30 November 2013
The website to implement the new tax system devised by Barrack O'bama is, according to the White House, going to be “working smoothly for the vast majority of users by the end of November.” After the predicted abysmal roll-out in October 2013 which found taxpayers unable to access the reduced choice for medical intervention payment plans O'bama dismissed the problems. He cited that worldwide private corporation Apple was performing no better at serving consumers who voluntarily chose to access its website. O'bama asked Americans to, "Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it." The difference here being that Apple responded in a consumer friendly manner.
I have previously written about A Healthy perspective on Health Care and O'bama providing to consumers the medical intervention limitations and cost increases they have demanded. I won't rehash that now but instead will just celebrate the implementation of O'bama's plan.
It may seem counter to my classic liberal ideology to celebrate such a reduction in choice and increase in costs but as a whole I feel that this is a wonderful outcome for the American people. As had been planned through the careful and precise wording of the legislation embraced by both factions of the Incumbent Party -- republicans and democrats – Americans recently began receiving notices of cancellation of their existing medical care payment plans. This was necessary to achieve the desired result of reduced choice – or liberty – of Americans.
As I said two weeks ago, “Medical services are divided into three categories: trauma care, sick care and health maintenance. In the field of debate over this issue most people have been guided into the fallacious belief that there exist three options for health care: buy health care insurance, pay cash, or go without needed treatment.” I then went on to explain that there is a fourth option – a healthy lifestyle – which is the health plan I use. I believe it is the best plan. Low cost, improved productivity, greater choice and a more fulfilling life. I have not once complained about O'bama altering my healthcare options.
O'bama has, through force of law, NOT taken over healthcare as has been claimed by so many. Rather he has encouraged choice in healthcare. A new paradigm of choice. Americans are being pushed into choosing between “healthcare” and medical intervention services for sale. Still, I do acknowledge that O'bama's plan is contrary to the teachings of nearly every major religion and the foundation of our constitutional republic. That is, we are not individually endowed to steal from our neighbors for our personal gain. I have no authority over your personal decisions about health care nor do you over me. Since we are a country founded upon a government of the people the government, just as each of us individually, has no right to steal – tax – from you your wealth for the benefit of ourselves. But alas we see that it is being done with the consent of the American people who elected the Republicans and Democrats that are ready and willing to deprive them of their right to choose – liberty. The ends it seems do justify the means.
The ultimate ends from this O'bama plan will be a healthier society. This is why I encourage you to embrace O'bama's plan to reduce medical intervention options and availability. It will lead to healthier outcomes. I have experienced it. I have lived it. I have seen the results.
I was in a federal prison for about a year which offered similar medical intervention care. Everyday the doors to the housing units were opened and inmates could head to the hospital to get in line for an appointment that day. Those with infirm bodies could pay someone else to secure a place in line. Once the schedule of appointments was filled for the day the door was closed and those remaining had to try again the next day. Or did they? There was another option which we collectively realized – health care.
I have never seen a population as concerned with health care as prison inmates. Regular exercise was a chosen routine by nearly everyone. Healthful food selections were also common although there were still those who chose to eat processed garbage made to appear as food. Even such mundane practices as brushing teeth, washing hands, maintaining clean environments were practiced with a near religious zeal. Mediation, self-education, philosophy discussions, spiritual practices and other routines that lead to healthful outcomes were common among inmates either individually or in groups. Overall, being in prison increases life expectancy. Clearly we had an expectancy that if we wanted to be healthy it was upon us to ensure that, as our choice was either take what intervention treatment we could get on a first-come, first-served basis or prevent ailments. But this is that to which I consented.
You may hardly think that a person consents to the conditions in prison but when compared to O'bama there is no distinction. I participated in the judicial process and was eventually duped by an incompetent attorney into accepting a plea agreement. The other option was to flee the jurisdiction. Thus, I consented. Similarly, O'bama was elected by a process originating with votes by the populace. Those who voted for O'bama have consented to be bound by his edicts. Those who voted for an alternate candidate participated in the process knowing the varying potential outcomes and, thus, consented. Those who didn't vote or express an opinion, by default, consented. Thus, everyone consented to this deprivation of choice.
This consent to simplicity should be welcomed and vigorously embraced. Health care options under O'bama are being reduced to two polar options – wellness or sustained sickness. I choose wellness. Now I am off to a 50+ mile round trip bike ride.
