Yesterday I went to the Indiana State House with a dual purpose – a rally in support of HB 1427 related to the Common Core Educational Standards and to say goodbye to legislators and staff – which is a near must for a 60 mile round trip bicycle ride. The Common Core Educational Standards, which I call the “Wal-Mart Standards” are a federally designed training criteria that are intended to reduce the range of student aptitudes. In effect chopping off the ends of the Bell Curve to produce a more homogenous workforce incapable of out-thinking an inefficient operational schema. For once something out of Washington is appropriately named. Notice it's not “Excellence Core”, “High Achievement Core” or anything evoking a feeling of superior opportunity for our children. Apparently the marketing professionals with the psychology degrees employed by legislative services to craft these names and do the focus group research were furloughed. Actually it is all out-sourced to private firms.
I likely don't need to provide details of the problems with Common Core as you apparently can read and thus already understand it. Briefly though the stated rationale for this initiative is "These standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to go to college or enter the workforce and that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The standards are benchmarked to international standards to guarantee that our students are competitive in the emerging global marketplace." Interestingly the stated rationale is not to “provide a benchmark” but instead the noun “benchmark” is transformed into the clumsy verb form “benchmarked” which is unfortunately gaining acceptance. Oh what do I know about language, I'm just a no college, high school flunky. Gobbledygook aside here is what that stated rationale says;
The Common Core Educational Standards are designed to bring uniformity to instruction of students in the United States so they can go directly into the service sector workforce or be prepared for more specialized trades training making them viable to work in US based operations competing with manufacturing facilities in China, Singapore, Brasil and India. The Common Core is a response to high fuel prices that make the trans-oceanic shipping of manufactured goods more costly.
My post could end here if the Indiana General Assembly had just gone along with the federal presumption. Instead some parents examined the standards and determined that they wanted to have schools that would provide opportunities for their children to flourish and attain higher levels of knowledge and aptitude. With that drive they contacted their legislators. Representative Ronda Rhodes and Senator Scott Schneider sponsored legislation for Indiana to opt-out of the Common Core Standards.
These parents availed themselves of the great opportunities that we all have – to petition our elected officials for a redress of our grievances – which I have written about previously. While at the state house I took the opportunity to exchange pleasantries with legislators and the myriad of staff. Some of the staff include legislative assistants [LA's] who do just as their name entails – assist legislators. A conversation that I have had many times in the past was repeated again. The LA's are pleased to have visitors as are the legislators. The reason being is that it is a rarity.
Every election period brings forth the same comments from the pundits about low voter turnout and apathy. Little is ever spoken of voter apathy. While I may only have about 2-3 votes at the ballot box [based upon a proportional representation of eligible voters] when I get to the state house I have hundreds or thousands of votes. My opinion carries great weight. Not based upon financial backing, brokering deals or who I know. Rather, it is because I am there and provide and idea or desire with a story to support it. That is all it takes.
But as I said I have already written about that and there is little need to rehash it. I suspect that one reason more people don't directly involve themselves in the process is because of a false perception that corporations control our legislative houses. The corporations only control what the people have allowed. The Common Core battle aptly illustrates this point. Some corporations which I will name engaged in a coordinated vicious media campaign attacking the character of these parents who sought the best opportunities for their children and also the legislators who supported them. It is one thing to attack a position or idea but the assault on these parents was vile.
With all the financial resources of these corporations – provided by their customers – they were apparently too greedily trying to capture more financial gains to bother making an appearance at the state house to support their position. But concerned parents and advocates did show up and the result was that the following corporations don't get their wish of dumbing-down our children into factory ready automatons. Take particular note of who is near the bottom.
Rethink Possible [formerly AT&T]
Anthem
Lilly
ArcelorMittal
Chase
Duke Energy
IPL
One America
Vectren
Allison Transmission
Ball State University
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Beacon Health System
BP America, Inc.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. - Horseshoe Casinos
CNO Financial Group, Inc.
Community Health Network
Cook Group, Inc.
Cummins, Inc.
DePuy Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Co.
Dow AgroSciences
Faegre Baker Daniels
First Financial Bank
Hillenbrand
Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC
Ice Miller LLP
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
Indiana Michigan Power
Indiana University
Indiana University Health
Jayco, Inc.
The Kroger Co.
Lincoln Financial Group
Lutheran Health Network
Marsh Supermarkets, LLC
NIPSCO
Old National Bancorp
Parkview Health
PNC
Purdue University
Red Gold, Inc.
Roche Diagnostics Corporation
Rolls-Royce
Sallie Mae, Inc.
St. Vincent Health
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Zimmer, Inc.
If you are involved in child custody litigation and would like to ensure the best outcome for the parents and the children 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.
Friday, April 26, 2013
A Vicious Attack on Parents Seeking Their Children's Best Interest - Indiana HB 1427 Common Core
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The perspective for a successful child custody agreement
In my life coaching I present insight and strategies to tackle various aspects of the well-being and success spectrum. On the macro level the connecting umbrella theory is that all modifications of habits or behaviours that are necessary to goal achievement and improvement in the well-being spectrum begin with a change in perspective. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The problem that I usually encounter with my life coaching partners is that their perspective is based upon a comparative standard or has been distorted through the lens of marketing. For instance, I am excessively fat at the moment. That's not based upon comparison to the energy hoarding, buffet waddling, doorway snuggling dead animal consumption machines that comprise a substantial portion of my local community. Nor is it based upon any of the health magazines, tv commercials or other forms of commercialism for which I have an extremely limited exposure. An objective view of my early spring midsection against the backdrop of the food security for which I am fortunate enough to experience, as every American does, is the determinant criteria stipulating that I have excessive fat. My BMI of 20 which may be viewed by many, especially those with a higher BMI, as being too low. Based upon what it will be in late summer -- 18 -- I currently feel chubby. For most people their perspective, however, is often based upon improper comparative or irrelevant standards.
