Kristy Moore's motivations - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part XI

In Part X of this series I left off telling you that I would reveal the possible motivations for Kristy's actions, the elements of her personality type that drive this and the effect it is having on the children.

Prior to signing the mediated agreement Kristy was already preparing for a custody battle. That process began seven months after signing the child custody agreement. At trial Kristy spun a web of baseless allegations that centered around her claim that she and Brian were unable to communicate and that Brian is an unfit parent who is abusive to the children. Some of the more bizarre claims included that Brian had visited her home in the middle of the night – harassing her by banging on the door repeatedly – and had also slashed the tires on her car at some point. Neither incident was reported to police nor corroborated by any direct evidence but to Kristy they felt real.

In court Kristy detailed her course of action to build a war-chest for the custody battle. She detailed some of the adjustments she made for her and the children. These included living with her parents, sacrificing having a new car and not being able to adequately provide her share of support for the children. When the coffers were stuffed she made her move, literally. She relocated from her parents home to a house in Pendleton and then commuted back to Indianapolis for her work at IPS. She likely thought this would elevate her standing in regards to factor five: The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community. They now had their own home, lived in a new community and had to adjust to the strange environment.

Kristy certainly made some points in her presentation and it seemed as though Jonathan Deenik had been advising her well which, for $20,000, he should. That is the amount that Kristy claimed to have in her war-chest. But under cross-examination by Brian, Kristy's tower seemed to collapse. Particularly when asked if it makes sense to spend $20K on an attorney but not the support of the children, such as their education, she replied – No! Deenik was unable to redeem her. Judge Heather Welch proclaimed that she was able to “see through [Kristy's] scheme.” The Court reduced Kristy's exposure to the children from that of every other week to the time after work [around 5:00pm] until they they are put on the bus to school the following morning on Monday afternoons through Friday mornings. Except for the first and third Mondays each month when Brian keeps them overnight.

As has been consistent throughout Brian continued to communicate with Kristy about parenting time matters and the well-being of the children. This included regularly offering to her opportunities for mediation which have been either ignored or rebuffed. She has, however, been amenable to engaging Brian in discussion about his offers of additional parenting time to her. In realizing the need for the children to maintain their new relationships in Pendleton and to experience meaningful interactions with each parent, which include ample opportunities for leisure activity, Brian has offered to Kristy one weekend per month of additional parenting time. This would give her a parent-child relationship of more than evening household duties and morning preparation for school.

Although Kristy has, according to her, depleted her legal expense war-chest; been told by the judge that her testimony is “not credible”; has had her effective parenting time substantially reduced; has by any measure of even a casual observer not made a compelling argument of a change of circumstances; and, contrary to her assertions about lack of communication, has continued to communicate effectively with Brian regarding her opportunities for additional parenting time – still continues to fight. Can there be any rational reason for this course of action? Can it be easily explained. The answers are yes and no.

Anyone would say, just as Kristy did, that it doesn't make sense to neglect your child's education or other needs just to carry on a baseless legal fight. It's just not rational. But to the irrational mind there is no conflict. Although I don't believe that personality type is a scientific predictor of future behaviour I do feel it can be correlated to past actions. In child custody terms Kristy has the mind of the “protector”. In her mind she is motivated by empathy for the children and a sense of needing to assure their well-being. This would explain the basis for her establishing her plan and building the legal fund war-chest.

Post-divorce children need stability and security. Especially those who are youngest, such as the pre-school Moore children were at the time Kristy filed for divorce. These children may endeavor for their parents reconciliation over a span of years. They often feel an intense sense of loss as parents rebuild their lives – economically, socially and sexually – and fail to engage in former routines such as bedtime stories or being socially engaged in the community or school. The effect becomes more acute when a parent relocates and creates a distance that renders participation by the other parent more difficult. New residences or new partners coming and going from the residence contribute to the feeling of insecurity and often exacerbate the outcome. These outcomes are often anger, loneliness, lack of trust and recoiling unto themselves. They learn to hide their feelings and pretend that things are fine.

Their hurt isn't so easily hidden though. When a child needs stability and continuity most he isn't getting it. This is why it is essential that parents continue to communicate. While dinner habits, bedtime routines and rules of the house may just seem like different parenting styles that each parent may now fully express in his or her own home, to the child they represent incongruity, instability and a lack of parental cohesion. Therefore, parents should attempt to establish as much conformity for the child as possible while still respecting each others differences. It takes effort, sometimes more than a parent who has come home from a stressful day at work wants to be confronted with by three email messages sent throughout the day.

The protector sees the signs of problems in the children and attributes them to the other parent. The child who withdraws into a near incommunicado state may be perceived as being sexually or otherwise abused. The protector parent won't correctly attribute the child's undirected anger as being the result of that parent being an absent parent in the home. After all, he or she is there, is providing material necessities and is himself or herself feeling more stable and secure now that the divorce is over. With all these positives attributes the only cause of a problem in the child's life must be the other parent. The problems provide a confirmation to the “protector” parent.

In observing Kristy in court, reviewing her court filings and reading years of email and text messages one can attribute a personality type to her. Some of the clearest observable traits about Kristy is her inability to think logically, to draw inferences or conclusions based upon available information. On the witness stand there were two distinct people. The first being the poised, confident and empathetic caring parent who fully answered Jonathan Deenik's questions with relevant responses. Moments later would appear the lost, confused, imaginary spirit who was nearly mute or rambled on with delusion based tales irrelevant to the proceedings during cross examination.

Kristy can easily be seen by coworkers or friends as easy to get along with, patient and flexible. She is a good team member, loyal and needs harmonious relationships in her life. She likes to live for the moment and is artistic. She is very accepting of people and doesn't try to peer into motives or meanings behind actions but takes them at face value. She is sensitive to conflicts and disagreement but this can also be a setback for her. Feedback, whether it be employment performance or parenting related, is taken personally. Suggestions of change are an offense to her and she tends to become discouraged or hostile. She has difficulty understanding more complex systems, especially interpersonal relationships. She often overlooks long-term consequences and doesn't prepare in advance. Her actions are motivate more by feeling than logic. She functions best in a structured and ordered environment while being prodded by others yet she does best when not having to confer with others when deciding important matters.

This personality type is not a statistical anomaly. In fact, it is quite proportional among personality types. So why is then that there is such conflict between her and Brian and that this can't be resolved yet while in its third year? In the next segment I will analyze Brian's personality and how that has contributed to this morass.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.