If you would like assistance in advancing your well-being or that of your children 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 my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
O'bama-Tax Medical Intervention Cost Inflation and Consumer Choice Reduction Act [a.k.a. Affordable Care Act] website to be functioning today
Friday, November 29, 2013
Indiana Court of Appeals reverses Domestic Violence supervised parenting time order pursuant to IC 31-17-2-8.3
29 November 2013
[fn1] While the opinion makes reference to the trial court's finding that Mr Hatmaker had been “tried and convicted” the conviction was actually the result of a plea agreement.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The Indiana Court of Appeals in a published opinion on 27 November 2013 gave Glenn Hatmaker something to which he is most thankful. In that opinion the justices reversed an order for supervised parenting time order pursuant to IC 31-17-2-8.3 based upon a Domestic Violence conviction. The opinion in Hatmaker v Hatmaker written by Justice Bailey remanded to the trial court the matter of entering a parenting time order consistent with statutory law and the best interest of the children. Marion Superior Court Judge David J Dreyer denied Mr Hatmaker's motion to correct error citing statutory requirements to lift the supervision restriction.
The father, Glenn Hatmaker, after being convicted[fn1] of Domestic Battery against his then current wife was ordered to undergo anger management and parenting classes while his parenting time was supervised by a local agency for two hours per month.
As an aside it is interesting to note that the instructional foundation of the Domestic Violence class was based upon the discredited Duluth Model. “Abusers” was strictly correlated to males while “victims” was strictly correlated to females. All of the participants in the class were male with a disproportionately high level of African American males as compared to the general population within the court's jurisdiction.
Father, as did the other participants did not speak up about the flawed structure of the class but, successfully completed the anger management classes and after more than two years following the conviction he petitioned to have his parenting time unsupervised. He also sought a modification of child support payments which I do not address here. The court denied his petition and reiterated its prior supervised parenting time order but noted that father could have unsupervised parenting time “upon agreement of the parties at any time.” That is, said another way, mother could agree with father at her discretion to allow him to have unsupervised parenting time. In essence, the court relinquished its' authority and instead allowed her to prospectively make a parenting time modification consistent with the best interest of the child. This is simply not allowed.
The basis for the supervised parenting time was IC 31-17-2-8.3 which provides that following a conviction for Domestic Violence wherein such violence by a NCP was witnessed or heard by the child that parent's parenting time shall be supervised for a period of at least one year but not more than two or until the child is emancipated, whichever occurs first. Since it had been greater than two years the court had to then operate under IC 31-17-4-1(a) if it was to continue to restrict parenting time. This statute, as interpreted[fn2], provides that a court may not restrict parenting time unless there is a showing that the parent would “endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.” In the immediate opinion the appellate panel found that “supervised parenting time constitutes such a restriction.” Thus, mother who requested the supervision bore the burden of demonstrating that father was a danger to the child. The panel opined that such a burden had not been met as the trial court had not found father to be a danger to the child. Therefore, remand to the trial court to either enter and order based upon findings that father was a danger to the child or lift the restriction.
Father included in his argument that he could not afford the costs associated with supervised parenting time and his time had been reduced to two hours per month prior to the agency contending that it could no longer facilitate that time. Father claimed that the financial burden and limited availability amounted to a de facto restriction on his parenting time and as such should be lifted. The panel disagreed noting that the court is bound to make a determination based upon the best interest of the child not the parent's ability to pay. In dictum the panel noted that in such circumstances courts should look to a “grandparent, relative, or child advocate volunteer supervisor” as sources of supervision. The panel concluded that “[t]he order is erroneous, as it is internally inconsistent and in contradiction to statutory authority.”
In what I feel is an extremely important acknowledgment that I have not seen in prior rulings the panel addressed the matter of both parents contributing to the costs of supervised parenting time. The panel noted that since mother had a substantially higher income than father that if, on remand, the court finds that supervised parenting time is in the child's best interest it should find alternate low or no cost supervision or apportion some cost to mother.
