31 October 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I have been accused of blaming a murder victim for her own murder!!!
While various ghouls and goblins make their rounds tonight seeking to fright there will be those who cower within their own homes for fear of the specter of Domestic Violence. On this day, the last in Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I present a proposal that I have sent to members of the Indiana General Assembly recently for consideration in the 2014 legislative session.
In 2012 I was contacted by Joseph Warnock, a prisoner at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility serving a term for murder. The murder was that of his estranged wife, Angie, on 22 June 2009. This came after a period of time in which Mr Warnock felt like the “whole world was coming crashing down around me.” The trigger was the 18 June 2009 DVPO which forbade him from having contact with his children although nowhere in the DVPO petition that Angie filed did she allege that he had committed or threatened to commit any act of DV.
For Joseph the murder was the result of culminating feelings of frustration and helplessness. Likely, each of us has faced a moment of frustration where we say something hurtful to someone or destroy the object of our frustration. Be it an automobile, electronic gadget or some other manifestation of our technologically advanced society it seems that even when we are doing exactly as supposed to, and more often when we are rushed, these devices fail to perform in some way. We know that smashing them to bits would be therapeutic but would align us no better to our end goal than walking away. Even the most ardent won't-stop-and-ask-for-directions souls will break down at some point and place a call halfway around the world for tech support or just drop off the instigator of their frustration to a repair shop.
Imagine now that your estranged spouse is surreptitiously planning to relocate your children to Hawaii. You discover this through freight charges applied to your credit card. That on the Thursday preceding Mother's Day or Father's Day a judge orders that you are barred from contact with your children through a Domestic Violence Protection Order [DVPO]. To exacerbate your frustration and feeling of hopelessness you receive a text message that reads, “Face the music, you're not going to see the kids.”
In our criminal code we do acknowledge that while we are responsible for our actions and are to be held accountable there can be triggers that provoke us into these actions. Our legislature, aware of the disastrous effects that provoking someone can have, has added “provocation” [IC 35-42-2-3] to our criminal code. This does not provide an underlying offender with a mitigating factor for sentencing but is a separate offense, oft applied to the “victim” for instigating the underlying attack. Thus our legislature was aware that "victims" do induce an attack on themselves.
Joseph Warnock has stated to me, “I hate to say it but if [the judge] would have vacated the order that day, I could have seen and been with my kids that Father's Day, it probably would have prevented what happened.” This is not an effort on his part to diffuse blame as he also said, “I take and accept responsibility, it didn't matter what my wife was doing, I had lawyers, courts and judges I could have dealt with.” He has been contrite but also acknowledges the reality of the situation in saying, “I'm very sorry for what I did. It's all my fault, I definitely think the DVPO was influential in contributing to the murder.”
Joseph mentioned some resources that he could have accessed to help allay his frustration, but all are judicial in nature. When faced with the taunt of “you're not going to see the kids” coming just before Father's Day and knowing that their belongings have already been shipped to Hawaii the availability of the judicial process, slow as it is, is of no comfort. Instead an immediate outlet for frustration is needed. There needs to be a comforting ear that can listen to a parent's despair and help channel the frustration in an appropriate manner.
I propose that Indiana Code 34-26-5-3 be amended to include a requirement that courts attach a list of resource to the DVPO that could be accessed by the Petitioner or Respondent at anytime. This would include mental health counselors, police, legal aid and voluntary incarceration with all assistance being confidential and no payment or payment arrangement being required at the time of service. I sent the proposal to Mr Warnock who replied, “I certainly agree and love the idea of there being a resource list attached to the DVPO. What a tremendous idea, and that very possibly may have prevented me doing what I did. If I would have had in front of me places to call, places to help me deal with the stress that was involved with the situation, places to vent, etc. that very well may have made the difference.” It may even be better to require that a counselor at the county mental health department or an agency that serves the jurisdiction immediately contact the parties to open dialogue.
I don't want anyone to be subjected to the terrors of Domestic Violence. I especially don't want someone to be killed. The Warnock situation is most tragic in that on 22 June 2009 Angie and Joseph's daughters lost both parents to the effects of a hostile child custody battle.
Amazingly, I was personally vilified [which I am sure will continue] for my attempts to reduce acts of DV by addressing the matter in an open and honest way regardless of political ideology or financial motivations. In the Summer of 2009 I had never heard of Angie or Joseph Warnock. Two days after the murder, having only reading a newspaper account of the incident and relying upon my accumulated wealth of knowledge in the field, I made the following observation in a blawg posting:
Often times children are withheld from the other parent as punishment for a perceived wrong. This is commonly done through restraining orders which in the majority of cases do not even involve an allegation of violence.
This is another case that demonstrates that a Protective Order does not protect and may actually lead to the death of a parent who was otherwise not threatened. In child custody cases every effort should be made to ensure that the children maintain healthy relationships with both parents. Not doing so cannot only damage the children but, as in this case, cost the alienator her life.