Why I am supporting O'Bama's deficit reduction position

As a child advocate I am a bit sensitive to liars or those who make promises knowing they will never be kept. I have seen the emotional damage done to children. A lie is still a lie though regardless of speaker or context. Thus, I have not be a fan of O'Bama regardless of policy. But when credit is due and deserved I offer it objectively.

While it may not be a popular position to take at this time O'Bama's position on the sequestration and spending cuts set to begin on 01 March 2013 is the correct one. Europe has provided a clear demonstration of how runaway spending, entitlements and government sponsored sick-care programs affects economies.

Families and businesses in a free market [that's conceptual only as it does not exist] would have to exist within their means. Some of us already choose to do this. Government should be the same. That is why O'Bama should be supported when he says that raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership. These “leaders” who acquiesce a rise in the debt limit should not be re-elected.

The spending cuts will take place on 01 March but need to be much deeper. O'Bama has taken the correct position in declaring that he will veto any attempt to avoid the automatic spending cuts. Congress will not be able to reach consensus on a plan that will have enough support for a veto over-ride.

The spending cuts are coming. It's about time and it will have a negligible adverse immediate financial impact while it will provide a greater long-term benefit.

Now if the military budget can be reduced by 82% to the level needed for sufficient defense then we'll be a more prosperous and safer country.

If you need assistance in establishing a personal deficit reduction plan and ensuring your financial security 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 344 Child Protection Registry - Legislation Part 33

Senator Randall Head, a former prosecutor, brings to us the Child Protection Registry bill which is aimed at restricting marketers of products which are illegal for minors [tobacco, alcohol] or considered harmful to minors from contacting them through electronic points such as mobile devices or email. This is one of those bills that while serving its stated objective should have an ancillary benefit.

Senate Bill 0344 affects the following citations : IC 24-4.3 The synopsis is as follows:
Child protection registry. Requires the secretary of state to establish the child protection registry. Permits a person to register with the registry certain "contact points" that belong to a minor. Defines a contact point to be: (1) an electronic mail address; (2) an instant message identity; (3) a mobile or other telephone number; (4) a facsimile number; or (5) a similar point of communication defined by rule by the secretary of state. Permits a school or other institution that primarily serves minors to register its domain name with the registry. Provides that a person may not send a communication to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 days if the communication: (1) has the express purpose of advertising or promoting a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing; or (2) contains or has the express purpose of advertising or promoting material that is harmful to minors, as described in Indiana law. Requires persons who send such communications to check the registry (for a fee) to ensure compliance with the law. Authorizes the secretary of state to adopt rules to administer the statute and the registry. Provides for civil enforcement of the statute.

Advertisers who wants to inundate us with their unsolicited promotions will be required to check the registry to ensure that they do not send advertisements to the contact points of minors that have been registered with the secretary of state. This will be similar to the states Do Not Call list.

The ancillary benefit that I mentioned? There is a fee to check the list. If it can be more costly for us to be annoyed by these ads then all the better. The other benefit – unless there is some sworn declaration about the age of the person whose contact points are being registered – I will become a minor once the registry is established.

Help protect the best interest of your child in a custody proceeding. 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.

Parental Responsibility - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part X

In Part IX of this series I assessed the responsibilities of judicial officers as it relates to the decision making process in child custody cases and the use of evaluators. I take to task there what I see as the failure of Judge Heather Welch to proactively manage these proceedings. While I feel that her parenting time decisions in the interim were sound and, likely, better than if the proceedings had been more timely settled, I do strongly believe that this is an anomaly. I have seen few cases where the protracted litigation and use of additional advisors from various disciplines produced better results than the preexisting arrangement. The current parenting time decision was made without significant contribution by any of the third-party participants.

Throughout this series I have continued to unload my harshest rebuke towards Cynthia Dean and Del Anderson of Child Advocates. Anderson and Dean have prolonged this litigation through their deliberate substantive misrepresentations to the father and the court. This litigation is well into its third year and will likely enter its fourth before a judgment in rendered. Also to take some of the blame is Jonathan Deenik of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey, and Glazier , who has absolutely lied to the court as a review of the audio recordings of the September 2011 hearing demonstrates when compared to his later filings and statements to the court. Rampant perjury aside there is more blame to assess.

One cannot hold the ancillary cast of characters involved in this show accountable without enjoining the producers in the blame game. It is the parents who are embattled with each other and whether directly or through the interdiction of the court are responsible for the admission of the custody evaluators to the forum. That while the peripheral players may antagonize the parties, frustrate the court and prolong the process it is incumbent upon the parents to take full ownership of the responsibility for creating the situation.

This may seem a daunting prospect in a society that attempts to absolve all members of accountability for their actions but in child custody proceedings and decisions the children are not assuaged – they blame the parents.

Child custody battles harm children!!!

Judges know this, child advocates know this, MHPs know this and parents damn well better know this. Yet, fight they do and at times voraciously without consideration for the wishes, benefits and needs of the children. Logic is often supplanted by rationalization in which a parent justifies his or her harm to the children by convincing his or her self that the “temporary” harm is for the greater, long-term benefit of the children or by overlooking any harm as part of the “normal” process.

There exists certain patterns that predictably manifest themselves following divorce. Most often has been the mother as custodian and residential parent and father as the financial provider who is granted some visitation time. Custodial parents often see the non-custodial parents' demands for additional parenting time as a threat to their new found autonomy and fragile financial security. Rebuking this demand erupts initially from lingering emotional wounds and vindictiveness. This is especially true in second generation divorces – the divorces of children whose parents divorced.

From the child's perspective he has lost the parent he lives with. This parent is absent in the home. During the marriage he could count on at least one parent attending to his needs, helping with homework, providing nurturing and guiding conversation and comforting him through nighttime rituals before he went to sleep. Post divorce he is tended to by a stranger until retrieved by a parent after work who has become more of a drill sergeant dispensing orders while tossing a frozen meal into the microwave before retreating to his or her bedroom. Most queries to the child are not out of genuine interest for the child's well-being but are to provide opportunity for early interdiction into the next crisis or to spy on the other parent. This once patient and nurturing parent now too tired and impatient will scream about the slightest offense before heading off to his or her bedroom and shutting the door. The alternating weekend parenting time schedule provides an opportunity to recharge and pursue new romantic interests.

Those weekends are also stressful for the child who is removed from the often unstructured environment of the custodial home where he or she is free to talk on the phone or watch television uninhibited. Suddenly the child is thrust into another household where time is nearly fully scheduled and doesn't include opportunity for the child to freely associate with friends or chat on the phone, play games or tend to internet activities. The non-custodial parent may be just as irritable when scheduling is not adhered to and the child's longing for interaction with friends is ignored for want of spending 100% of this limited time engaged with the child. The child is left without either pre-divorce parent but instead interracts with two competing “strangers”.