Comparative standards are the vehicle by which marketing professionals coyly drive your pursuit of consuming, especially through your rationalization. Here is the anecdote of the episode that prompted this current posting. As I was taking a relaxed stroll through the grocery store, moving into the inner aisles from the periphery I was casually glancing at some of the canned and boxed foods. The blatant deception or outright lies by the makers of imitation foods catch my eye and raise my ire. What caught my eye was a chemical additive claim brandished by a can of whole kernel corn - “reduced sodium”. I quickly grab the can, give it a spin and see that a serving contains 8% of the recommended daily allowance [RDA] for sodium. I know without consideration that regular corn contains much less than 16% of the RDA for sodium. As someone who consumes about 20-30 servings of fruit and vegetables daily I would be way over the limit on sodium if this was real. So how do these processors legally tell the lie that they have reduced the amount of sodium in corn and other vegetables? They set a false comparative starting point. Here's how it goes;
Del Monte Whole Kernel Corn 125g serving contains 360mg sodium
Del Monte “Low Sodium” Whole Kernel Corn 125g serving contains 180mg sodium
Fresh Whole Kernel Corn - 125g serving contains 15mg sodium
What the food adulterers do – which is claimed on the label in small print – is pump excessive amounts of additives into foods to turn them into non-foods. They can then reduce the level of additives by half, slap on an alternative label that claims that they have reduced the load of harmful content in the food. What they don't say is that their “reduced sodium” version is “1100% increased sodium”.
It's much the way bloated Washington bureaucrats and politicians “reduce” the budget deficit. They start with last year's budget – 100 kazillion bucks – and add 10%. Then comes the “cuts” to which the agencies or politicians begrudgingly agree. After cutting the increase in half this year's budget becomes 105 kazillion bucks – just 55 kazillion more than the government revenue each year of 50 kazillion bucks. Thus the budget deficit gets “cut” from 50 to 55 kazillion. It all comes down to reference point.
It is with this perspective that I present the appropriate standard that parents should use when engaging in child custody negotiations. Just as in the canned vegetables example it is reference point that determines one's perspective for the claim. My reference point for the sodium content of vegetables is extremely low -- fruits and vegetables have very little sodium. The various food processors – I don't aim to pick on Del Monte, they all do it -- set their reference point for their so-called “reduced sodium” vegetables extremely high. When most parents attempt to engage in child custody negotiations they usually enter the foray with the status quo as their respective reference points. Often there is an imbalance in the parenting time distribution that usually follows the minimum recommended parenting time for a non-custodial parent [NCP] established by the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG]. That being every other weekend, a midweek evening, half of the summer break and an allotment of the various other holidays and school breaks.
The parties in this type of situation enter the negotiations with a nearly preset psychological impasse. That being that the custodial parent is loss averse while the NCP is benefit seeking. The weight that each applies to their position is often disproportionate to their actual chance. Parenting time decisions are intentionally difficult to modify and in Indiana when parenting time for the NCP is less than the minimums provided for in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines the decision must be accompanied by findings justifying the deviation. Thus, the NCP runs little risk in seeking additional parenting time. This is the psychological dynamic that lotteries are based upon or can perpetuate the wide swings in financial markets. Those who feel like they have less are willing to spend significantly for a chance to have much more. On average, households that make less than $12,400 a year spend 5 percent of their income on lotteries.[fn1]
Those who perceive that they have little to lose are benefit seeking while those who perceive themselves as having much to lose are more risk adverse. In terms of parenting time a framing bias can interfere with negotiations. When seeking one overnight per week in addition to the every other weekend a NCP will double overnights. The chance of losing the weekends is nearly nil. For the custodial parent the loss of one additional weeknight would be from six nights per week on average to five – about 17%. If the custodial parent views the parenting time challenge from the statutory requirement of a substantial change[fn2] in one of the factors[fn3] and doesn't feel there has been a change then he or she is likely to hold firm and take the risk. It then requires reframing of the issues and a risk analysis to make mediation successful.
The framing for effective mediation must focus first on the child. What is the best arrangement for the child to thrive in? Then risk aversion must be factored. The NCP will most likely come away with nothing but attorney fees if the substantial change threshold is not crossed. For the custodial parent the loss could go all the way to becoming the NCP or be as little as just having to pay defending attorney fees if the judge feels it was a valid action but didn't warrant a change in the current order.
By coming to the table with a frame of reference consistent with the needs of the child most parents would be able to agree on parenting time and custody issues. But when an artificial base such as the IPTG minimums is introduced the two sides have different set points from which to begin negotiations. This is a barrier to effectively reaching an agreement.
1] Lehrer, Jonah “Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code” found at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
2] IC 31-17-2-21, 31-14-13-6]
3] IC 31-17-2-8, 31-14-13-2]
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. 
Monday, April 22, 2013
Determining the Best Interest of the Child: Obtaining an Attorney that can Effectively Advocate
This is the final in a three part series of articles about the 2006 Published opinion in re: The Marriage of J.M. v N.M. There are three distinct issues that are covered in this case that will be of benefit to anyone experiencing contested child custody. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The first segment was about the use of third-party evaluators and mental health professionals in shaping child custody decisions followed by the use of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders [DVRO] in shaping child custody settlement agreements. Today I conclude with finding an attorney who can effectively advocate for you in a child custody case.
As with anything you may encounter in life from drivers on the road through restaurants there is a range of quality. You may find some to be intolerably poor to delightfully supreme. Yet these drivers, at least those granted an operator's permit, have successfully passed an exam just as the restaurants have passed inspections from various government regulatory inspectors. Lawyers fall within a similar range of competence although all have passed a regulatory exam designed to limited competition. Oh I'll just say the reason given by those in control to appease the masses – to ensure that they are qualified to provide competent counsel and ensure your legal protections.
When it comes to custody of your child you are going to want an attorney that lies more toward the delightfully supreme than the intolerably poor in competence. You may not know how to measure that level of competence though and if you don't your reliance upon other could land you in an ill-fated custody proceeding. In this case Father was an attorney who practiced in a law firm. Here is a portion of the time-line related to his psychological problems and employment in the firm.
He was in counseling until October of 2001 when he began therapy. After being treated for about a year he terminated his therapy. He returned for treatment beginning in April 13, 2004, but then chose to terminate that treatment on June 15, 2004: the therapist noting “poor prognosis.” Throughout this time he was practicing law while in the firm.
In late July of 2004, a partner in Father’s firm found him “sobbing” and “shaking” with “his head down on his desk.” Father informed the law firm that he had a condition which was getting worse and that he was “drinking to cope.” He further disclosed that he had been advised to seek an “extensive . . . treatment program” for his problems. Father then took leave from his employment and went on short-term disability.
In October 2004 he was discharged from therapy and attempted to return to work. However, shortly thereafter he decided he no longer wanted to work for the law firm and terminated that relationship. During October 2004 he filed for divorce and the parties entered into a provision agreement towards the end of the month. He was not working at the time and chose to remain unemployed for six months; he then began work with another law firm in 2005.