While some may argue that this would make the victim financially responsible for being victimized I disagree. The purpose of the supervision is not to punish a parent by imposing a financial burden nor is it meant to reduce the amount of parenting time that one should otherwise have with the child. Rather supervision is only intended to facilitate parenting time in a safe manner that promotes the ongoing relationship between parent and child which is presumed to be in the child's long-term best interest. In much the way married parents would contribute to the costs associated with their child who had been abused without assessing blame as to who allowed the perpetrator to have contact with the child neither should such blame be assessed here. The focus is rightfully on the child and what is in the child's best interest. As parents both mother and father should be financially responsible to contribute to the necessary emotional development of the child.
Glenn Hatmaker feels very encouraged for the relationship between himself and his daughter. He feels that the “tide is turning” after years of succumbing to injustices by the courts averring to a self-delineated purported truth. In an optimistic tone Mr Hatmaker offers these words of encouragement to other parents enduring a fractured relationship with their children, “perseverance is now paying off.” He says his focus is now “towards re-establishing a normal relationship with my daughter.”
May and Bradford concurred in the opinion.
[fn2] Although the statute uses the word “might” the reviewing courts have consistently interpreted that as “would”. D.B. V M.B. 913 N.E. 2D 1271, 1274 (Ind Ct App 2009)
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
A fully integrated analysis of child custodian behavioural risks when pursuing child custody modification
26 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
When engaged in parenting children amongst separate households the likelihood of conflict over parenting styles is likely to be exacerbated. It very well may have been the trigger for a divorce and the ensuing high conflict parenting relationship. It is this conflict that leads to hyper vigilance towards perception of any adverse parenting decisions and subsequent litigation.
Often though this litigation, while it may have had legitimate underpinnings, does not produce fruitful results. This can be the results of a chaotic, piecemeal approach to the presentation of the adverse parenting techniques. This is the topic I am addressing here.
The actions of a parent seen in isolation may appear typical of parents or even in the extreme still innocuous. But when the interplay of various behaviours and their impact on the children is adequately coordinated and presented to the court a far different outcome may appear.
To understand the importance of this interplay I guide you to Kate Randal, FBI insider threat analyst. She suggests that organizations develop a central review process for assessing the red flags exhibited by members of the organization. These may include security level clearance, electronically accessing or sending sensitive data, sexual proclivities, sudden changes in mood or behaviour, seeking greater responsibility, and an upsurge in higher economic class activities.
None of those in isolation should be cause for concern. An adept and ambitious employee should seek advancement. As one gains a sense of security in his station in life he may reward himself for years of frugality by engaging in more liberal spending habits. A major life event could produce a temporary stress reaction that is out-of-character but still normal under the circumstances. A particular inter-agency project may demand the transmission of a high amount of sensitive data.
These actions may be viewed by a supervisor, a co-worker, a department head, an electronic monitoring algorithm, or health provider. Without cross-communication or a central collection process and repository these individual red flags provide no alert.
An employee who is being treated for depression, who has recently purchased an expensive sports car, has asked for a promotion including a higher security clearance, is soliciting prostitutes and has had an unusual spike in the transmission of pdf attachments or photocopying can be seen as a threat. This collection of unusual activities seen by one person provides a clear signal to investigate further. In isolation each may produce little more than wild speculation.
So in applying this principle to parenting and child custody litigation practitioners must be acutely aware of the interplay between individual behaviours and the overarching goal of the best interest of the child. For instance using physical violence against a child as a disciplinary measure is still widely accepted. As long as it is not producing physical injury to the point of being declared abusive then that complaint will gain no traction. I had heard attorneys dismiss the complaint of this type of corporal punishment as not being an issue to bring to the court's attention. However, when demonstrated as a means to suppress a child's gregarious nature or as a consequence of shyness in the overall scheme of a parent trying to manipulate inborn character traits then the physical violence is clearly emotional abuse. To dismiss this parenting technique before fully exploring its impact upon the child is to err. Possibly an error that results in a child remaining within an abusive household.
A successful child custody modification is dependent upon having a legitimate parenting plan for the petitioner while crafting the deficiencies of the respondent into a perceptible and cohesive foundation for the modification. IC 31-17-2-8 and its companion IC 31-14-4-3 enumerate the factors from which there must be a substantial change in at least one. These should not be seen as individual acts standing alone but, to be effectively litigated, should be organized within the rubric of effective parenting.