Healthy parents who remain in close proximity after separation may agree upon a flexible Shared Parenting plan that accommodates the scheduling needs of each while considering the desires of the children. But even this arrangement can become strained and collapse by a unilateral action of a parent who may be dissatisfied for any of numerous reasons. Sadly this includes the parents failure to adapt and the resentfulness or hurt at seeing the other parent move on and prosper. Lingering emotional issues that may evolve into a diagnostic condition can also be a contributing factor. Too often the chosen method to ameliorate that resentfulness or hurt or the way in which the emotional issues manifest themselves is to inflict pain upon the other parent by taking the children away.

The immediate case which fostered this series of articles provides the anecdotal evidence. After Kristy filed for divorce she and Brian litigated the matter heavily until reaching a compromise in December 2009 that provided for the children to spend alternating weeks with each parent who both shared legal custody.

In this Shared Parenting agreement was a stipulation common to many; Brian would pay an elevated support amount in exchange for equal parenting time and ending the litigation. As a sole proprietor carpenter Brian faced another common hurdle – deterioration in business income. As is often the case, to finance the legal battle he drew down his business investment. Additionally, his business suffered from lack of attention while the litigation was being waged. If those two factors weren't enough the country was mired in a housing recession and new home construction and remodeling demands for carpenters had long waned. Not surprisingly, Brian didn't make consistent and full child support payments.

Seven months later, in July of 2010, Kristy alleged that there had been a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties since the agreement was signed which warranted a change to Brian having IPTG minimum parenting time and being stripped of legal custody. Although I felt that the petition was facially deficient and should have been dismissed that wasn't my call to make and thus it went to trial.

In the next segment I will reveal the possible motivations for Kristy's actions, the elements of her personality type that drive this and the effect it is having on the children.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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 392 Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations - Legislation Part 32

Senator Yoder has introduced a bill that would authorize the Department of Child Services to hire more investigations to respond to purported reports of suspected child abuse or neglect.

Senate Bill 0392 affects the following citations :IC 31-25-2-5; IC 31-33-7-2. The synopsis is as follows:
Department of child services. Requires the department of child services (DCS) to hire additional employees by January 1, 2014. Requires DCS to assign for investigation all reports of child abuse or neglect that are received from a centralized call center to the local DCS office in the county where the child is located. Requires a local DCS office to investigate a report of child abuse or neglect received from certain individuals. Requires DCS to adopt rules to implement the provisions of this bill.

In 1974 Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act [CAPTA] which mandated that all adults in positions of responsibility with respect to a child were required to report to Child Protect Services or law enforcement authorities any known or suspected child abuse. In 1984 CAPTA was revised to include any adult, whether in a position of responsibility with respect to the child, to report suspected abuse or neglect within 36 hours. Further, an immunity provision was added to absolutely immune any person involved in the reporting or investigation process from any sort of charge or prosecution, criminal or civil.

The federal legislation was adopted into the Indiana Code through IC 31-33-5 et seq which is in the family law section. Failure to report is a Class B misdemeanor. Representative Davis has introduce a bill to move the duty to report neglect or abuse statute from the juvenile law title to the criminal title.

Not surprising are the incidents of the immunity provision being used to facilitate reports based upon vindictiveness or as part of a child custody litigation strategy. DCS employees also are relieved of a personal obligation to provide unbiased and truthful reporting and are free to allow their personal motivations to influence their findings.

According to the testimony of Senator Dan Coats before a Capitol Hill hearing, in 1963 there were 150,000 reported cases of abuse, in 1993 there were 2,898,000. Two thirds of these abuse and neglect allegations are unsubstantiated or determined to be unfounded, but that still leaves nearly a million children with documented abuse in a single year.

Many of those documented cases could actually be true. It would be helpful if case managers on actual cases had more time to dedicate towards ensuring the needs of the children. Instead of hiring more DCS investigators, creating an ever burgeoning government bureaucracy invading the sanctum of the family, it would be wiser to take efforts to reduce the incidents of false reporting.

If you have been falsely accused of abuse or neglect in a child custody proceeding 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.

Letting a Judge make a Judgment - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part IX

While it definitely has imperfections and I am always pursuing efforts towards improvement, I feel great respect for an honour to be involved in our judicial system and its processes. Maintaining the integrity of this system is essential to its lasting stature and influence in our society.

Here is the Preamble to the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.
An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

As the arbitrator of a child custody proceeding the judge is empowered to make a decision based upon personal judgment but also bound by Rules of Court and specific statutory provisions. Concurrent with this limited power is the responsibility to ensure that decisions are reflective of the best interest of the child.

A judicial officer has the responsibility of balancing that interest with due process rights of the parents or other parties engaged in the process. To assist in making the awesome decisions regarding child custody judicial officers may be bombarded by information from the parents and their advocates, the judge's research and education, evaluators and other expert contributors either hired by the parents or the court. In addition judges must acknowledge and suppress their own personal biases.

Essential to the integrity of judicial proceedings is ensuring that due process is afforded to all parties while impartiality is maintained. That is, justice is blind. There are threats to this impartiality that are inert, incidental, and directly imposed.

We all have biases that develop through our accumulated experiences. I have a bias that informs me that divorcing parents are hostile, self-centered combatants who don't care about their children. I easily push this invading though aside as logic tells me this is not true and is based solely upon my experience as a specialist in high conflict parenting cases. Judges have biases that have been developing since their first moment of cognition. For most, these inert biases are easily managed.

A greater danger to a judicial officers ability to make a decision – a decision consistent with the best interest of the children, due process and the evidence presented – are the incidental biases. These come from various sources which may include the evidence presented by mental health professionals or other advisors to the court which may be tainted by the evaluators biases towards the subjects. Further removed from the immediate participants is the societal influence. In speaking with a judge once this became clear. The conversation was about issuing ex parte orders for protection and the proliferation of false allegations. The judge's position was poignantly explained with the statement, “They can always request a hearing but if I don't issue the TPO and someone gets killed what happens to me at the next election?”