At some point Father terminated his supervised parenting time with his child which his counsel explained was because Father thought the arrangement was upsetting the child. Father testified that to continue the arrangement would be “perpetuating . . . harm” to the child. Father sought unsupervised parenting time consistent with the guidelines.
A report by the GAL indicated that Father had been unwilling to “complete a psychological evaluation including a drug and alcohol assessment,” the Arbitrator concluded that Father “must be restricted to supervised visitation with his son under the current order until further notice.” Accordingly, it was ordered that Father “have therapeutic parenting time with [the child] through Choices, and shall continue until it is determined that unsupervised parenting time would not endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development”; and that Father “have a complete psychological evaluation completed by a qualified professional” and which “include[s] a comprehensive alcohol and drug assessment”; and that Father “follow all recommendations made based upon the evaluation.” Father was not given unsupervised parenting time.
For much of the time that Father was engaging in behaviours that the court deemed to be potentially harmful to his child he was practicing law in two different law firms. The idea that he could get unsupervised parenting time upon a failure to abide by an agreement he made but didn't follow in regards to parenting time, including ceasing parenting time sessions, is absolutely misplaced.
You may think that if a law firm is employing him then he must be competent enough to perform his job. That assumption is in error. The self-described decision to treat psychological issues with a regiment of alcohol demonstrates the lack of rational judgment exhibited by this attorney. The decision to cease attending supervised parenting time with his child because it would be perpetuating harm demonstrates a mixed level of logical decision making skills. The better arrangement, I believe, would have been to decide not to be in a condition or exhibit behaviours that would perpetuate harm instead of suspending his relationship with his child.
With all of that known to then seek unsupervised parenting time demonstrates not only an unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions but also that he apparently didn't feel a need to change his behaviours. Obviously, neither he nor his attorney were aware of the nuances of child custody decision making. Law schools don't teach how to litigate the nuances of child custody decisions that are -- as I say on my business card –
“not about the law, but are judgments based upon parenting skills and behaviours.”
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, April 20, 2013
Determining the Best interest of the Child: Domestic Violence Restraining Orders and Settlement Agreements
This is the second in a three part series of articles about the 2006 Published opinion in re: The Marriage of J.M. v N.M. There are three distinct issues that are covered in this case that will be of benefit to anyone experiencing contested child custody. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The first segment was about the use of third-party evaluators and mental health professionals in shaping child custody decisions. Today I continue with the use of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders [DVRO] in shaping child custody settlement agreements.
From the outset I again note that this is not a case where there have been unjust attributions to parental fitness. This is the type of case where the appointment of a GAL / CASA is a good thing. It is not so much that there is a conflict between the parents over parenting time, but rather, it is the potential endangerment to the child's physical and emotional well-being that is at issue. Of concern is whether the use of a DVPO is being used to achieve a modification of the child custody and parenting time order. I am currently looking for interview subjects who have been involved in cases alleging Domestic Violence.
Three months after preliminary reaching agreement to custody, parenting time and the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem the mother filed a verified petition for a protective order and a verified petition to modify parenting time. In the DVPO petition she alleged instances in which Father appeared to have consumed alcohol and forcibly, over Mother’s objection, took the child from the marital residence; berated the child after a soccer practice – severely affecting him; and displayed an explosion of rage in the kitchen of the marital residence. I have not seen the petition and am not aware of whether there were additional factual allegations.
Ten days later the parties presented the trial court with an agreed order for modification of parenting time. Signed by both parties, the order provided that Father’s parenting time would be supervised by Choices, “in a manner approved of by” the GAL, and that the parties would “follow the recommendations and requests of Choices and the” GAL regarding parenting time issues. The order also stated that Father denied the allegations in Mother’s DVPO petition, and Mother maintained that it was accurate, but that “in exchange for” Father’s agreement not to enter the marital residence unless invited by Mother and to “supervised parenting time at Choices,” Mother would dismiss her petition.
The American Bar Association in it's guidelines for judges making child custody decisions claims that “[c]ustody disputes can be a litigation tactic that allows the battered woman to be revictimized. A father may threaten to sue for custody, seek modification, or oppose relocation as a bargaining tool. He may discover that his wife may be willing to forego rights to child support and alimony in exchange for custody. For example, one study indicated that women reduced their requests for resources during negotiations when they were afraid that they might lose custody.”[fn1-emphasis added] It is not clear whether the original authors supported the ABA's proposition that only fathers could use litigation tactics in custody disputes but I think logic tells us that it is a gender neutral reality. I also find it interesting that the ABA's concluding statement in that paragraph makes no attribution to alleged Domestic Violence by the Father but, just as criminals are willing to forgo some freedom and plead guilty to a lesser offense, some women are willing to reduce demands for whatever reason.
The concern I have in this matter as it relates to the DVPO is that a person agreeing not to perform a legal obligation -- IPTG already says a parent is not to enter the other parent's home unless invited[fn2] – and accepting restrictions on parenting time does not make a true abuser less of a threat. In other cases, divorce attorneys have been known to offer to drop the allegation of abuse in exchange for financial concessions.[fn3] I consider mutual concessions in contested DVPO case agreements that do not involve some type of intervention effort for the alleged perpetrator to reveal either a non-meritorious DV claim or to be neglecting the welfare of the child. It's the equivalent of an agreement with a landlord to drop a health department complaint for leaking plumbing and mold if you get a covered parking spot and new carpeting of your colour choice. The agreement is not germane to the complaint: so how could the complaint be genuine? I caution judicial officers to look for these types of inconsistencies and to reject these agreements and, instead, hold an evidentiary hearing on the DV petition. To do less is to allow judicial economy – the settling of issues by the parties – to supersede the best interest of the child which is contrary to statute.[fn4]
I am deeply disturbed by this trend and concerned by the ramifications. I had one judge tell me that the prosecutor's office usually helps petitioners complete the DVPO petition. When she gets one involving a child custody case and it has not been obtained through the prosecutor's office the she doubts its' veracity. This type of bias, which arises as a result of concocted claims that are really just part of a trial or settlement strategy, cast the shadow of doubt on legitimate complaints. Judges may become dismissive of allegations that truly merit court interdiction.