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.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Adult Children of Uncontested Divorce needed for research study
24 November 2013
I am seeking adult children of divorced parents for research on the outcomes of amicable initial child custody settlements or amicable modifications. Phone interview lasts about 15 minutes. In the alternative a questionnaire may be sent by e-mail. Participants need to meet the following criteria.
~ Be at least 18 years of age and not under the care or custody of either parent
~ Custody and parenting time must have been resolved amicably by the parents/attorneys
~ Child must have had ongoing contact with the parents while custody order was in effect
Responses will be used to help determine child custody and parenting time policies for the State of Indiana. All responses are confidential. A copy of my Privacy Policy is available HERE.
If you would like to assist in this study then please contact my scheduler and provide at least two best times to call or the email address to which questionnaire should be sent.
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 my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Self-Imposed Parental Alienation
23 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
First let me provide my definition of self-imposed parental alienation. Parental Alienation is the arrangement of behaviours that are intended to sever the relationship between the child and the targeted parent. When the behaviours create a condition in which the child is driven away from the instigating parent I call that self-imposed parental alienation. While the range of behaviours may be the same among different parents it is the child's cognition of the parent's performance that determines whether alienation is established.
The tragedy of self-imposed parental alienation is that the child generally has a healthy parent-child relationship with the targeted parent impeded by the instigating parent, but this also can create an enduring hostility toward that instigator. The child thus loses having a healthful parent-child relationship with either parent.
Self-Imposed parental alienation is the result of a loss of focus on doing what is best for the child. The very act of divorce is a selfish one. As Judith Wallerstein says in reporting on her 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce, “If children had the vote, almost all would vote to maintain the parents' marriage.”[en1] This is because divorce produces worse outcomes for children in nearly all cases and the children know it. The adults rationalize their selfish harm to children. It is through rationalization that an instigating parent accepts the alienation as just. If you want to do something, first declare it “good.” If we deem it good, it just is. This is seen simultaneously at an institutional level.
Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 requires that judicial officers make child custody and parenting time decisions by applying “the best interest of the child” standard. I contend however that a rationale view of divorce outcomes on children produces the realization that a court can not fashion post divorce parent-child relationships for the child that is in his best interest. Rather, I believe that the best interest standard is a delusional adult oriented view of child adaptations to divorce. Reporting from children and objective analysis convey the abject failure of this best interest approach. Empirically it has been aptly demonstrated that, on a whole, the children of divorce suffer adversities far greater than their counterparts who remained in intact households. The resultant effect is then that courts are limited to a standard no better than being able to fashion situations that are “least harmful to the child.”
The moral goodness rationalization is the folly of the parent who subjects himself to this type of abuse. Children are keenly aware of the dynamics of post separation relationships between parents. While some children may align themselves with the instigating parent -- becoming integrated in to the disturbed parents' vengeful orbit -- others may reject such an invitation at the onset.
Jared, a boy of age 7, exhibits clear hostility and resentment towards his custodial mother for her attempts to alienate the children from their father – relocating to a new city, seeking sole custody, displaying 'rescuing' behaviours following parenting time with father. Jared has demonstrated his disdain for mother's indignation over his fondness for father and especially her derogation of behaviours that mimic those of father. While initially having a strong attachment to both parents Jared's relationship with his mother has now been sabotaged by her resentment of father. Jared openly refers to his mother as “mean” and says she “doesn't like it when I act like you.”
As Jared enters the pre-adolescent stage he, like his peers in that group, are particularly vulnerable to being swept up into the anger of one parent against the other. It is the embattled parent, often the one who opposed the divorce, who initiates and fuels the alignment against the other parent. Mothers are more likely to have children aligned with them as are fathers.
Katie, a pre-adolescent girl, is demonstrating signs of a realization of mother's alienation attempts and is rejecting mother. In speaking with her about living with mother and her subsequent husband Katie presented anxiety about exhibiting affection for or attachment to father such as wanting to speak with him on the phone, invite him to school functions or display affection towards him when being returned to mother. Her time with father is relaxed and comforting to her but as the time with him approaches an end she becomes lethargic, somewhat uncooperative and resistant to leaving.
Terrance is an adolescent boy whose mother sought to extricate him from the close bond he felt with father since birth. Denying parenting time, returning or destroying items sent with him to her house and rejecting his desire to engage in activities of interest that were shared by his father were hallmarks of her alienation attempts. Terrance and his father managed to maintain meaningful contact throughout this time without father reciprocating the animosity of mother. Terrance now openly displays rejection of mother to other people, often indicating an intense desire to leave the household of his mother and that of her psychologically abusive current husband.