There is also the direct threats to the judicial officer. These can be in the form of either physical threats to the judge's well-being or the judge's character or reputation if a ruling is not made in one's favour. A direct threat will likely result in a finding of criminal contempt in addition to other charges and sanctions. I have been involved in a case where a judge was, according to an anonymous caller, threatened with physical harm. In my own divorce a message was left in the mailbox of the judge that was clearly meant to implicate me. Even though the perpetrator of the acts may not be known they can reinforce an inert bias. The other form of a threat is what can be called character assassination. As a prolific writer who feels no intimidation from anyone I will not hesitate to expose what I may view as an injustice. Numerous judges are well aware of this which is appreciated by some who see this action as ensuring integrity by their colleagues. I have participated in a case where a pro se litigant received far different treatment after I joined the proceedings. My comments are not all condemnations – HERE I lauded praises upon Marion County Superior Court judge David Certo and Indiana Supreme Court Justice Dickson. Either way this potential praise or condemnation by myself or a litigant can produce a bias if a judge is not vigilant about this influence.

Bias-free proceedings enhance the likelihood that children will find themselves in the care of the most appropriate caretakers. In the previous segment of this series I addressed the influence of third-party child custody agitators who seek to prolong litigation for their personal gain. Too often these characters are not adept enough to suppress their personal biases or have entered this industry to implement their biases. The opinions of these people based upon their intuitions and guesswork are like black holes; they are only theory, we haven't seen them, and we can't prove their existence. They are the greatest assumption that we can make so we internalize it as fact.

This is the difficulty for the judicial officer who feels ill equipped to make a decision based solely upon his or her own judgment. It is perfectly natural to want to diffuse this responsibility especially when, as a society, we have been conditioned not to accept responsibility. This is apparently what happened in the Moore v Moore case. Judge Welch said in September 2011 when she recessed these proceedings that she wanted the assistance of an independent evaluator and thus Child Advocates Inc., was assigned.

At that hearing I believe that all the necessary evidence had been presented and that a judgment could have been rendered at that time without additional input or delay. Judicial officers are responsible for the prompt and just disposition of matters to which they were assigned. They have the duty to control the movement of cases through the system. The attorneys have a duty to cooperate by being ready to proceed with scheduled matters. Judges should not grant, nor should lawyers request, postponements except for good cause[fn1]. I do believe that Judge Welch failed in this regard as the matter has been continued indefinitely for more than half of the cognitive lives of the children.

Judge Welch disqualified herself from the case earlier this month. The incoming judge assigned to this case is going to be inundated with information. But is this going to be a benefit or a hindrance to making a sound judicial child custody decision?

People in times of uncertainty are generally overconfident based on the availability of information to them. Increased information makes experts more confident but not more accurate. Stock analysts are notorious for this. In the modern era with the internet and a plethora of data about companies and predictions of market analysts earning $1M+ annually you would think that stock picking by professional fund managers would be getting more on target. That has not been the case though. The analysts themselves while expressing 80% confidence in their price targets were only 60% correct.[fn2] Fund managers consistently have underperformed the S&P 500 about 75% of the time from the Great Depression through 2012.[fn3] From the 1970's through the 1990's analysts error rates in predicting company quarterly earnings for the upcoming reporting period actually ticked upward by about 40% as more data became available. My success in stock trading comes from avoiding data and trading on instinct. When Apple recently shot up from the $450's to $466 in a few minutes I sold the shares I had recently bought at $448. When the S&P 500 hit 1520 last week I shorted [selling stock you don't own hoping the price will drop and then replacing those shares at that lower price] the index and then watched the CNBC talking heads that evening saying that anyone short this market is making a bad bet, it is going higher. And lower it went on Wednesday and lower it went on Thursday. I bought back on Thursday three minutes after the S&P 500 hit its low for the week and one point above that low. I do this purely on gut reaction because as I have long known – more information gets in the way of making valid decisions.

This is something lost on most “expert” prognosticators including these child custody evaluators. These supposed oracles are no better at predicting parent-child relationship outcomes than stock analysts are at picking winners nor judges at making decisions solely on their intuitions.

Not everyone is blessed with the extraordinary abilities to make correct intuitive decisions but research across numerous disciplines has continually demonstrated that increased data and analysis does not lead to greater accuracy. Judges are people that posses similar inert qualities of intuition and judgment. I believe that letting judicial officers make judgments without the conflicting and often biased input of outside advisors with varying motives will lead to better child custody outcomes.

[1] STANDARDS RELATING TO TRIAL COURTS § 2.31 (American Bar Association 1992)
[2] Amos Tversky, “The Psychology of Decision Making,” in A. Wood (ed.), Behavioral Finance and Decision Theory in Investment Management, ICFA Continuing Education series, 1995, pp. 2-6.
[3] David Dreman, “Contrarian Investment Strategies: The Next Generation, Simon & Shuster 1998. also; Jim Kramer, CNBC 02 January 2013.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.

Follow the money to harming children - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part VIII

Anyone who has ever been intimately involved in the divorce industry is aware of the overwhelming influence of child endangerment profiteers. The coffers of available funding “for the protection” of children is nearly as flush as the hordes of profiteers seeking to pillage that bounty at the expense of child well-being.

Those who can profit from harm to children are as diverse as the children themselves. There are advocates, conciliators, mediators and arbitrators directly involved in the trial process. Advocates include attorneys who get paid by the hour and fill the till by perpetuating litigation. Guardian ad Litems also fall into this category although their interest is to be representing the child. Parenting time coordinators may act as; conciliators by simply coordinating arrangements between parents consistent with the court's order; mediators by helping the parents reach agreement of implementing parenting time mandates; or, arbitrators by making decisions for the parents related to parenting time disputes. All of these positions can be engorged through ongoing conflict. Thus, there exist a financial incentive for these actors to perpetuate conflict and, presumably, harm to the children.

The American Bar Association has observed that research now documents the potentially devastating consequences for children when they are treated as pawns in a bitter custody dispute, including an increased likelihood of clinical depression, delinquency, truancy, and teenage pregnancy. 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.[fn1] 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. Leading judges from across the state have consistently told me that they would rather have the parents formulate their own parenting time and custody agreement, with the encouragement of a mediator if needed.

When increasing the likelihood for children to experience clinical depression, delinquency, truancy, and teenage pregnancy a much broader range of disciplines may also profit. Of immediacy are the mental health professionals [MHP] which includes counselors, therapist, clinical diagnosticians, observers and experimenters, psychologists, and psychiatrists. From the law enforcement community are police which includes street patrols and detectives. Then there are the corrections beneficiaries who are the correctional officers, probation officers, administrators, various levels of MHP's, and again, as in the original custody case, the various participants in litigation. The medical community, which is so often integrated with the psychological practitioners, has numerous beneficiaries when children suffer harm. This includes the pharmacological industry which has thrived in correlation to the increase in divorce and the infusion of influence by MHPs into our legislative and judicial fields. One of the manners in which the custody evaluation field has managed to bolster its profits is through the use of metrics lacking any objectively measurable scientific conclusions. What constitutes fitness as a parent? Ask 10 friends or random associates to identify the 10 most important aspects of parenting. You are likely to accumulate at least 40 different responses.