Bias is aptly demonstrated in one such court hearing where the alleged victim brought photographs of injuries, medical documentation of the emergency room visit, and a copy of the police report. The judge’s explanation for denying the DVPO petition: “Well, you have to expect one knock-down drag-out fight per divorce.”[fn5]
The misuse a DVPO as a trial strategy tool cause those who truly need intervention or protection to find it increasingly difficult to get help. It is incumbent upon judicial officers, practitioners and parents to be vigilante towards recognizing false allegations and ensuring that settlements and the negotiation process are undertaken in good faith. Doing so should better meet the best interest of the children and result in parents abiding by agreements that were entered voluntarily rather than coerced through by the threat of a court imposed power imbalance.
Notes
[1] Lou Brown, Francois Dubau, & Merritt Mckeon, Stop Domestic Violence: An Action Plan For Saving Lives 109 (St. Martin’s Griffin 1997).
[2] IPTG § Sec I(B)(4) Privacy of Residence. A parent may not enter the residence of the other, except by express permission of the other parent, regardless of whether a parent retains a property interest in the residence of the other. Accordingly, the child shall be picked up at the front entrance of the appropriate residence unless the parents agree otherwise. The person delivering the child shall not leave until the child is safely inside.
[3] Cited in Young C. Hitting below the belt. Salon.com, October 25, 1999. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/
[4] Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8 and 31-14-13-2: The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child.
[5] Cook P. Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. pp. 83–84.
In the finally posting I will caution you about the reliance upon attorneys to advocate for your parent-child relationship.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Determining the Best interest of the Child: Conflict of Interest in Supervised Parenting Time
This is the first in a three part series of articles about the 2006 Published opinion in re: The Marriage of J.M. v N.M. There are three distinct issues that are covered in this case that will be of benefit to anyone experiencing contested child custody. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Today I begin with the use of third-party evaluators and mental health professionals in shaping child custody decisions.
From the outset I note that this is not a case where there have been unjust attributions of parental fitness. This is the type of case where the appointment of a GAL / CASA is a good thing. It is not so much that there is a conflict between the parents over parenting time, but rather, it is the potential endangerment to the child's physical and emotional well-being that is at issue.
The decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals reveals the following about the father.
Father has “an anxiety disorder” and chose to treat this condition by consuming alcohol. I admonish that alcohol although viewed by a substantial portion of society as a medicinal cure-all is not and often exacerbates conditions and subsequent problems;
Father entered an inpatient treatment program for treatment of “severe anxiety,” obsessive compulsive disorder, major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder as well as an “alcohol . . . problem.” Father terminated his treatment. The center suggested that he continue in-patient treatment elsewhere, which he did not do but did participate in intense therapy for the next four weeks. He was discharged by his therapist who recommended follow-up treatment as needed;
Father then filed a petition for dissolution. The parties entered into an agreed provisional order. The order provided parenting time for Father but specified that Father “shall not consume alcohol either before his parenting time or during his parenting time”; and that if Mother “reasonably believe[d]” he was “impaired as a result of alcohol consumption,” she had the right to cancel the visit unless Father submitted to a breathalyzer test administered by law enforcement and the results showed no more than a .02 blood alcohol content.
I have seen similar orders across a broad scope of topics that I have generally found unacceptable because of their subjective clauses that create an imbalance of power in the parenting relationship. Here however, Mother's subjective authority – if Mother reasonably believed he was impaired – is balanced by the objective – a BAC of >.02. At worst it results in a delay of parenting time but established a measurable standard to be applied to Mother's subjective evaluation.
The agreement further stipulated to the appointment of a GAL.
Mother filed a petition to modify asserting that Father’s various mental health and/or alcohol issues interfere with his ability to properly discipline and interact with the child in an age appropriate manner and stated her desires that he maintain a relationship with the child but that it is in the child’s best interest for parenting time to be conducted in a therapeutic setting. The parties agreed to amend that order to stipulate that Father's parenting time would be supervised consistent with recommendations of the GAL.
Testimony indicated that initial parenting time sessions went well. A three phase transition period was put into place for unsupervised parenting time. Before that was completed though Father engaged in inappropriate acts for the child's development and counselors indicated that the child became withdrawn. Mother indicated that the child would cling to her. Father eventually told the supervisors that he would no longer seek parenting time with his child.
That matter was eventually settled through arbitration. A report from the Choices counselors was included in the GAL report submitted to the Arbitrator; it recommended therapeutically supervised parenting time. The report of the GAL concluded with the recommendation that Father’s parenting time be supervised at Choices.
Father's former counselor when questioned about his feelings as to Father being a danger to the child stated, “No, not that he would physically be a danger.” The GAL relied upon and made substantial findings from the input of workers at Choices, the center where supervised parenting time had occurred. The arbitrator recommended that if father was to exercise parenting time that it would be supervised by Choices.
I make no aspersions as to the motives of Choices or their integrity but use this only for illustrative purposes. Employees of Choices provided opinion indicating that Father's parenting time should be supervised by their employer – essentially themselves.
When I present testimony in court I try to limit it to factual observations only. The opinions I give relate only to the factual circumstances but not to ultimate decisions to be made by the court. I believe it is overstepping a boundary for a witness to opine as to what the court's ruling should be.
My concern here is that what is essentially a witness who is financially invested in the case is making a recommendation to the court albeit via a GAL and an arbitrator.
In the next posting I will discuss the use of DVPO in case negotiations and finally I will caution you about the reliance upon attorneys to advocate for your parent-child relationship.
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, April 17, 2013
The Best Disinfectant for your Life, Home and Child Custody Proceeding - or - The use of Morality in Child Custody Cases
In the past four years I have embarked upon an elevated quest for self-improvement and enlightenment that first manifest itself after leaving the residence of my parents, primarily during my incarceration that began in 1990. One of my beneficial and satisfying accomplishments has been teaching myself to read. My library is extensive, filled with books in shambles – notes protruding, spines bent or broken, pages folded and notations throughout the margins. The more I study the more I come to the realization that I have an affinity to a particular lifestyle and that I have naturally come to adopt the practices I read about before I have read about them. This has convinced me of the legitimacy of what I am going to share with you today. It was organic in its nature and is the resultant effect of experiments conducted using myself as the test subject. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Nothing loses or alienates an audience like using logic to dispel long-held beliefs or practices. My confidence in you gives me the courage to plow ahead though. As most of my decisions have a logical basis for action so it was with the infrequent cleansing of the ole icebox. As the temperatures rapidly dropped towards the predicted low of 20 on a late November evening I decided I would clean out the refrigerator in the morning. The kitchen would be plenty cold by then. It only made sense being that the foods would stay cool on the 40 degree floor while not much warm air would be able to enter the food compartments.