This is very strong language which I firmly stood upon and still hold to. This is not an effort to boast about my behavioural and personality intuition but, instead, is to note the well established relationship patterns between divorcing parents. It had been during the previous session of the Indiana General Assembly that I had been asked to give a presentation on false allegations of abuse and the affect on child custody proceedings. Thus these patterns were fresh in my mind.
Joseph has told me that he felt that Angie was using control of the children to punish him for a perceived wrong. In this case there was no allegation by Angie that Joseph had been violent or was a threat to her. [see page 12 of this document]. Joseph has repeatedly said that he is responsible but acknowledges that the DVPO was a contributor – “I'm responsible, but I think our system failed.” I referred to Angie as an 'alienator' – someone that tries to sabotage the children's relationship with the other parent. If getting a DVPO without cause – no allegation of abuse – then beginning the process of secretly relocating the children to what is effectively a foreign land, and finally sending the taunting message “you're not going to see the kids” is not alienation then I have misapplied the term.
Some will argue that Joseph Warnock must have been a violent abuser based upon the ultimate outcome. The more enlightened realize the power of self-fulfilling prophecy. This has been scientifically demonstrated through numerous experiments like the one by Rosenthal [1966]. In that, 18 school teachers among various grades were given a roster of their students along with corresponding IQ test results. There existed a statistically relevant correlation between the students' IQ and their subsequent testing results at the end of the year for all levels. However, researchers had randomly assigned IQ scores to the students. The performance of the students became consistent with the premise of their intelligence. This became known as the expectancy effect. The same outcome is often seen in juvenile justice. Children who are told that they are bad or criminals have a higher recidivism rate than those who are told they have value, are still learning, and simply made an error in judgment – condemning the behaviour not the person. Can a person be conditioned to reflect a particular level of intelligence, criminal behaviour or turn violent? Yes. Take a man who has not behaved violently, tell him that his is violent, remove him from his children and taunt him with threats that he will never see his children again and don't be surprised if the result is violence.
Divorce and contentious child custody litigation already produces enough stress and emotionally taxes the parents without inducing the additional feelings of betrayal and hopelessness that an unfounded DVPO can initiate. Parents in this situation don't need to be isolated to allow their subconscious to fulfill a script but instead need to be embraced by a system and community that shows that it cares about children.
Please contact your legislator and request that he or she support legislation to provide resources to parties subject to a DVPO.
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, October 31, 2013
Indiana Civil Protection Order reform - DVPO notice IC 34-26-5
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
GRAVITY: An explanation and a funny story
29 October 2013
It was Sir Isaac Newton who is claimed to have been motivated to research gravity by an apple falling upon him. I have long had the motivation but a few days ago while collecting apples I still had some room in my backpack for more so I reached, stretched and retrieved one from it's perch above me. The reflex action of the branch brought a cascade of apples down upon me. Lesson learned – stand back and shake the branch.
The concept of gravity has always intrigued me. I haven't encountered anyone who could provide a reasonable explanation. It can't be reconciled with quantum mechanics which makes it all the more perplexing. But here is the best that I have been able to discern.
Every particle has tentacles that extend from it like an octopus. These are not visible to us. The force of these tentacles is proportional to the mass of the particle. The tentacles may extend a particular distance and then split into two arms that intersect with each other at 90 degrees. These arms intersect with the original tentacle at 135 degrees. This produces a Y shape. The length of the arms is two times the tentacle length squared – the hypotenuse of a right triangle. And the process continues. It could be that they are a single strand that extends from the particle in a straight line until it intersects with something. Regardless of how formed the strength of each tentacle is inversely squared to its distance from the particle.
If all matter is tethered to other matter then how is it that matter moves and we along with everything else don't become tangled in this web of tentacles? The tentacles are not matter themselves but instead are a wave similar to that of electromagnetism. Just as the copper or aluminum molecules do not move along an electrical line while their energy is being transferred the same is with gravity. The gravitational tentacles grasp corresponding tentacles creating a bond however fleeting it may be. Think of the throngs of spectators lining a parade route reaching out to a celebrity. The fingers of the fans and celebrities unite, even if just for a moment, creating a bond that is broken and reformed with the next particle as the particle makes its way through the Universe. As particles move closer to each other the length of the tentacles decreases which produces a greater force. When particles unite they become a single particle that extends its tentacles with a force proportional to its mass. More matter creates a greater collective force that allows for a further reach. Hence, the greater the mass of an object the more force it can exert on its surroundings.
So that is my explanation of gravity in layman's terms and as I have been able to understand it. Now onto the funny part.
My son Therin came back to Indy for the few days of his Fall Break. On Saturday we had lunch at our favourite restaurant, Formosa Seafood Buffet. We were joined by Therin's adorable girlfriend, my parents, a longtime friend of ours and my best buddy, a former classmate of Therin.
After lunch Therin, his girlfriend and my folks departed. We remaining three chatted for awhile then headed off to the home of my longtime friend. These two gals decided on going to see a movie. The movie Gravity peaked their interest. It was starting in a half hour at the nearby monster megaplex movie house – a building that could have hosted a 1964 Beatles concert if it was a one room auditorium. So I said 'let's get going' and obediently followed their lead.
