele proposes is as follows:
When confronted with a potential case of child abuse or neglect, any:
(1) law enforcement employee;
(2) judiciary employee;
(3) medical doctor or employee of a medical doctor; or
(4) school official;
may contact a local office of the department [I would add the following here-OF CHILD SERVICES] to report and inquire about the suspected child abuse or neglect.
In adding the language of “potential case” this bill is lowering the standard for making a report but designating that it is applicable to only certain people who may be better able to evaluate that potential through their experience or training. Unlike the Duty to Report statute this bill provides permissive reporting rather than an obligation. House Bill1086 authored by Representative Davis seeks to move duty to report to 35-42-6 et seq as a new section.
The other child related bill being heard is another piece of simple legislation, usually an anomaly in the legislative world, this one authored by Senator Jean Leising. She has proposed to add cursive writing to the curriculum mandates of each school corporation and accredited nonpublic elementary school.
Senate Bill 0120 affects the following citations: IC 20-30-5. The synopsis is as follows:
Synopsis: Cursive writing in school curriculum. Requires each school corporation and accredited nonpublic elementary school to include cursive writing in its curriculum.
The heading on this bill caught my attention and instantly produced the thought that it is about time someone outlaw the teaching of cursive writing. I can recall attempts to get me to practice cursive writing when I was in school. I simply refused to participate because the instructor was unable to make a logical connection for learning it.
The valid reasons for opposing instruction in cursive writing that existed nearly 40 years ago are more so now. As students in the United States drift further down the stream of competitiveness adding instruction in cursive writing to an already overburdened curriculum will only set students back further.
This legislation should certainly be opposed.
If you would like to improve the well-being of your child and be better prepared for child custody litigation 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
2013 Indiana House Bill 1095 Passenger Restraint System - Legislation Part 5
Representative Clyde Kersey has introduced a bill to make it a felony offense for a child to be injured or killed in a motor vehicle wreck if the child was not properly restrained.
House Bill 1095 affects the following citations : IC 9-19-11. The synopsis is as follows:
Synopsis: Passenger restraint systems for children. Makes it a Class D felony for a person to knowingly or intentionally operate a motor vehicle in which there is a child less than eight years of age who is not properly restrained and the motor vehicle is involved in an accident that causes serious bodily injury to the child. Raises the offense to a Class C felony if the accident results in the death of the child. Makes conforming amendments.
Improving the safety and well-being of children is an admirable pursuit. A problem that I have with this type of motivational legislation is that it punishes the conduct upon a showing of adverse results. While the underlying conduct – not restraining a child while operating a motor vehicle – can be the same for similar parties the punishment for doing so is contingent upon becoming dissimilar through circumstances most often attributed to luck or misfortune based upon which side you fall.
The result is that a child is injured or killed and then the law steps in to dole out a punishment. I would rather see the resources of the state expended on providing the restraint devices, instruction or demonstrations on use and information about potential harm from misuse or lack of use to parents rather than paying for the cost of prosecution and incarceration.
The bill makes bad luck a criminal offense. You drive safely and legally but a dump truck runs a red light, plows over the back half of your car and your unrestrained child is killed. Someone else goes through the same experience except that their restrained child is killed. The results are the same but because you failed to take an inconsequential act you face a Class C felony conviction during your time of intense grief.
I therefore am unable to lend my support to this bill that turns criminal punishment into a lottery.
If you would like assistance with parenting matters and ensuring that your behaviour is favourable to a child custody decision 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, January 21, 2013
2013 Indiana House Bill 1029 Adoption Information - Legislation Part 4
Freshman representative Sharon Negele has introduced a bill to allow relatives of an adoptee and the pre-adoptive siblings to petition for access to an adoptee's non-identifying medical information.
House Bill 1029 affects the following citations : IC 31-9-2-64; IC 31-19-24. The synopsis is as follows:
Adoption history information. Adds a relative of an adoptee and a pre-adoptive sibling to the list of interested persons who may obtain medical history information and file a petition with an appropriate court to request the release of medical information, nonidentifying information, or identifying information. Requires that a petition requesting release of medical, nonidentifying, or identifying information must include the reasons why the release of information may be beneficial to an interested person. (Current law requires that the petition must include reasons why the release of information may be beneficial to the adoptee or birth parent.) Requires the court to appoint a confidential intermediary if certain requirements are met and the petitioner has shown an emergency medical need or good cause relating to the welfare of an interested person. (Current law requires the court to appoint a confidential intermediary if certain requirements are met and the petitioner has shown an emergency medical need or good cause relating to the welfare of an adoptee or birth parent.)
This bill does not provide any significant changes to the adoption statutory scheme but does increase the category of interested people who could benefit from the medical information maintained about the adoptee and eases the burden of demonstrating a need for the information. As the medical community gains more knowledge about the genetic make-up of the human body and its relationship to ailments access to family history because more important for the diagnosis and treatment of conditions. Providing greater access between persons of blood relations can only be beneficial. Representative Negele should be supported along with this bill.