My cleaning products consisted of a bowl of water and a sponge. Just days earlier I had effectively used the same on my counter tops during the monthly cleaning. On a weekly or slightly less often basis I will clean my dishes, utensils and cutting boards. While engaged in this my thoughts wandered upon soap commercials, then the various so-called public service advisories about proper cleansing of food storage and prep areas and finally the examples set by my parents and others. None of that has influenced me though or not so to the point that I have enlisted any as my guide for cleansing rituals.
My cleaning rituals are far from the norm. As time passes I find that they have digressed to the methods of simpler times. Absolutely no cleansers come into contact with my food storage or preparation areas. For the surfaces with an oily residue I will use hot water instead of cold.
My cleanliness sense extends beyond the kitchen. I never have my suits dry cleaned instead preferring to wash them by hand in cold water. The daily wear goes through the machine with a little soap, sometimes some bleach with the whites. I wash my hands with regular bar soap but ensure that I never come into contact with antibacterial soaps. I may shower -- approximately three times a year – as a light rinse for a few minutes. I'll run a bar of soap through the dead locks protruding from my scalp that hang to my waist. I suppose that is it.
Yet, even with the lack of commercial cleaning products, I don't encounter the ailments or other maladies that marketers would lead you to believe that I should be suffering eternally. I recall a visit to the local health department sometime during my divorce proceedings [2000-2002] for treatment of a sinus infection. Prior to that I had a follow-up surgery in 1990 for repair of my leg which was damaged in that near death collision a year earlier. Thankfully this was during my incarceration and paid for out of the US Treasury's coffers :)
This seemingly contradiction piqued my curiosity. As I have completed my forty-fourth post utero year of existence I am confounded at my rejection of modern 'safe practices' and lack of medical interventions. I know that I had illnesses as a child but in the 25 years since I have availed myself of western medical intervention once. Oh there have been the few bottles of nose spray or some OTC swelling reducers for sprains and teeth ailments but nothing else. I think it has been dietary changes that eliminated the allergies.
It was upon studying a Chinese fasting ritual that I happened upon phrases such as purifying the mind, cleansing the soul and detoxifying to promote wellness. The various cleanliness related phrases started popping to the fore of my mind. Dirty movies - Wash away your sins etc. There was a common connector that I noticed in these – morality. It just hadn't occurred to me earlier.
I suppose like many people the answer is there before our eyes but without the clarity of focus we just can't see it. Humankind has long associated morality with cleanliness and immorality with impurity or dirtiness.
So, as it would seem that if there is a correlation between morality and cleanness then would it not be logical to draw the correlation between washing and the removal of dirtiness or immorality as it may be considered? The idiom Wash away your sins seems to implicate this relationship just as pornography being referenced as dirty movies implicates the contrary such that pornography is seen as immoral. Of course one of the most widely known idioms about disinfecting is Cleanliness is next to godliness. The implication there being clean is associated with goodness or morality. An internal cleansing as in that of the mind or spiritual as it may be invokes the cleanliness-morality connection in Purify the soul.
I then explored the idea of a correlation between the use of cleaning products and immorality. I thought about people I have known throughout my life and my perception of their moral character. In my assessment those whom I have considered to have high morals are less concerned with cleaning while the inverse is true. Not only had I drawn a correlation between morals and the use of cleaning products but similarly I recognized the same with their rates of illness or levels of success and adversity.
I then expanded my quest to the realm of a general association between morality and well-being. Thus, I seek to demonstrate that there is a clear causal relationship between morality and well-being or good fortune as you may call it. Additionally, beyond implication but instead directly, that disease and ailments or other adversities are the result of immorality. Tolstoy in saying, “How can one be well...when one suffers morally?”[fn1] seems to support this contention.
The first barrier that I encounter is the seeming contradiction in 'bad' things happening to 'good' or morally upstanding people. Immediately I think of the phrase one man's trash is another man's treasure. The words – 'bad' and 'good' – therefore must be rather subjective. One sees an object as useless, damaged, 'bad' while another sees it as useful, repairable, 'good'. Protagoras, Spinoza, Hume and other philosophers provide a rational basis for the exactness of objective language by distinguishing the inexactness of “good” and “bad”. I suppose one of my greatest frustrations is in the inability of common people to communicate – a factor that plays heavily into high conflict parenting.
Recently I saw a listing on eBay for “Lot of 150 DVD movies”. As I skimmed the list my brain subconsciously counted the titles and projected a thought of a bit over 100, nowhere near 150. A deliberate count determined the list to be 105. Inclusive of the multi-disc titles there were about 150 discs total. The title should have read “Lot of 150 movie DVD's” conveying the quantity of movie related discs not the number of movie titles.
So to address the 'bad' things happening to 'good' or morally upstanding people paradox I had two tasks; define what is moral and determine whether an experienced result is good or bad.
This was clarified through establishing definitions. Morality has been muddled by it's application through the construct of the organized cults and their texts proscribing associated objective list of moral and immoral or 'sinful' behaviours. Establishing morality or rightfulness through an item-by-item list would be an effort in futility. It is the same dilemma I encountered when helping to rewrite the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Both custodial and non-custodial parents were clamoring for me to get language added that would delineate the precise rights and responsibilities of each parent in the relationship. The objective being to remove the subjectivity from the judge and the perceived biases that unjustly deny a parent of his or her rights, so it is claimed. But it is precisely subjectivity that makes a judge, a judge. Such subjectivity is essential because not all children and parents come to the court with the same dynamics. Likewise, morality must be viewed subjectively because not all people possess the same intelligences or developmental progress nor are they subjected to the same experiences or culture.
The American Psychiatric Association notes that “[a]pplying Personality Disorder criteria across cultural settings may be especially difficult because of the wide cultural variation in concepts of self, styles of communication, and coping mechanisms.” and that “[i]deas that may appear to be delusional in one culture . . . may be commonly held in another.”[fn2] Thus, if behaviours cannot be held as normal or as psychopathological then neither can they be viewed absolutely as moral or immoral.
Friedrich Nietzsche believed that we have to assess the value of our values since values are relative to one's goals and one's self. In doing so there can be no absolute right or wrongs but actions must be assessed against the society, the individual, the circumstances and the motivations of the actor.