As we entered the auditorium for Gravity we noticed that the movie was already underway. It was with good reason I said 'let's get going' as soon as these women made their movie selection. I thought it was odd that there wasn't 20 minutes of previews, dancing snacks and other related annoyances being displayed on the screen instead of the feature. Ten minutes later when the credits starting rolling I knew we weren't so fortunate to be in an era that has forgone self promotion amongst a captive audience. We exited that auditorium and entered the one showing Gravity for which we bought the tickets. It would have been helpful if there had been an usher to escort us to our seats or at least take our tickets and direct us to the appropriate auditorium but I guess it has been so many years since I have been to that type of theater that I no longer know the protocol.
For the second time we enter an auditorium while the movie is underway. This time much closer to the beginning. The movie concludes, the lights shine and my longtime friend excuses herself to the bathroom but ask us to stay as she wants to come back and watch the previews. Of course I resolutely obey. My best buddy and I chat away as the young man makes his way through the theater picking up debris. He confirms for us that Gravity will be the next showing in that auditorium. Shortly after that patrons begin trickling into the theater for the impending showing.
The lights fade a bit and the commercials begin. I mean commercial like on cable television – the paid programming. Then it is onto the previews. Our friend has yet to return. We keep chatting away until we are asked by another patron to take it into the hall if we wish to keep talking. So, quietly we sit attentive to the previews. Laughing on the inside and expressing an auditory chuckle occasionally as we know what the other is thinking. Now whispering through the previews we are befuddled at the ongoing absence of our friend. I have no cell reception and my buddy says she has not received any messages. I conclude that we have been abandoned at the theater. After all, our friend is diabetic and can be a bit inattentive anyway.
The movie begins and at less than one minute into it, to our amusement, our friend comes walking in, just missing the last preview. She motions for us to come down to her which we do. As we catch up to her in the hallway she immediately tears into us with, “I can't believe that two people who are so smart can be so stupid sometimes. I have been sitting in the car waiting for 20 minutes on you two. I called you [Stuart] twice and you didn't answer either call. I left messages. Were you two planning on sitting in there and watching the god damn movie again while I wait to go home.” We both express astonishment at this attack and accusation of thoughtlessness. What we determined was that the auditorium next to the one we were in was also showing Gravity but that it had started a half hour earlier. She had left the bathroom, entered that auditorium -- catching the remaining previews -- and then went to the car. This would account for the 20 minutes waiting on us. She apologized for her error and off we went. As we rode back to her house I played her messages using speaker phone. The first has a slight tone of impatience but basically informed me that she is in the car now. The second, coming about 20 minutes later, is clearly hostile and berates us in much the same manner as the hallway dressing down. We were all rolling. We managed to go to a theater showing the same movie in three different auditoriums, see the ending twice but not the beginning, get separated into different auditoriums and get chewed out for obediently following directions.
When we got home we prepared a light dinner, our friend took her diabetes meds and then we chit-chatted a bit. Eventually we went to the living room to watch another movie. Well into that movie our friend looks over at the two of us sitting on the couch and said, “Do you two ever shut up and just let someone hear the movie they are watching?” Only after being told to do so, I reply. Then it is just laughter.
Oh but we enjoy our conversations. We chatted the whole way home.
What an evening it was. We see the ending twice but not the beginning. Get told to shut up during two different movies and get berated for doing exactly as instructed by our companion who got lost. Much more of an adventurous evening than I had suspected. Maybe I will go see a movie again in another five years or so. At $10.50 per ticket, $8 for popcorn and $4.75 for a tub of carmel coloured corn syrup water I know I won't be paying. For that $44.25 I'll be able to buy 80 DVD movies at a garage sale in two years. Gravity will likely be in there.
If your clients need assistance in understanding the much more complex domain of child custody litigation than the science behind gravity then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Prohibition on Negotiating Parenting Time and Child Support
27 October 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
As the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court undertakes the process of revising the current Indiana Child Support Guidelines I will be seeking input from parents as well as providing some contextual background to them regarding Indiana's child support payment scheme. In this posting I present the reasoning behind a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding the balancing of parenting time and child support. The decision in Perkinson v Perkinson [989 N.E. 2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)] was rendered by the court on 25 June 2013.
The decision, written by Justice Steve David, begins with the following paragraph. “The concept of parents negotiating away parenting time as a means to eliminate the obligation to pay child support is repugnant and contrary to public policy. Attorneys should refuse to be a part of such discussion and should advise their clients that any such discussion is unacceptable. Here, an agreement to forego parenting time in exchange for relief from child support is declared void against public policy.”
That particular agreement provided that Father agreed to waive his parenting time rights in exchange
for Mother assuming sole financial responsibility and waiving enforcement of Father’s child support arrearage. The INSC was not impressed with the actions of these 'parents'. The Court wrote-
It is incomprehensible to this Court to imagine that either parent would ever stipulate to give up parenting time in lieu of not paying child support. It has long been established by this Court that “[a]ny agreement purporting to contract away these [child support] rights is directly contrary to this State’s public policy of protecting the welfare of children.” Straub v. B.M.T., 645 N.E.2d 597, 600 (Ind. 1994). See also Trent v. Trent, 829 N.E.2d 81, 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In Halum v. Halum, 492 N.E.2d 30, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), the Court of Appeals held that a “custodial parent may not bargain away the children’s right to support.”