These children all demonstrate an allegiance to the targeted parent and feel that time with the custodial parent is an unwanted imposition for which they wish to be un-tethered. For younger children in this situation they seek a rescuer to remove them from the instigating parent to which they endure the relationship. As children grow older and experience a natural yearning for independence they also feel empowered to determine their own outcomes.
These children as adults become more steadfast in their resentment of the instigator. Sometimes they completely reject that parent who is banished into the child's past.
Some children are without facility for reconciliation with the targeted parents and become effectually isolated from two living but absent parents – one alienated as a target and the other alienated by imposition upon self. For the irrational parent who instigates the destruction of the child's attachments this potential, and likely, outcome is not foreseen. It is incumbent upon practitioners, family, friends and others in the support network to dissuade an alienating parent from perpetuating this harm to the relationships of the child with the targeted parent as well as to self.
[fn1] The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, 2000 Hyperion - Wallerstein, Lewis, Blakeslee
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Friday, November 22, 2013
A Healthy perspective on Health Care
22 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Medical services are divided into three categories: trauma care, sick care and health maintenance. In the field of debate over this issue most people have been guided into the fallacious belief that there exist three options for health care: buy health care insurance, pay cash, or go without needed treatment.
This is precisely the mindset that has increased the reliance upon and supposed need for medical services interventions. That is, the human brain engages itself in a guided imagery – what it believes to be true is that to which it will attempt to conform itself. This is how placebos are effective. Cognitive dissonance on the other hand is the uncomfortable state experienced by the mind when a statement conflicts with a reality. Essentially this is the weight of consciousness seeking redemption for a lie. The danger in cognitive dissonance is how it functions in the subconscious.
A healthy individual who purchases health insurance coverage but does not use the medical services will likely experience cognitive dissonance. “I bought the insurance because I need. I have not been injured. Thus, I must have an ailment.” An argument can be made that the purchaser is receiving the benefit of the peace of mind of being insured. But most people do not view insurance in that abstract sense. Rather it is viewed as covering a forthcoming need.
This is illustrated by a friend of mine who was recently in a slight collision with another vehicle that dinged a door. I suggested that they not file a claim but settle it in a cash transaction. She objected saying, “I paid for the insurance, I am going to use it!” In a much broader example I use the Social Security Insurance program. This insurance program was established to provide living expense payments to people who outlived their life expectancy and had depleted their retirement savings. Yet ask anyone buying this insurance if they plan to collect on it and you will likely find the answer to be yes. This is because people who pay for insurance do so with the intention of collecting on it.
Thus a person who says “I am healthy” or “I live a healthful lifestyle” is likely to experience cognitive dissonance when paying for the sick care insurance coverage. This is because there is only three ways to spend money on health care - injury, illness or prevention. But as we all know prevention is very cheap – much less than the premiums. Thus to alleviate the dissonance – the conflict between wanting to be healthy and spending the insurers' money on medical interventions – a person who pays for health insurance coverage must become ill or injured.
When this is coupled with directed thought it is clear that the best health care coverage is not to have health insurance coverage. We are all where we are in life based upon decisions made. Every cell in our body is a thinking organism that attempts to organize itself to comport with its' thinking. This is the basis of spontaneous remission, prayer healing and meditative well-being. Those who want to be healthy can be. Believers who trust that their creator was a perfect entity that endowed their bodies with the ability to defend against ailments, heal itself and propagate its own wellness have attained well-being.
This has been demonstrated through the correlation between health insurance coverage and medical interventions. Those who are covered use medical services at a rate significantly higher than those who are not covered. Lack of coverage often leads to more healthy outcomes.
Those who wish to fumble around a non-functioning website may do so. Those who wish to endure the uncertainty and anxiety associated with having a policy canceled may do so. Those who wish to perpetuate their ailments by being stressed over these situations may do so. As for me I have chosen real health care.
As an adult I have always had an affordable, effective and comprehensive health plan. That is, first and foremost, I believe that I am responsible for my well-being. I engage in what I believe is a near sufficient amount of exercise, I eat real food, I live morally, and I maintain an attitude that I am healthy.