I raised this subjectivity issue in my Lunch Special guide. For instance driving through a school parking lot at 2:00 a.m. doing 50mph on a Sunday night while it is well lit and there are no other vehicles or people around is harmless on its face. The same action at 3:00p.m. later that afternoon as the children are released from school would be hideously irresponsible and dangerous. Then there is also the consideration of driver competency.
David Gerrold spoke of morality being relative as in velocity “Morality—like velocity—is relative. The determination of it depends on what the objects around you are doing. All one can do is measure one's position in relation to them; never can one measure one's velocity or morality in terms of absolutes.”[fn3] What may be an immoral action for you may not be the same for me. Likewise what you do in one circumstance could be immoral but the same action in a different setting would be moral. Ernest Hemmingway put it another way in saying, “[W]hat is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”[fn4] Hemingway's subjective approach to morality accepts the more realistic humanist approach which has a genetic basis. Brandon Sanderson likewise observed, “I believe that my own morality - which answers only to my heart - is more sure and true than the morality of those who do right only because they fear retribution.”[fn5] Thus, morality is based upon the will of men individually. A will that is altruistic at its root.
The argument for a strict objective moral set of rules is that the subjectivity of man is no more of a moral code than the wind – that it can be ever shifting and therefore cannot be moral. Nietzsche counters that “A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.”[fn6] Yet, the various cults lay down texts of code establishing the rules of behaviour for the adherents to each for which their followers claim as the basis of their morality. That is, if they do not violate the proscribed code of conduct for their cult then they are moral. In a more relaxed approach cult followers will profess their morality by proxy in that being a follower of the cult is analogous to high morality. This is no more objective than Hemminway's standard though. Individuals will assess on their own what it means to be a follower – strict adherence to scripture, professing allegiance to the cult, adornment with cult symbolism or participation in rituals. The best way I can demonstrate the fallacy of a claimed adherence to one of the cults with being a correlation to morality is to use a quote by Robert W Cox – “Saying that you are moral because you believe in a god is like saying you are an economist because you play monopoly.” [fn7]
Albert Einstein expressed the fallacy of cult based morality this way. “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”[fn8] Essentially Einstein argued that good behaviour motivated by avoidance of pain [punishment] is not moral because it has no organic basis. Being that if there wasn't the belief in an omniscient observer that the individual would cease to act morally. That is not morality but rather compliance to avoid pain.
Richard Dawkins said it succinctly – “Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.”[fn9] This is why agnostics and atheist have demonstrated greater moral behaviour than the claimed adherents to the cults. [fn10] Their moral behaviour is organic in their origins, true to their nature, rather than thrust upon them as a heavy handed rule which must be observed. Ayn Rand supported the notion that morality has an organic basis in that it results in happiness for the individual – “Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness—not pain or mindless self-indulgence—is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.”[fn11]
Organic morality is the result of an evolutionary process. Throughout the animal kingdom we see cross-specie symbiotic relationships. Even the predator-prey relationships can be viewed as symbiotic – not altruistic – in that the prey provides a source of life support – food – to the hunter. At the same time that hunter makes the prey stronger – as a specie – by weeding the inferior members out of the gene pool. Contemporary humanity has rejected and subverted the evolutionary specie strengthening mechanics – survival of the fittest – and replaced it with unnatural standards. These may include safety procedures or equipment, falsified physical attributes and the use of a monetary system as a demonstration of fitness. Yet, one thing survives – a universal abhorrence towards those who harm others. As these members of society are ostracized, whether it be through incarceration or public scorn, they are removed from the gene-pool. Thus, this establishes the universal criterion for morality – do no harm. This was the solitary basis of the early pagan cults which held that whatever you put out to the world comes back to you in a magnified form. Much like Newton's Third Law of Motion: whenever one object exerts force on another, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. That is, in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction It was thus believed that if you harmed a person, an animal or your environment that the force of Unity would cause you to suffer a greater harm by other people, that animals would harm you and that your land would become inhospitable or barren. The scientific community is embracing on a greater level that matter and thought are inexorably intertwined. Certainly it is so with immunological functioning in the human body. Martin Luther King Jr., supported the natural view of morality rather than a system of rules proscribed by man. He said, “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” [fn12]
Mahatma Gandhi believed that morality could be judged by mans relationship to animals – “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”[fn13] I further referred to animals in the morality section of my Lunch Special guide saying, “Making the decisions that harm yourself, others around you and the environments of yourself often are done to make life easier but are immoral. These generally go against nature and when you fight nature you make life difficult and ultimately lose. An easy example is milk selection. For humans the most beneficial milk is a woman's breast milk. But once a baby is weened from the mother's breast most people select cow's milk over readily available goat's milk. Unlike cow's milk, goat's milk is naturally homogenized. The homogenization process for cow's milk releases Xanthine Oxidase, a free radical. Free radicals are a known carcinogen. Yet, people continue to do the immoral act of selecting homogenized cow's milk instead of goat's milk for themselves and their children as though fighting cancer through interdiction and paying the costs are easier. If you live by the credo of do no harm then your moral lifestyle, will be rewarded where it counts – in this lifetime with prosperity and well-being.” We are all aware of the horrendous conditions in which milk cows are raised which are clearly immoral. David Foster Wallace articulated his thoughts on the animals as food issue this way -- “Is it possible that future generations will regard our present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero's entertainments or Mengele's experiments? My own initial reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme - and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human beings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven't succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.”[fn14] Essentially Wallace is conceding that the current agribusiness may be an immoral practice but rationalizes his behaviour and failure to adopt the belief that it is immoral. But I, rather, do declare it to be immoral. It violates the universal moral of do no harm. The current industrialized livestock operations produce huge amounts of waste product that damage our watershed, leave the landscape barren and treat animals not as living beings but merely as a raw product to be “manufactured” into finished goods.
Just as Wallace lamented about being unable to work out any sort of personal ethical system that defends the agribusiness is just selfishly convenient many others simply resort to their cult training. The Bible says that man owes no allegiance to animals or the Earth and that both can be subjugated at will without recourse[fn15]. Rationalizing or justifying immoral acts through cult ideology does not eradicate the consequences of the immoral act. As Bernard E. Rollin said, “Immorality sanctified by tradition is still immorality.”[fn16].