A long line of cases has long established that child support payments are for the exclusive use of the children and that a parent receiving support payments does so on the child's behalf. That parent has a fiduciary responsibility to the child to administer the financial contributions from both parents for the benefit of the child. This precludes a parent from negotiating away the child's right to those payments. “It is well established that the right to child support lies exclusively with the child and that a custodial parent holds the support payments in trust for the benefit of the child.” Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1010, 1013 (Ind. 2013). Custodial parents who receive child support funds act as a trustee, and, “as a constructive trustee, [the custodial parent] may not contract away the benefits of the trust.” Nill v. Martin, 686 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind. 1997). To do so would violate the fiduciary duty the custodial parent owes the child in relation to any child support funds. The Court of Appeals previously held, “[v]isitation rights and child support are separate issues, not to be comingled. A court cannot condition visitation upon the payment of child support if a custodial parent is not entitled to do so.” Farmer v. Farmer, 735 N.E.2d 285, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
The INSC touched upon the lack of fitness of these parents by noting what so many children in custody litigation are subjected to – “Every child deserves better than to be treated as nothing more than a bargaining chip.” Thus a parent who seeks to negotiate support payments contingent upon parenting time could be presumed to be not acting in the best interest of the child. This may be in one of two common ways of which one is the circumstance specifically addressed by this decision.
The first is that, as in this decision, if you will give up some parenting time I won't seek as much in support. This is in direct opposition to the ICSG which base support on parents income and an inverse correlation model between parenting time and child support payments. That is, the less parenting time a parent exercises the more support one is required to pay as less direct support is provided during the reduced parenting time. This also contravenes the fiduciary obligation of the parent receiving the child support payments. “It is well established that the right to child support lies exclusively with the child and that a custodial parent holds the support payments in trust for the benefit of the child.” Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1010, 1013 (Ind. 2013). A parent may not contract away that right on behalf of the child.
The second is when a parent requests excessive child support payments as a condition for additional parenting time. Again, this is in direct opposition to the ICSG which base support on parents income and an inverse correlation model between parenting time and child support payments. That is, the more parenting time a parent exercises the less support one is required to pay as more direct support is provided during increased parenting time. The same fiduciary responsibility applies which would compel the custodial parent to actually use all additional funding for the child.
The trial court in the present case makes a finding that parenting time “would not be in the child’s best interest and would create significant emotional harm to her” but provides insufficient facts to support its finding other than its footnote asking “How do you explain to a six (6) year old that her Father exchanged time with her for money?” The Indiana Supreme Court rightly noted what the trial court appeared to have overlooked – “As horrific as that rhetorical question is, Mother agreed to it. And Mother’s attorney prepared the documentation.” So, the contrary question becomes, “how do you explain to a six (6) year old that her Mother offered money to her Father to get out of her life?”
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, October 24, 2013
A Correct Verdict in the final David Camm Trial
24 October 2013
The jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” in the third and final trial of David Camm who allegedly murdered his wife and two children on 28 September 2000. Camm had twice been convicted but both convictions were overturned on appeal because of improper actions by the prosecution.
The power of a prosecutor is nearly unchecked. I have heard an estimate that the prosecution of Camm has cost Indiana taxpayers around $5,000,000. Think about the money spent going after former president, Bill Clinton. It has not been uncommon for federal prosecutors to pressure defendants into accepting guilty pleas by expressing the willingness to spend a million dollars to get a conviction. Prosecutors have the money to do it and face no consequences should they fail. This is why it is so important that we have informed, ethical juries who can render the proper verdict. This is also why every prosecution should be resolved by those jurors. Sadly, the jurors who sacrificed so much to be a part of this trial got paid so little.
To better understand a verdict it is helpful to know the standard of proof. In a criminal prosecution it is the highest – beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not beyond all doubt but if there is a doubt that seems highly probable then a juror must vote to acquit. In the quantum world there is a probability that the Earth may not rotate to the East tomorrow. I can quite assuredly tell you that around 7:00am tomorrow the Sun will appear on the eastern horizon just as has always occurred – so I think. But I cannot say so definitely. The standard in a criminal prosecution is not so high though. A juror should be thoroughly convinced that the prosecution's assertion is the truth and that alternatives are not at all likely although still possible. Judges have generally told me that in most offenses they go with about a 95% level of being convinced. It is also important to note that the burden of convincing jurors is entirely upon the prosecution. A defendant has no obligation to present a defense and there should never be an inference as to guilt if no defense is presented.
This final Camm trial occurred in Boone County, Indiana because of extensive pre-trial publicity. For the past ten weeks I was able to walk out my front entryway and see the media vehicles parked nearby. I even managed to attend and listen to some of the testimony. Special prosecutor Stan Levko was assisted by Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer in the prosecution.