If you need assistance in an adoption matter 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Be wary the selection of words
Intention, facts, feelings and all that binds us together is conveyed through language. In the realm of conflict surrounding parental relationships and child custody litigation the appropriate use of language cannot be overstated. Where some see the words 'can' and 'may' as readily interchangeable there are others who find them to be as diametric as 'yes' and 'no'. I have talked to numerous children and adults about their childhood experiences as it related to those words. What I have often found is children, more predominantly males, view the intended abstract representation of 'can't' as a challenge to the limits of the physical world and, more importantly, to their status as an intelligent and capable being rather than permissive. Clearly be told 'you can't go out tonight' activates the mind to conjure the possible methods – wait until the parents are sleeping, the use of bedsheets to rappel from the second level, covertly descending the corridors to a rear exit – to display that what was claimed to be a deficiency in competence would be rebuked. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A parent who states that 'you may not go out tonight' would likely find a less challenging child and a more cohesive family structure. But is the common adulteration of words in our daily lives of such impact as to justify a careful examination and deliberate effort to correct any misapplications? I believe so.
Words of ubiquitous application or ambiguities torment the conveyance of ideas. In the legal realm, be it writing child custody legislation, drafting parenting time agreements or challenging a contempt action, precision is paramount. It can mean the difference between enforcing your rights and acquiescing to the abandonment of those rights.
Language can also be as important as life and death, literally. Imagine the scenario of patiently waiting to drive your vehicle over a busy crossroad. Your passenger suddenly declares, “It's clear from my side” which provides the same information as “From my side it is clear.” There is a clear distinction between the two messages when efficiency or conservation is applied. The information being sought is whether there is a sufficient lull in the flow of traffic to provide an opportunity to safely pass across the busy boulevard.
The passenger's declaration of “From my side it is clear” informs the driver that there is a sufficient lull in traffic from the right side of the vehicle to make passage safe. The onus is then transferred to the driver to determine whether the same condition exist from the left and if he shall then proceed.
The passenger's declaration of “It's clear from my side” can be reduced to an unambiguous mandate to proceed when efficiency or conservation is applied. The passenger's declaration becomes “It's clear!” when the driver's brain processes enough words to produce a complete thought. “From my side” can be discarded as surplus inconsequential words. But as any driver knows, those consequences could be deadly.
What caught my eye yesterday – the induction to this writing – was a bottle of liquid Drano. The label claims that it “Won't hurt pipes”. I immediately recognized this is a non-statement. It provides no beneficial information about the product to the reasoning mind but can give a feeling of comfort to the emotional or intuitive part of the mind. This is the trickery of marketing.
In the 1980's Johnny Cougar sung about the feeling of teenage love in Hurt so Good. Divorces hurt as does being cut with a knife, but in different ways. We comfort our children when they feel the hurt of being teased. The OED generally describes hurt as receiving a blow, being struck, being damaged, being harmed, injurious, causing the sensation of pain, wounds to the feelings. Hurt can include damage of any kind when portions of its dictionary definition are isolated. Words derive their meaning from usage in conformity with the dictionary applications. Thus, in reviewing our cultural use of hurt we can understand that to be hurt is to have the emotions or body harmed in such a manner as to generally feel the sensation of pain.
Pipes however do not have a central nervous system or the neural network that is cognizant of pain and produces the sensation of being hurt. Thus Drano has made no claim as to whether it could damage your pipes. So, alas, it comes down to this – say what you mean and mean what you say. Or “intend” if you don't seek to regress to the numerical middle of the road.
In matters of child custody petitions, agreements or orders precision of language is important. If your relationship with your child is more important than the rote cut-n-paste process that is often facilitated by the legal community then you should carefully consider the language being used.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 0053 Child Seduction by Mental Health Professionals - Legislation Part 3
When your child who is of the age of consent for sexual relations goes to school we still expect that he or she is not going to be engaged in sexual activity with school personnel. It would be a crime for those adults to engage our children in sexual activity even though an adult outside of the school could. It is such because school personnel are assumed to be able to exert some influence or control over our children that could be used to manipulate them into a sexual relationship in which they otherwise would not engage.
Senator Phil Boots has introduced SB0053 to add Mental Health Professionals [MHP] to the list of other persons to which the child seduction statute applies. Senate Bill 0053 affects the following citations : IC 35-31.5-2; IC 35-42-4-7. The synopsis is as follows:
Child seduction. Provides that the offense of child seduction, a Class D felony, includes a mental health professional engaging in certain sexual behavior with a patient who is at least 16 years of age but less than 18 years of age.
Currently child seduction applies to cases where an adult participates in sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 years except in a few exceptions. Those exceptions include when the person may be over the age of 16 years but mentally incapacitated and when the older person is in a position of trust or supervisory capacity such as a custodian, step-parent, school employee or even a military recruiter.
Representative Boots should be supported in his effort to add to the list another category which was conspicuously absent from the original legislation – MHPs. Children, especially those of divorce, are more often engaged with MHPs. Because of the ability that MHPs have to influence and manipulate their subjects it is beneficial to the therapist-patient relationship that a level of surety be maintained that a child of consensual age not be put at risk of being unduly persuaded into a sexual relationship.
The bill passed out of the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee by a vote of 9-0.
If you are engaged in a child custody dispute and want to minimize the adverse effects on your child 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.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