When a judicial officer does the same of the various MHPs involved in a contested custody case the results are similar. Yet, MHPs tend to hold much greater weight in the courtroom than you, your friends or your random co-workers who may not be parents themselves. A 1991 New York Court of Appeals decision in a custody modification case reveals this conundrum. The Court wrote:
This vigorously contested custody dispute was the subject of 13 days of trial testimony which included detailed and extensive testimony from several mental health professionals consulted by the parties both prior to and after the commencement of the instant action, as well as from a psychiatrist who conducted the court-ordered forensic evaluation of the parties and their child. Although the court-appointed psychiatrist found the wife to be the most "critically attuned parent to the needs" of the child, the expert testimony also revealed that she suffered from a personality disorder characterized by paranoid features. While we are mindful that the Supreme Court also expressed concern over the husband's lack of "hands on" parenting experience, when this deficiency is balanced against the evidence concerning the wife's psychological disorder, and her pattern of distorting the truth, it cannot be gainsaid that the Supreme Court's decision [to grant sole custody to the father] is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. (Nir v. Nir, 1991).
What took place here is a group of MHPs reaching different conclusion about the same people, in the same circumstances, in the same case. Yet through their “objective” lenses they achieved different results. This is because psychological evaluations – and thus custody evaluations based upon these – are not scientific. Their conclusions cannot be replicated nor dis-proven and are therefore not scientific but are the prognostications of a mystic, astrologer or card reader. Interestingly the MHPs can be legally paid for their guesswork but similar prognosticators operating out of street side bazaars are legally restricted to operating for “entertainment purposes only.”

The divergence in opinion of child custody evaluators is due to the prominence of bias and the lack of scientifically accurate instruments of measuring parental fitness and outcomes. These bias are not directly a result of who paid for the evaluation, although that rates highly, but may be due to gender, environmental, cultural of social factors. These MHPs have long been well aware of the fact that their field lacks validity, objectivity and consensus.

Underwager and Wakefield addressed this lack of validity by evaluators using accumulated clinical experience and interview processes. “Although the law recognizes experience as a basis for an opinion, any person, purporting to be a scientist, who advances an opinion based on experience alone has abandoned scientific knowledge. It is unethical for a psychologist to state an opinion based on experience alone (Dawes, 1989). The law also places heavy emphasis on personal interviews. The scientific psychologist knows that one of the most solidly established facts in psychology is that statistical, actuarial approaches based on valid and reliable measurements are superior to clinical interviews alone (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1986; Gambrill, 1990; Garb, 1989; Kleinmuntz, 1990). This is hard for many mental health professionals to accept since it seems to each of us that our own brilliant insights should be better than what a $3.95 calculator can produce. Unfortunately, the data are contrary to that perception.”[fn2]

With regard to the neutrality of the evaluator, the custody guidelines for the American Psychological Association state, "The psychologist should be impartial regardless of whether he or she is retained by the court or by a party to the proceedings." Clearly in the Moore v Moore case as I have demonstrated through the evidence Child Advocates, Inc., although enjoined to the case by the court has shown extreme bias in this case.

Child Advocates, Inc., was appointed by the court which could give one reason to believe, on its face, that their representations will be unbiased, objective and flavoured by neutrality. But that is not their mission. The MHPs operate on a for profit basis and just like any other business profits are derived through margin – the difference between what a customer pays and the cost of the goods or services provided. An efficient way to grow profits is to increase sales which keeping fixed costs – advertising, rents, subscriptions, continuing education – constant or increasing at a rate less than sales. This is what MHPs do collectively. Think of them not as competitors but as rivals.

Around me Indiana University and Purdue University carry on an athletic rivalry while maintaining a joint campus in Indianapolis. The essence of a rivalry is the closeness of competition and the lack of clear supremacy between the two opponents. If either Indiana or Purdue were to win their annual match 10 years in a row in which the scores were completely humiliating to the defeated team the rivalry would cease to exist in the mind of fans. Attendance, gate receipts, concessions, souvenir sales and philanthropic bequests to the representative institutions would surely decrease.

The MHPs operate in a similar way. By not providing clear and objective criteria and analysis in which outcomes are easily predictable the MHPs keep the participants guessing and seeking a “rematch” when undesired results are propounded upon the court.

But what about the altruistic child custody evaluators who, in their hearts, hold the best interest of the children as sacred and are not willing to compromise that position for profit? Fresh out of graduate school and entering the evaluation field this foray promises life fulfillment and financial security. This promising young evaluator goes through a year of assessing parents and the child custody battle scenarios presented and then provides an objective analysis to the court. In his second year this fledgling evaluator is still brimming with personal satisfaction and visions of a bright future. He has attained what he considers to be a perfect record, finding for the party who hired him in half of the case and against in half of the cases, which appears to reflect his absolute neutrality. While outstanding in the game from which it is derived, batting .500 in the legal realm is not satisfactory to the lawyers representing the person hiring the evaluator.

With this “poor record” becoming well-known throughout family law attorney circles he soon finds himself on the opposite end of the demand spectrum such as the hired guns like Richard Lawlor. Lawlor participated in child custody evaluations for many years. He would base his findings on his financial interests regardless of the impact on the well-being of children.

This is the scheme of the child custody evaluators and other MHP's summoned to provide their intuitions and guesswork to the courts in the name of science. They do so for their personal financial gain. Whether they are funded by the litigating parties, the juvenile justice system, court fees or through private contributions – such as those that support Child Advocates Inc. – their interest are not guided by the child's best interest but by perpetuating the conflict and their involvement. Increasing sales is the name of their game.

Those financial sponsors of Child Advocates Inc. have a common link – they prosper when litigation continues and children suffer. In the upcoming segments I will present background information on each and will include their complete and unedited response, if any, to requests for comment.

[1] A Judge’s Guide: Making Child-Centered Decisions In Custody Cases, Second Edition, 2008. ABA Center On Children And The Law.
[2] Psychological Evaluations You Need for Trial: What They Can and Cannot Do, Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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 153 Employment of children - Legislation Part 31

Senator Becker has introduced a bill that would exempt children from Indiana's child labour laws for certain activities.

Senate Bill 0153 affects the following citations: IC 20-33-3. The synopsis is as follows:
Employment of children. Establishes the conditions under which a child who is employed or works as a youth athletic program referee, umpire, or official is exempt from the requirements of the state's child labor law.