After the summation of closing arguments was made on Tuesday the jury was left to deliberate and come to the only reasonable verdict - not guilty. This is not to say that David Camm did not murder his wife and children. I make no aspersions to the truth of the matter as I was not there to witness the killings. So any opinion I have as to whether he committed such acts is irrelevant. What I do know is that, in the eyes of the law, he is not a murderer and that is the proper sentiment.
There are at times certain events in your life where doubt is raised as to the veracity of what seems like a perfectly legitimate claim. That doubt comes from the claimant's attempt to falsify or manipulate his evidence or shield himself from criticism. One such obvious incident is the Church's declaration of heresy against Nicolaus Copernicus when he declared that the Church's declaration that the earth was the center of the universe was false. If the Church was being truthful then it would have welcomed such a critique.
In my personal experience with Todd Meyer and former Boone County Circuit Court Judge Steve David -- now a supreme court justice – while I was proceeding through a felony prosecution for allegedly neglecting my son I challenged their integrity. Within a day of leafleting Lebanon, Indiana with fliers inviting the public to attend the trial and see evidence of their “corruption” exposed, the trial was canceled. A year and a half later the charge was dropped and my petition to have the charge reinstated was denied. If Meyer and David were not corrupt then why avoid the scrutiny. I welcomed having a jury scrutinize my actions. I asked to be re-charged with the felony and have a jury trial to so scrutinize me.
There were plenty of moments in the Camm trial that amounted to a similar effort to obscure the truth. When the defense presented a crime scene reconstruction “expert” -- who claimed there was blood splatters on the garage wall, which turned out to be motor oil – that had no training in that field you have to question their veracity. When they present weeks of evidence upon the presumption that David Camm shot and killed his family and then in the closing arguments allege that he may have only “aided and abetted” someone else in the killings then you must question their veracity.
I believe in a unifying force in the universe that ensures that there is always a link between action and consequence. If David Camm killed his family then the force of Unity will hold him accountable. If a prosecutor is corrupt and uses unscrupulous tactics then that same force will hold him accountable. That accountability may come in the form of a not guilty verdict. This isn't the first time for that either. Delisa Draper was accused by Meyer of involvement in a fire adjacent to the Boone County Courthouse. Although investigators repeatedly lied to Draper in an effort to get her to falsely implicate someone else she held fast to the truth. Her public defender wanted her to plead guilty. The prosecutor offered a plea deal of one year no report, no fee probation and then expunging the conviction if probation was successful. I implored her to reject that offer which she did and instead she had her attorney present my trial strategy. Upon her acquittal jurors actually apologized to her that she had to endure that ordeal.
I must also seriously question the integrity of a prosecutor who offers a plea agreement, which includes a jail sentence of only six months, to someone who he alleges murdered a disabled child.
That is what should frighten everyone though. Does it infuriate you that a prosecutor would allow an alleged murderer of a disabled child to escape with only six months in jail? Yet it is easy to get someone to accept that plea agreement if we do not have confidence in juries. What would you do when presented with the option of going to prison for 50 years if a jury should happen to convict you or going for the sure thing and only spending 1% of that time in jail?
I encourage you to not second guess the jurors decision in the David Camm case. I assure you that it was the proper decision although there is always the possibility that it may not have reflected the truth. But that is the way our system is designed. We would rather see the guilty go free than the innocent imprisoned. The Innocence Project has clearly detailed as to the failure of our system to accomplish that goal. If you take anything away from this trial be it at least the knowledge that it is incumbent upon the state to prove its' case beyond a reasonable doubt through ethical and legal tactics.
If your clients' case involves false allegations of Domestic Violence or a child related crime then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
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.
Due Reverence in Celebrating Birthdays - When were you actually born
24 October 2013
Beginning and end. Start and finish. Birth and Death. From a societal or even in a broader – anthropological – sense we have been conditioned to accept a chronological view of both life and our environment. Popular religious texts often speak of a beginning and end. In reality though there may be no such thing as a birth or a beginning. Cosmologists even argue as to whether the Big Bang was the result of a release of pressure from the collapse of the entire Universe into a point of singularity or whether it was the origin of our universe.
Often we perform and annual ritual of celebrating our birth – being the day we emerged from the womb. This may include the now very common practice of posting well-wishes or other comments to a recipient's Facebook page, sending a card or gift, or being at a party including a cake appearing to pay homage to the Great Chicago Fire for folks getting up there in age.
The concept of our birth can be abstract and evoke a broad range of possibilities. A discussion on that point would include determining “who are we”. When or what was the spark that gave rise to who we are. In the pre-emergence period there is the moment of conception – when two sets of 23 chromosomes of each of our parents united – that contain the genetic material that map our physical development and contain psychological preferences. However, it can be argued that in a way, in a quantum sense, when our parents thought of conceiving us that we came into existence. Scientific research has demonstrated that egg and sperm development are affected by thought. Still, going further back, is the idea that we are simply a realignment of existing matter – stardust at it most primitive level – and are therefore all some 13 billion years in age.