I have long been interested in the concepts of ethics and morally, especially as it relates to the judiciary. In the realm of sociological effects I was intrigued by the concept of sanctioned morality such as those established through the cults or government. It was with this yearning some 25 or so years ago that I embarked upon a quest to gain the knowledge of what truly is moral, what are the tangible consequences of immorality and where do atheist and agnostics fall into the morality paradigm.
Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged - “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.”[fn17] Thus, government may only circumscribe immorality enforceable through sanction. Government cannot, as the phrase is used throughout the congressional halls, legislate morality. That is, morality must be organic in origin and emanate from the individual. It is that realization that provides the logical support for atheist and agnostics exhibiting greater moral fortitude than the devoutly pious.
This was confirmed by a study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. Study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious . . . may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns." That is they so based altruism upon an extrinsic standard not an inherent desire. This was based in part on data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults taken in 2004. In that survey generous behaviors was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious. [fn18]
In much the way that children are indoctrinated into the omniscient monotheist cults – the threat of withholding or bestowing gifts upon them by a festively clad fat man who knows when you've been naughty and when you've been nice – the pious conform to a standard of morality based upon a similar threat. But as I have said, compliance is simply compliance under threat of an adverse repercussion. Such pain avoidance is simply in our nature. Ironically, benevolence would not appear to conform with the underlying objective of any living organism – self-preservation.
If the scope of ensuring a fruitful existence the realm of selfish acts can be applied abstractly. An act of benevolence or compassion towards fellow man while not providing an immediate direct benefit to the actor himself nevertheless is beneficial. The benefits may be extrapolated from the sociological spectrum. Has the actor gained greater favour in the community? Is he perceived as more trusting in which he may be rewarded with greater opportunities for reciprocal gains? More succinctly is this person viewed as more fit to be a parent in the eyes of the opposite gender thus ensuring survival of the benevolent gene-pool?
In the Western world there appears to be a greater pursuit of licentious pleasures than those in other societies where pleasures may be derived from benevolence or compassion towards the community. This appears to manifest itself in both population trends and the breadth of well-being. Americans are a world leader when it comes to disease[fn19], obesity [fn20] and, in the industrialized portion, in some forms of dietary malnutrition [fn21]. Yet their replacement rate dwindles. That is, the rate of population expansion is generally greater in societies whose practices are in conformity with the natural world rather than those who seek to dominate the Earth.
Abrahamic cults specifically adhere to a domination of Earth standard. [fn22] The consequences of such a proscription are becoming more acute on both micro and macro levels. Those who do not harmonize their existence to the environment in which they reside are themselves suffering the adverse consequences. The industrialization of societies which seek to rape and pillage the resources of a delicately balanced environment supporting the coexistence of living organisms are reaping the deleterious effects of their self-indulgence. This has recently been observed in Beijing where the once authoritarian socialist government has embraced capitalism to satisfy the western demand for goods. Beijing now has the most polluted air on Earth and the residents are increasingly feeling the adverse effects. Americans openly embrace the rapid and harmful industrialization of China by placing environmental standards on industrial operations that prevent manufacturing for occurring domestically.
It becomes apparent once presented with the evidence that morality, when measured under a legitimate rubric, is broadly associated with well-being. So for the meat of this article it is necessary to apply the polishing of moralistic behaviours with the child custody decision criterion. These are enumerated in the Indiana family law code under Title 31 Article 17 Chapter 2 Section 8 for dissolution of marriage and its companion, IC 31-14-13-3, for paternity cases.
(1) The age and sex of the child.
It is never too early to begin the process of setting your children's moral compass. In fact you do so from the time they are first exposed to you. Your behaviours are what children at an early age rely upon most to guide them. It continues throughout the time they reside and interact with you. The type of behaviours that you model to your children should be appropriate to their age.
(2) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents.
On it's face this may seem as though it is an overly broad category. In reality it is a much more concisely enumerated factor. Specifically it relates to the parenting time and custody of the children. Your wishes and those of the other parent will be affected by your lifestyle, disposition and attitude towards the other parent. If you are morally sound then you will desire a custody determination that provides the best arrangement for your child. You will be considerate of the other parent's feelings and feasibility to provide care. You will never attempt to deprive the child of parenting time with the other parent out of spite, anger or resentment towards the other parent. Once you have achieved tranquility any of those feelings you have had will be gone.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child’s wishes if
the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
The wishes of your children should not be considered in the realm of a contest. Rather consider the more abstract wishes that children will have. These will range from wanting reunification of the family to total independence, less your financial support of course. Consider the primary motivation of your children – self interest. They will have wants that directly benefit themselves. These can be accommodated but without you being manipulated. If you have established confidence in yourself you will find it much easier to avoid manipulation. Through learning effective communication techniques your children will not only confine their behaviours within your bounds but will be appreciative of your boundaries. As for the enhancement at age 14 think of it this way – driving from home to the store is analogous to the weight given to the child's wishes. Getting the parking spot closest to the building is analogous to the additional weight given for being age 14. Based upon my conversations with numerous judges you should not think of your child attaining the age of 14 as being the catalyst for a change in the parenting time or custody order.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child’s parent or parents;
This is the factor that judges give the greatest weight to generally. In my experience child custody decisions are not about the law but, instead, are judgments based upon parenting skills and behaviours. It is what you do with your child that counts. If you are of sound moral character then the appropriate behaviours will follow.
(B) the child’s sibling;
This is one of the factors that is of necessary consideration but over which you have little control. The basis of this factor is the presumption of maintaining cohesion among siblings is best. However, I am seeing judicial officers at greater ease with splitting children especially those who are heavily involved with school and extra curricular activities.
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests.
This is a factor where you can have great impact or none. Primarily we are looking at subsequent spouses on both sides along with extended family, child care providers and frequent associates – including your child's friends. This is a factor in which your moral compass will guide the behaviours and consequently the decision of the judge. Family members and your subsequent partners will follow your lead. You set the boundaries of your child care providers and the limits of their use including, to some extent, by the other parent.
(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s:
(A) home;
A home built upon a moral foundation will adequately provide for the needs of the children. Home is much more than a building. This is why the term 'home' is used in place of 'residence'. The term embodies the concepts that do not fall within the structural medium. A parent with a strong moral foundation will provide a home which secures, nurtures and supports the child. Likewise, this type of parent will seek to ensure that the other parent is doing the same and will take non-judgmental steps to assist the other parent when needed. This can be a difficult step for parents in conflict and will contradict the advice of most attorneys. After you have resoundingly forgiven the other parent, and yourself, for any past transgressions – real or perceived – you will be ready to assist the other parent for the benefit of your child. Recall that what you put out comes back to you in magnified proportion. That is a law of Unity.