As a newspaper carrier I was exempted from the child labour laws which also provide exemptions for farm labor, domestic service and caddies for persons playing golf. Senator Becker wants to add children involved in conducting or officiating youth athletic programs to that list. I certainly see no problem with that as it is an activity that helps these children develop interpersonal skills and earn some money. There is only one section of this bill that in my ever vigilant high conflict child custody based litigation eye sees which is related to parental consent. The bill reads,
The child has on file with the person responsible for assigning the child to officiate for the youth athletic program the original or a copy of a written consent to the child's employment as a referee, umpire, or official signed by the child's parent or guardian.
This allows for consent to be granted by either parent. Modification to signed by “legal custodian or any parent having legal custody” could eliminate a potential dispute. I can see this becoming a court issue with a custodial parent arguing that the non custodial parent didn't have legal authority to make this “healthcare decision” being that it is involvement in an athletic event and that, as will be stipulated in the waiver of liability, includes the risk of physical injury. For all other intents and purposes I believe this is good legislation.

If you are involved in a child custody dispute and would like 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 164 CHINS Petition - Legislation Part 30

Senators Holdman and Broden have offered a bill that appears on track to become law. SB0164 allows a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a child in need of services [ChiNS] petition. This bill restores authority for local prosecutors to file a CHiNS as was the law prior to 2007. HB1129 is the companion bill in the House.

Senate Bill 0164 affects the following citations: IC 31-34-9-1. The synopsis is as follows:
Child in need of services petitions. Allows a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services, and allows a prosecuting attorney to represent the interests of the state in the child in need of services proceeding. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the department of child services interim study committee.)

The trigger for this bill was an issue raised by a GAL in Illinois where anyone can file a CHiNS. The bill is not an attempt to replace DCS in the capacity of filing CHiNS petitions but offers a redundancy when DCS may not have at first seen a need to file a CHiNS.

During a committee hearing David Powell, Director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, testified as to circumstances in which a prosecutor may better serve children by filing a CHiNS. He stated that prosecutors when unable to file a CHiNS but faced with a disruptive child who may have mental health issues had to instead file a delinquency petition. Powell does not believe that is in the best interest of the children and should not be the public policy of the State of Indiana to leave these at-risk children with the alternative of being either charged as a delinquent or not having the issue addressed.

While numerous parents have viewed CHiNS cases as usurping their parental authority and an attempt to take their children away, that is not the statutory intention of the CHiNS scheme. CHiNS filings are meant to ensure that the child is receiving needed support and services. However, in practice agencies and their employees have been pressured to remove children from their parents as that is one of the measures for funding. Parents and advocates need to be vigilant to ensure that agency actions conform with the agenda of providing services for the child while maintaining family cohesion.

On 05 February 2013 this bill passed through the Senate on third reading by a vote of 49-0. Senator Zakas was excused from voting.

If your child is the subject of a CHiNS action or a custody dispute and you wish to best position yourself for the proceedings 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.

The Whole Truth - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part VI

In Part V of this series I left off with the enticement that in an upcoming post I would disclose the results of evidence obtained that disputes Del Anderson's claims. That evidence is presented to you here today.

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” This affirmation is often invoked without serious deliberation as to it's meaning. I have previously written about this testimonial surety. The Moore v Moore case highlights the relevance of the three part affirmation. It is this second part that I will apply to Del Anderson's testimony of 05 February 2013 in the Marion Superior Court 12 in re: Moore v Moore. During his direct examination Mr Anderson sought to establish that Brian Moore was an unfit parent as well as dangerous to his ex-wife, the children and the community. Mr Anderson proceeded to embellish and add to the lies that he had presented in his report.

One claim Anderson made was that the Pendleton Elementary School was on a lock-down and there was police presence at the school and patrols in the neighborhood because of threats that Mr Moore had made. An analysis of this claim to determine any veracity is easily accomplished.

Step one is to send a public records request to the school seeking; “~ Any written record – including but not limited to notes, memorandum, or incident report – related to an alleged threat that resulted in the Pendleton Elementary School being placed on 'lock-down' or any other response to a heightened insecurity, however named.”
The response by superintendent Joseph A Buck contradicted but at the same time appeared to support what Mr Anderson claimed. Mr Buck stated, “This is to inform you a lock-down did not occur at Pendleton Elementary School . . . [h]owever . . . heightened security, with additional police and administration presence, was in place.” No other documentation was provided nor excluded as confidential pursuant to law.
South Madison Community School Corporation Bylaws & Policies 7440 - Facility Security provides that “The Superintendent shall report to the Board . . . any significant incident involving . . . personal safety, or other security risk and the measures being taken to address the situation.” A parent calling the school and threatening to come harm personnel should certainly qualify as a “personal safety” or “security risk” requiring a report to the school board. But such did not happen. To me this sounds more like a CYA situation either by Superintendent Buck or the person reporting the information to him, likely Principal Natalie McQuade.

The second step to take is to send a public records request to the Pendleton Police Department seeking;
”~ Any written record – including but not limited to notes, memorandum, patrol log, dispatch log or incident report – related to an alleged threat at the Pendleton Elementary School . . .[that] may have involved a parent by the name of Brian Moore.
The response by Police Chief Mike Farrer was extensive and less ambiguous. The response consisted entirely of a narrative with no accompanying “notes, memorandum, patrol log, dispatch log or incident report” nor any denial of access to such. In his statement Chief Farrer stated that he was not aware of a lock-down at the school and did not send officers to the school. He did explain that sometimes he is notified about issues so he can keep a “heads up” in the community for possible problems. He disclosed that there were police patrols around the school during morning drop off times. But, he went on to say, “We regularly do this throughout the week and my presence in the area should have been seen as normal and not out of the ordinary by the public or staff.”

The Chief of Police in the jurisdiction of the school has made it clear that police presence in the area should not be seen or portrayed as out of the ordinary by Del Anderson or school staff including Principal Natalie McQuade. Even is Anderson says he was relying upon misinformation provided by principal McQuade, that is inexcusable. In the half year period he could have received the same results from the police chief as I did in 3 days he chose not to. More importantly, in advising in a child custody case this type of laziness and failure to obtain information from collateral sources is inexcusable. Chief Farrer deserves kudos for his prompt and exceedingly helpful response to my request that made it quite clear as to the lack of veracity of Mr Anderson's claims.