I recently broached the age issue with a group of legislators. Particularly I raised the issue of the prohibition of minors having alcohol. By age 21 years a person is presumed to have been conceived 21 years and 9 months earlier. The extremely preterm [>26 weeks] or very low birth weight [>1000g] children have been shown to experience cognitive dysfunction at a significant rate. Numerous studies show that less than half are at the same school grade level as their full term peers. That is, they develop at a slower rate and thus their psychological age falls behind their chronological age. If the alcohol prohibition is based, as is claimed, on a cognitive developmental basis then allowing some people who are as young as 21 years and 5 months post conception and who have a lower maturation level than their full term peers did at that age – who also must wait an additional 4 months – seems contrary to logic. That elicited an "oh you are going to create a mess their" response. But enough of that, it's a different subject.
Contemplating our essence requires that we also venture in the opposite direction. The “I” in who am I must contain a personality component. Although Meyers and Briggs identified 16 distinct personality types humans are not distinguished as being one of 16 personalities. In reality, most of us would say that everyone has their own personality. While some of this is no doubt inherited you will find that most of it is environmental or learned. This is clear among the distinction between those who have an internal or external locus of control. That is, do they believe that they are the cause of events in their lives or events happen to them based upon some outside force under which we have no control. Research indicates that personality is not fully developed until around the age of 12 years. So, who we are is not formed at a moment but comes into existence over years.
Regardless of how one determines that which constitutes our 'birth', the celebration of birth is generally an auspicious occasion that passes without, what I believe to be, due reverence to the event.
Our first may have include adults, like a pack of schoolchildren daring a classmate, trying to get us to plant our face in a cake. Themes change along with our age. Particular milestones may dictate particular places. Some may be a fete which occur at a workplace or be as intimate as two people simply sharing time together.
But I caution – don't let it just be a function. Instead, think of the meaning of yours and others existence. We give reverent homage upon death. But as funerals are becoming celebrations of life the same should be true of birthday anniversaries. Recall the shared experiences. Be the intoxicant that lifts all from their depths when the darker moments are recalled. It is the moments of glory. It is those moments of despair. It is every moment in between. Recall them all because that is what makes us who we are. But celebrate those moments of joy and advertise themselves across your face. Be not the postman, be the circus that annually delivers those good tidings.
Never again let those words “Happy Birthday” flow from your mouth without conscious regard for the person whose birth is celebrated.
If you need assistance in obtaining insight into yourself then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, October 21, 2013
The Hazard of Caution
21 October 2013
In prison 20 years ago we had a saying – If you can't be free, be safe! Politically we are seeing the realization of choice being replaced by strict mandates for “safety”. Today, however, I wish to speak of the personal cautions that we may employ in our daily lives either for ourselves or our children and the deleterious effects this may have. In short, I will provide to you the basis of how a safety focused lifestyle is hazardous to your health.
To understand this you must first accept a few realities that may be contrary to your current beliefs. The first is that every cell in your body is a thinking organism. Integral Membrane Proteins [IMP] are imbedded in the wall of every cell. Some of the IMPs are receptor proteins that extend out of the cell to read the environment. What the cell may find in its environment is various hormones. These may be stress hormones, pleasure hormones or any of the others that respond to our thoughts or environment. The effect is that our 'beliefs' affect the way the cells in our body function.
In chronically depressed people the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex – the center of higher reasoning – are shrunken. So when you say to a depressed person that 'you are being unreasonable' your statement has a biological basis. This shrinkage is the likely result of the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis response to perceived danger. The HPA axis is the 'fight or flight' response. When it is activated the body goes into autopilot – subconscious instinct and reflex take over at the expense of the slower, logical conscious thinking. Thus, the perception that a life event is going to have an adverse effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As a child this is something I observed. What you are told will happen to you does. It was mandated that elders be respected, that you do as you are told. Well I have always been one who required that any command be supported by cogent reasoning. “Because I told you so” was never good enough. This character trait brought about the scorn and rage of my parents, school teachers and other adults who were never at a loss for a derogatory term to apply to me. Those were usually stupid, lazy and hard-headed. I found that an internal conflict existed in me as I – the small child who out-thought the adults befuddled by my queries of logic – tried to exhibit the profile of 'stupid'. I managed to flunk some classes and make other 'stupid' mistakes on tests.
Numerous studies have continued to find that teacher expectations are correlated to student performance. One of the early studies randomly divided an elementary class into three groups based upon IQ test. High ability, normal and slow students. How did the students perform on a standardized test? Consistent with their intellectual labels. The kicker was that those designations were not based upon actual IQ test but were assigned randomly. Thus, what the authority figure told the children they were, they exhibited.
When a conflict exist between conscious thought and subconscious programming, the subconscious wins. This can produce a weakening in the muscles. Try lifting a set amount of weight while repeating a truthful phrase about yourself. Then try it while repeating a phrase about yourself that you know conflicts with your true belief. See if you feel a difference in the weight of what you are lifting.