(B) school; and
Children spend a considerable portion of their waking hours confined to a school. Thus, we have a moral obligation to ensure that such school provides for the supplementation of the child's education through academic disciplines. Additionally, the school should provide a safe and nurturing environment to facilitate learning. Many parents will expend greater efforts in selecting an automobile for lease or purchase than will be done for seeking a school or daycare center to meet these needs of the child. That is neglectful and by any measure immoral which subjects that parent to an attack in a contested custody case.
(C) community.
Much like the school the same considerations should be given to the community in which one resides. Establishing a domicile is one of the most fundamental of choices one can make. We all live where we have decided. If a parent is domiciled in a high crime area that is because that was his or her choice. Rural or urban, polluted or clean, remote or connected – each factor is based upon decisions made. None can be considered more moral than another but must each be viewed in their totality. Although unlikely, the home in the polluted area that is not conducive for a child with asthma to play outside may still be more convenient to a better educational institution, the other parent's residence and be in a safer area.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
The spectrum of health provides true insight into the morality and fitness of a parent. When it comes to making proper decisions this is of paramount importance. The health condition that one chooses to have whether it be diabetes melittus, a BMI of 20 or depression demonstrates character traits and behaviours that are relevant to child custody placement. Substance “addictions”, once debated as a moral versus biological condition, have now been clearly demonstrated through empirical evidence to be a matter of willpower and judgment[fn23] Since children learn by example and are subject to the environment – including observational opportunities – that their parents provide, a parent's moral character which is manifest in his or her well-being is of great importance in a custody ruling. A parent who uses drugs for relief of various stressors should not be surprised to find her or his child experimenting with street drugs or stealing them from the drug cabinet in the house. Both users seek the same end result – pain relief. The parent has demonstrated a chosen method. The child has used his or her opportunities to facilitate the demonstrated method of relief.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of Domestic Violence by either parent.
Engaging in Domestic Violence is by its very nature immoral. Domestic Violence harms the target, perpetrator and collateral members of the family. Behaviours are modeled to children. Whether one attempts to shield children from the direct impact of DV, that is witnessing an actual incident, they are not shielded from the broader implications of DV. Domestic Violence demonstrates a lack of respect for the target and perpetrator as well as a lack of intelligence. These deficiencies will be apparent to a child through regular daily interactions. In pursuing a more beneficial child custody decision it is imperative that any DV on the part of the parent seeking a custody improvement ceases. Pursuing a moral lifestyle ensures that this happens. Additionally an increase in intelligence should be a side effect as the perpetrator's brain is taxed with the challenge of thinking through conflict rather than being expressed through explosive acts of rage.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.
Creating a child only to abandon his care to others is neglectful, immoral and clearly informs the child that he is not wanted by you. People who have not adequately prepared for the birth of their children and bring them into neglectful situations are immoral at their core. That is not to say that any efforts at remediation should be abandoned though. A parent who has chosen to neglect the responsibility of child care can just as easily make the decision to embrace that responsibility and attempt to reverse the harm that he or she is imposing upon the child. A moral stance in regards to the responsibility of child rearing will most likely ensure a child custody placement that reflects that decision.
I trust that you can agree that living a truly moral life and demonstrating moralistic behaviours is beneficial to your well-being and that of your children. Actions are not without consequences. Adverse consequences are preceded by adverse actions. What may seem convenient, insignificant or harmless may not be when examined under the guise of morality. The consequences may not be direct, immediate or foreseeable but they will come.
As long as you eat properly, breathe deeply of fresh, clean air, avoid excessive physical and emotional stress, and live in harmony with the world around you, you will maintain a stable internal environment that will allow you to thrive. Living in a manner in opposition to your natural balance will result in constant flux and stresses that will produce adverse results and may cost you a meaningful relationship with your children.
Whatever measure you use to gauge morality I suggest that you try another: the amount of cleaning products one uses or one's preoccupation with cleansing itself. Culturally we already recognize this. We refer to a rat as 'dirty' or a low person as a rat, yet rats cleanse themselves extensively and more often than humans.[fn24]
Notes
[1] “How can one be well...when one suffers morally?” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
[2] American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, 1994. pgs. xxiv, 281.
[3] “Morality—like velocity—is relative. The determination of it depends on what the objects around you are doing. All one can do is measure one's position in relation to them; never can one measure one's velocity or morality in terms of absolutes.” ― David Gerrold, Star Hunt
[4] “About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.” ― Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon
[5] “Must someone, some unseen thing, declare what is right for it to be right? I believe that my own morality - which answers only to my heart - is more sure and true than the morality of those who do right only because they fear retribution.” ― Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
[6] “A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
[7] Saying that you are moral because you believe in a god is like saying you are an economist because you play monopoly. Robert W Cox
[8] “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” ― Albert Einstein
[9] “Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
[10] The ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, that 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion, of which 1.6% explicitly describes themselves as atheist. Yet, atheist make up only 0.21% of the federal prison population. source: Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997
[11] “Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness—not pain or mindless self-indulgence—is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.” ― Ayn Rand
[12] “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws. (from "Rediscovering Lost Values")” ― Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
[13] “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
[14] “Is it possible that future generations will regard our present agribuisness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero's entertainments or Mengele's experiments? My own initial reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme - and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human behings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven't succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.” ― David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
[15] Genesis 9:2, King James Bible - And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
[16] “Immorality sanctified by tradition is still immorality.” ― Bernard E. Rollin
[17] “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[18] Saslow-Willer; Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds. Social Psychological and Personality Science, July 2012
[19] Age standardized breast cancer rates are as high as 99.4 per 100 000 in North America. Eastern Europe, South America, The lowest incidence rates are found in most African countries. The United States ranks seventh overall worldwide in total cancer rates. Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease, 2004.
[20] Average weight of Americans is 178 pounds; 127 pounds in Asia. Source: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine based on the 2005 WHO SURF report.
[21] More than 75 percent of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with an increased risk of bone conditions such as osteomalacia, as well as autoimmune diseases, certain cancers and obesity. Source: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009.
[22] Genesis 1:28 King James Bible - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
[23] National Institute on Drug Abuse - A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach: Treating Cocaine Addiction
[24] Isamu Rats - http://isamu.weebly.com/index.html
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.