The testimony of Del Anderson would lead a trier of fact to conclude that a scenario existed where a threat was called into the school. Subsequently the entrances were locked, police surrounded the building and anxious teachers and students huddled together in classrooms waiting for the arrival and possible shoot-out between the police and the crazed armed gunman. That perception could be attributed to Mr Anderson being – in the softer and more polite words of Judge Welch – “not credible”. The difference in perception and reality may be from a lack of adhering to the second portion of the swearing in affirmation: the whole truth. When Mr Anderson says that the police patrolled around the school after Mr Moore called, he was absolutely correct. What he omitted though – which is tantamount to perception and is the basis for the “whole truth” clause – is that, as Chief Farrer explained, the police patrol the area around the school regularly. The Pendleton Police Chief himself said there was no threat and officers were not dispatched to the school. More particularly that the police presence in the school neighborhood “should have been seen as normal and not out of the ordinary by the public”. Mr Anderson specifically chose to take that fact and deliberately twist it to give the court the false impression that Brian Moore is a dangerous hostile parent. Anderson is NOT a neutral third party but a liar who perjured himself in an effort to malign a parent and influence the custody decision of a judge.

I have again called Child Advocates Inc. -- 317.205.3055 -- and pleaded for a response that I could share with you. However, for some reason my quest to present all possible explanations for these contradictions has been ignored again. Today I sent a request in writing through the postal service seeking comment because I believe that the public deserves to know Child Advocates position on why they deliberately misrepresent facts to the court for the purpose of perpetuating litigation.

If you need assistance in completely tearing apart, debunking, falsifying and exposing the personal motives of any one of these lying third-party agitators to child custody battles 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 399 Preschool Education LOIT - Legislation Part 29

Senator Eckerty has introduced a bill to allow county councils or voters to petition for a ballot question of whether to impose a 1% personal income tax for early childhood education uses. LOIT is a Local Option Income Tax.

Senate Bill 0399 affects the following citations: IC 6-3.5-10; IC 6-8.1-1-1. The synopsis is as follows:
LOIT for early childhood education. Provides that a referendum may be held in a county on whether to authorize the county council to impose an early childhood education income tax. Specifies that such a referendum may be initiated by the county council or by a petition filed by voters. Provides that if such a referendum is approved, the county council may impose an early childhood education income tax of not more than 1% on the adjusted gross income of resident county taxpayers. Requires a county's certified distribution of early childhood education income tax revenue (as determined by the budget agency) to be distributed monthly to the county treasurer for deposit in a dedicated fund. Specifies that, subject to appropriation by the county council, the tax revenue may be used only for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To pay for the acquisition or construction of a facility that is or will be used for early childhood education. (2) To pay for the operation or maintenance expenses of a facility that is used for early childhood education. (3) To pay the salaries of teachers that provide instruction for early childhood education. (4) To pay for instructional materials and educational technology that are used for early childhood education. (5) To make grants to any school, school corporation, or other entity for any of these purposes.

I support the idea of providing local control over tax and policy issues that allow the locality to reflect the will of its citizens. If voters want their taxes raised I am all for it. Those who don't like it are free to live elsewhere.

What I would rather see though is a statewide effort to advance formal instruction to provide for completion of state sponsored education at an earlier age. Advancing the starting age of grade one by one year can cut two years from the completion age through elementary school compacting. Students would then be completing high school around age 16 which is consistent with other maturation periods and will allow a smoother transition from childhood to adulthood.[fn1]

Without establishing a uniform instructional, initiation age the benefits are lost by completion – often in elementary school. Cross population studies have demonstrated that programs such as Head Start do not produce greater educational outcomes by graduation and that “fade out” occurs as early as grade three[fn2]. Fade out is when the student's achievement regresses to the mean -- consistent with grade level peers who did not receive early instruction.

A better policy would be to reduce the bloated funding to educational institutions and return the money to parents. Parents with reduced financial stress and job demands can provide greater opportunities for educational support and learning to their children in a less stressful environment.[fn3]

Most of the research supporting positive outcomes for early childhood education have been based upon small, narrow sample groups. Those most likely to benefit are children who live in poverty, are at-risk of mental retardation and have little or no parental support. Children of more affluent parents exhibit virtually no benefit.[fn4] Support for earlier schooling is more likely to come from more affluent parents than those who would benefit the most.

This bill has been referred to the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy. If you need assistance in improving life satisfaction and outcomes for your 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.

[1] Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. (2002). Culture and adolescent development. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.)

[2] Valerie E. Lee and Susanna Loeb, "Where Do Head Start Attendees End Up? One Reason Why Preschool Effects Fade Out," University of Michigan, January 24, 1994

[3] Robert Holland and Don Soifer, "How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals," The Lexington Institute, March 2008

[4] Lance T. Izumi and Xiaochin Claire Yan, "No Magic Bullet: Top Ten Myths about the Benefits of Government-Run Universal Preschool," Pacific Research Institute, May 2006.

Indianapolis Bar Association's Family Law Commitment - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part V

Indianapolis Bar Association's Family Law Commitment - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part V

In Part IV of this series I left off with the summary that Child Advocates Inc., sent representatives into court who lied, attempted to manipulate the parties, acted in an adversarial position, and sought to prolong the litigation and turmoil in the lives of children whose parents are in a custody battle. This is directly contrary to law, court rules and what the Indianapolis Bar Association knows to be best for children.

The Indianapolis Bar Association's Family Law Commitment to Respect and Civility provides some guidance to attorneys appearing in Marion County Courts.
Preamble
The members of the family law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association, recognizing the high degree of conflict and the volatile nature of domestic disputes, their impact on children and the need for direction in balancing the duty to zealously represent the client with the obligation to rational, peaceful and efficient administration of justice, now make this pledge to promote the highest degree of respect and civility in conduct with the parties, attorneys and courts.
Guidelines [portions relevant to this matter]
I will maintain the highest level of professional integrity and personal courtesy in all dealings with parties, counsel, witnesses and courts.
I will not knowingly misstate, mischaracterize or fail to disclose relevant facts or legal authority.
I will whenever possible, encourage clients to reach amicable settlement of all issues after careful review of statutes and reasonable consideration of the risks, costs, delay and emotional trauma of trial.
I will not seek judicial intervention in matters that can be resolved through cooperation and communication between counsel and parties.

Yet Cynthia Dean lied to Brian Moore about a court order in an effort to get him to violate it and bring disruption to the children's lives. Dean filed an objection with the court to the proposal that the parents settle outstanding issues through mediation. Additionally, Dean has sought to perpetuate conflict between the parents and increase judicial intervention.