So onto how caution can be hazardous. Recall that a child becomes what he is told by an authority figure if he has been subconsciously programmed to respect authority. This is what most parents [along with Cartman] teach their children – respect my authority. This is how parents teach their children to be afraid of water. Babies – naturally good swimmers at birth – are taught by parents to fear water. Newborns are quick learners and make most of their learned behaviours from environmental stimulus. Mostly what they see. Monkey see, monkey do is not just an axiom. It is a truism supported by scientific research. Researchers at the Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute have found that baby chimps learn by watching their mothers. In an experiment mother chimps were shown various symbols and when the mother matched a colour swatch to the symbol it represented she was rewarded with a coin. She could then use the coin in a 'vending machine' to get a treat. To the surprise of the researches one day while the mother was retrieving her treat the baby chimp activated the computer and performed the same tasks thereby also getting a coin for a treat. This was not the objective of the research however. Thus, when a parent expresses fear at the baby – the naturally good swimmer – of being around a swimming pool the baby learns that there is something in the essence of the water that will harm him. After all, he is a good swimmer and water, whether an inch in depth or ten feet is not hazardous from a drowning potential. So there must be another reason to fear the water. Thus parents can condition their children to resist bathing, washing dishes and etc. These activities, and even playing in the yard with a hose, can activate the HPA Axis and cause a stress response in the child.
The hazards of caution can be immediate and physically destructive. Think back to your childhood and recall, if you may, a time when you were climbing trees, running about rooftops or engaged in some other birds-eye view activity. This may be more likely for men than women but use any situation in which you were sure and secure about your steadiness in what someone else perceived as a hazardous situation. When your surefooted gallivanting around was interrupted by 'Get down from there. You are going to fall!' did you suddenly feel weaker or unstable? This is because your conscious mind is telling you that you are doing fine and are stable. But the unconscious mind – the one that knows your parents are correct and you are to obey – is telling you something else. You have been told “You are going to fall!” by that respected authority figure for which you must comply. As much as you consciously resist your subconscious is busy directing hormones and increasing or restricting blood flow to parts of the brain or muscles in an effort to accomplish the command to fall.
It is not just these momentary commands for a child to be harmed but the greater weight of the hazard of caution comes in the daily precautions that many take for granted as being innocuous. When Therin was a youngster I often left the doors on the house open all night. We once walked through 'the projects' on the south side of Chicago. I did not keep food hidden in cabinets but instead placed it on counter tops or in hanging baskets. Television shows with the war images or shows with the stressed out characters were not part of our lifestyle. What I am saying is that I always did things to demonstrate security to him and not try to instill in him that the world is a dangerous place. Recall it is that perception of danger that activates the HPA Axis. This inhibits growth and higher functioning. Takamtsu, et al [2004] found that the stress activated hormones “diminished conscious awareness and reduced intelligence.” Or as Dr Bruce H Lipton puts it, “when you're frightened, you're dumber.”
If you client has a child who is being conditioned for adverse health effects then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
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, October 18, 2013
Indiana Child Support Guidelines to be Amended in 2014
18 October 2013 2015 Indiana Child Support Guidelines
review scheduled for public comment
The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center met in regular session on Friday 18 October 2013 and began discussion about the mandatory review of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines [ICSG]. By federal statute [42USCA§667 and 45CFR§302.56] the DRC is to review the ICSG every four years. The statutory purpose is to “ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts.” The regulations state that the “State must consider economic data on the cost of raising children and analyze case data, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the application of, and deviations from, the guidelines.” That is, the committee shall look at current cases in which both the guidelines have been applied and deviated from to see what are the actual costs of raising children.
The review of the ICSG will begin in 2014. Members of the public will be invited to provide both oral and written testimony and suggestions.
New members were welcomed to the committee. These were-
Magistrate Andre Gammage, St. Joseph Circuit Court,
Commissioner Jennifer Newton, Huntington Superior Court,
Commissioner Rita Parsons-Rice, Title IV-D, Elkhart Superior Court,
Mag Brian McClane, Grant Superior Court, and
Judge Mark Loyd, Johnson Circuit Court. Former Chair of the ADR Committee.
Members of the committee are appointed to terms of three years which end in September of the calendar year.
The issues that the committee determined are to be undertaken include redefining the parenting time credit from overnight to an actual expense basis, health care and the Obama Tax, uniformity of child care expense, recalculating prior born child credit, tax effects, and limits on extra-curricular expenses.
The committee has set a deadline of presenting the revised ICSG to the Indiana Supreme Court by July 1, 2014 with a target date of implementation being Wednesday 31 December 2014.
If your client is considering a child support or custody modification request then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Domestic Relations Committee is Meeting to Review the Indiana Child Support Guidelines
17 October 2013
The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center will meet in regular session on Friday 18 October 2013 to discuss ideas and concerns about the Indiana Child Support Guidelines [ICSG]. By statute the DRC is to review the ICSG every four years. The review of the ICSG will begin in 2014. Members of the public will be invited to provide both oral and written testimony and suggestions.
The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for Friday 15 November 2013 at the Indiana Judicial Center, 30 South Meridian St, Indianapolis. If you would like to attend a meeting then please contact me to have your name added to the guest list.
If you would like assistance with a child support or custody issue then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
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.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children
16 October 2013
The Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children met for its second session today. The Commission is unique in its composition as it brings together leaders from all three branches of state government in areas that relate to childhood well-being. Most similar commissions throughout the country or Indiana in the past have been primarily a judicial or legislative unit.
The purpose statement of the Committee reads: “The multi-branch statewide Commission is aimed at improving the status of children in Indiana. In cooperation with other entities, members of the State Commission on Improving the Status of Children will study issues concerning vulnerable youth, review and make recommendations concerning pending legislation, and promote information sharing and best practices.”
The Commission has identified its Mission as: To improve the status of children in Indiana. The Vision is: Every child in Indiana will have a safe and nurturing environment and be afforded opportunities to grow into a healthy and productive adult.
In its first session the Commission determined six Program Priority Objectives;
1] Increase availability of and access to quality mental health services,
2] Reforms of child placement services,
3] Improve healthcare access,
4] Improve educational outcomes,
5] Expand juvenile justice reforms, and
6] Increase substance abuse treatment and prevention services.
The Commission determined four Cross System Priority Issues;
1] Improve data sharing/communication across agencies,
2] Public education/awareness,
3] Address service array gaps, particularly in rural areas, and
4] Child fatalities
IC 2-5-36-9
Duties of the commission
Sec. 9. The commission shall do the following:
(1) Study and evaluate the following:
(A) Access to services for vulnerable youth.
(B) Availability of services for vulnerable youth.
(C) Duplication of services for vulnerable youth.
(D) Funding of services available for vulnerable youth.
(E) Barriers to service for vulnerable youth.
(F) Communication and cooperation by agencies concerning vulnerable youth.
(G) Implementation of programs or laws concerning vulnerable youth.
(H) The consolidation of existing entities that serve vulnerable youth.
(I) Data from state agencies relevant to evaluating progress, targeting efforts, and demonstrating outcomes.
(2) Review and make recommendations concerning pending legislation.
(3) Promote information sharing concerning vulnerable youth across the state.
(4) Promote best practices, policies, and programs.
(5) Cooperate with:
(A) other child focused commissions;
(B) the judicial branch of government;
(C) the executive branch of government;
(D) stakeholders; and
(E) members of the community.
(6) Submit a report not later than July 1 of each year regarding the commission's work during the previous year. The report shall be submitted to the legislative council, the governor, and the chief justice of Indiana. The report to the legislative council must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.
The members of the Commission are;
Debra Minott, Secretary, FSSA
Mary Beth Bonaventura, Director, DCS
Rep Gail Rieken
Kevin Moore, Director, FSSA Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Ryan Streeter, Senior Policy Director for Governor Mike Pence
Lilia Judson, Ex Dir, Division of State Court Administration
Justice Loretta Rush, Indiana Supreme Court
Susan Lightfoot, Chief Probation Officer, Henry County Probation Department
Mike Dempsey, Director, Indiana DOC, Division of Youth Services
Greg Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General
Dr William VanNess, State Health Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health
Glenda Ritz, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Indiana DOE
Senator Tim Lanane
Larry Landis, Director, Public Defender Council
David Powell, Director, Prosecuting Attorney's Council
Rep Rebecca Kubacki
Senator Travis Holdman
Brian Bailey, Director, Indiana State Budget Agency
The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for 11 December 2013 from 10:00 – 2:00 at the Indiana Government Center South.
If you would like assistance ensuring that your children have the best outcomes then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
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.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
A Failing Attorney-Client Relationship in Child Custody Proceedings
14 October 2013
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Like any intimate relationship the attorney-client relationship must meet certain foundational requirements – trust, mutual respect, like outcome based goal, and acknowledgment of the relationship limits. Distress in the attorney-client relationship is often a result of the breakdown of one or more of those foundational principles.
Parents come to me with the complaint that their attorney has completely botched their case. I first ask who appointed your attorney to represent you. Rarely is the answer something different than the parent having selected the attorney by himself or herself. While most can acknowledge that they are accountable for that decision they still feel trapped in that the cost to get a new attorney fully familiarized with the case appears to be cost prohibitive. This is generally accompanied by the declaration that the attorney was recommended.
From the attorney perspective again comes frustration. When attorneys seek my assistance with a case it is usually a high conflict parent who “just doesn't get it.” While attorneys can often be quite effective in eliciting the necessary information and building a case strategy, the very pedagogy of law school for the most part fails to equip them with the tool to handle the emotionally charged client determined to win at all costs. These parents are the saboteurs of their own case. It takes much more than training in law to be able to effectively advocate for these parents. It is not that they are inherently bad people but they have lost focus and need to be reeled in. I have seen attorneys dismiss these parents even when the money kept flowing in from the myriad of legal combative maneuvers. Sometimes the frustration just isn't worth it. Nor is upsetting a judge.
Where ever you are in the case proceedings, if you do not have a supportive attorney-client relationship then you are unlikely going to be unable to obtain a parenting time order that is best for the children. Talents and resources are also likely to wasted as the case drags on for much longer than most people anticipate. If you are in a failing attorney-client relationship then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make arrangements for me to assist with your next attorney-client session which should be to re-evaluate that relationship. There is no charge for this initial attorney consultations.
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.