Just like numerous other attorneys, Cynthia Dean is aware that harm to children and conflict among parents pays the bills. Just last week a judge said, “I find that in my cases the parents that have attorneys fight more than those without.” This is often true of unscrupulous attorneys like Cynthia Dean who use tactics to perpetuate conflict and prevent harmony among parents even though it is contrary to the Bar Association's commitment to families and children.

That Child Advocates Inc. intentionally engages in actions to the knowing detriment of children is reprehensible. That they do so without adherence to law, court rules and what the Indianapolis Bar Association knows to be best for children is inexcusable. That they will likely continue to do this so long as their financial backers of this nefarious plan keep supplying funding demands a public response.

In the immediate upcoming segments I will disclose the results of evidence obtained that disputes Del Anderson's claims and also how use of third party evaluators exceeds their benefits. Following that I will begin to take on the financial backers who facilitate this harm to children and give to you the responses, if any, that I received from them.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

2013 Indiana Senate Bill 266 Child Neglect Sentencing 35-46-1-4 - Legislation Part 28

Senator Patricia Miller has submitted a bill that would add child neglect resulting in death to the list of other offenses that include mandated minimum terms of incarceration upon a conviction.

Senate Bill 0266 affects the following citations: IC 35-50-2-2. The synopsis is as follows:
Neglect of a dependent. Provides that, for the offense of neglect of a dependent as a Class A or Class B felony, the court is authorized to suspend only that part of the sentence that is in excess of the minimum sentence, unless the court has approved placement of the offender in a forensic diversion program.

The entirety of the amendment to the law that Senator Miller offers is “(V) neglect of a dependent (IC 35-46-1-4) as a Class A or Class B felony.” IC 35-46-1-4 provides that the offense is a Class A or Class B felony if the neglect in certain situations results in serious bodily injury or death.

IC 35-50-2-2 provides a list of offenses in which the convicted defendant must serve at least the presumptive minimum sentence under the statutory sentencing scheme unless the court has approved placement of the offender in a forensic diversion program under IC 11-12-3.7. IC 11-12-3.7 provides an offender may avoid a prison for having an “addictive disorder” which is just psychological speak for lack of willpower or accepting responsibility for one's own actions. This is the result of the invasion of the non-scientific guesswork by overpaid psychologist into our legislature and courts for their personal financial gain at the expense of society as a whole. It's never the fault of the irresponsible person – TV made me do it, I was abused, it's in my genes, blah, blah, blah. I would like to see this portion of our sentencing structure repealed. Do the crime, do the time!

I am fully in support of any mandates that hold parents accountable for their actions of creating children. The neglect of children, especially by those parents who are fully capable of providing necessary support, should be elevated to one of the highest crimes in both statutory law and societal perceptions. This legislation is a small step towards doing just that and Senator Miller should be fully supported in her attempt to accomplish this.

If you believe that your child is being neglected or harmed and want to seek a custody modification 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.

Indiana DRC may consider precursory mediation in contested child custody cases

The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference will be considering ideas for future projects in 2013 along with the review of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines set to begin in 2014. I will be providing a report to the DRC at the 15 March 2013 meeting on the state of precursory mediation in Indiana child custody cases. Pursuant to local rules in 10 counties there is already framework available to judges for some form of compulsory mediation. Those counties are Allen, Clark, Marion, Monroe, St Joseph, Shelby, Tippecanoe, Vanderburgh, Vigo and Wayne.

Here is what I propose. Upon filing for dissolution of marriage or paternity the petitioner must submit a custody and parenting time form with proposed arrangements. A copy goes to the responding party who submits one in response. The case is then referred to a mediator who analyzes both proposals then meets briefly with the parties to attempt further development of an agreement. A report by the mediator is submitted to the court detailing areas of agreement and dispute. This all occurs within 60 days of filing.

The idea was well received and resulted in me being told to do the leg work. I am now to accumulate information on mediation efforts and local rules throughout the state, the implementation process, costs, efficacy and etc. At the next meeting I am to present findings on those aspects the DRC. They will then consider whether to make this a project. I thought I was going to escape with having only tossed out the idea.

In preparing this report I would like to speak with any parents in those counties who have participated in the mediation process. I would also like to discuss with any judges the implementation of the mediation rules and the effects they have witnessed. If you have gone through court ordered mediation in one of these counties or can try to locate a judge to speak with me about his or her experience with mediated cases please contact me. One judge I've spoken with summarized succinctly a contributing factor to parental conflict when she said, “I find that in my cases the parents that have attorneys fight more than those without.” This is a driving concept behind my plan for immediate mediation before attorneys get involved and the parties appear in an adversarial posture in court. It is in the immediate financial interest of attorneys as a collective to perpetuate conflict and promote additional courtroom appearances just as Cynthia Dean has done when she filed an objection to mediation.

Members of the public are invited to attend a meeting of the DRC or get more involved in the rule making process. Please let me know if you care to do either.

For information on FREE mediation services 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 1160 criminal history checks of school employees - Legislation Part 27

Representatives Rhoads and Davisson have introduced a bill to simplify the language of the education statute related to school employee criminal background checks. Representative Davisson in his second term is quickly back into child well-being issues after a successful first term.

House Bill 1160 affects the following citation: IC 20-26-2-1.5. The synopsis is as follows:
School employee background checks. Provides that an expanded criminal history check, for purposes of education law, requires a national criminal history background check. Eliminates other types of permissible record searches under current law.

The bill strikes existing language and replaces it with this simplified text:
(1) national criminal history background check (as defined in IC 10-13-3-12); and
(2) check of:
(A) sex offender registries in all fifty (50) states; or
(B) the national sex offender registry maintained by the United States Department of Justice.

As a former guest of the US Federal prison system I gleaned much information about the successes and failures of my fellow convicts. Obtaining a criminal conviction, or avoiding, has as much to do with luck as it does the competency of the defense counsel. There are many people out there who are committing crimes that, for various reasons, never get convicted. For some it is lack of willing witnesses or superior defense counsel while another set is of such superior cunning that they can't be caught, let alone convicted.

It is that last group that concerns me the most when it comes to background checks. The criminal history background check acts as a filter – weeding out those who were unlucky or unskilled. What remains are the criminals that are lucky or so adept at their craft as to remain outside the scope of suspicion.

When it comes to sex offenders I would rather have the clumsy lecherous oaf who knows she or he is being watched and may have or is going through counseling to control his or her compulsions exposed to children. Filtering those people out in favour of the master manipulator who can aver suspicion from herself or himself exposes our children to a greater level of risks.

If you would like to protect your children from the harm of a child custody battle 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.