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, November 20, 2013
2014 Indiana Child Custody Bills to be considered
20 November 2013
Yesterday was Organization Day at the Indiana State House. Members of the General Assembly convened to set agendas and, as the name implies, organize themselves for the upcoming legislative session set to begin on 06 January and end on 14 March of 2014. Members have until that first week to get bills submitted. Getting an idea submitted as a bill was as easy as asking.
The four pieces of legislation that I am primarily seeking are;
~ Virtual Visitation - Provides for courts to order various electronic means to facilitate the parent-child bond in addition to in-person parenting time. Provides penalties for interference with the court's order.
~ Joint Custody Presumption - Parents in dissolution actions should be presumed to have been equal contributors to the wellness of their children. Requires a judge to issue findings as to why joint custody is not in the best interest of the child.
~ Domestic Violence Protection Orders - All parties to a DVPO should receive notice of and opportunities to receive related services. Mandates that an issuing court list county level support services on the order.
~ Civil Union Adoptions - This would amend the adoption laws to allow an unmarried household partner to the biological parent of a child to adopt that child.
Getting an idea introduced as a bill is a rather simple procedure. This is just the first step in the legislative process. For today it was arranging to meet with legislators and presenting my child custody proposals. The first meeting resulted in a senator saying he will introduce the bill. The day closed with a senator wanting to engage in further discussions. I was quite humbled by his statement that the Indiana General Assembly is fortunate to have me presenting such relevant child well-being issues.
I am not going to present specific details at this point but, thus far, one bill is going to be introduced. I have legislators in each house looking at another. I have meetings scheduled with legislators in each house for another. I need to get meetings scheduled for a fourth.
I want for you to understand the ease and importance of meeting with legislators. When I am there I am representing thousands of Hoosier parents and children. It is partially a product of mathematics. The total population divided by the number of people who show up to speak about the issue. Showing up at the state house is key. Legislators repeatedly tell me that appearing in-person carries the greatest weight followed by mailing a letter then making a phone call. Personalized e-mails are appreciated more so than form letter e-mails. Petitions carry little weight while on-line versions carry almost no weight. This is why some unscrupulous advocates promote on-line petitions opposed to their agenda – they carry almost no weight and prompt signers into complacency – having felt as though they have already contributed to the effort and then doing no more.
As the session approaches start forming your talking points and collecting your evidence in support of these legislative proposals. I will keep you updated on the progress.
If you would like to assist in advancing child well-being legislation or have ideas you want presented 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 my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.
©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, November 19, 2013
Indiana HJR6 Marriage Amendment may be dead already
19 November 2013
Today was Organization Day at the Indiana State House. Throughout the day I met with both Republican and Democrat legislators including some of the key position holders. Although there was no where near as many citizen activists flooding the halls this year as there was in 2011 when so many showed up to oppose expanding workers civil rights, there were still ample displays of policy concerns.
Two matters seemed to dominate:
1] HJR6, and
2] The medicaid gap for children
HJR6 is the resolution to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Current Indiana statute [IC 31-11-1-1 (1997)] provides that marriage is between a man and a woman. One of the arguments in support of HJR6 is that strengthens marriage. But I have seen divorces and horrible treatment and outcomes for children of different gender parents over the years since 1997 when that statutory scheme was enacted. If the argument is applied to existing marriages I find it spurious at best. I asked some heterosexual spouses the following question: If marriage to someone of your gender was legal would you ditch your current spouse in favour of someone from your gender. There were various responses and some good laughs but no one said yes. What bothers me most about this is that it is detracting from what I feel is legitimate work that needs to be done to foster improvement in opportunities and outcomes for children.
None of this is lost on legislators or their staff. A recurring theme I heard today was that too much attention is being given to an attempt to fight an inevitable shift in society and there are more important areas of law demanding attention. Supporters on HJR6 are going to be faced with having to justify efforts to attempt to legislate so-called morality while important issues such as funding early childhood education and providing health care for children don't receive the full level of attention that they deserve.
The effort to bring Indiana laws into conformity with social norms is intense and is finding support among a wide range of advocates. From the conversations I had today I don't see enough support to get HJR6 passed in the upcoming session of the Indiana General Assembly.
If you would like to assist in advancing child well-being legislation 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 my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Courtroom Procedure - The Facts on the Truth
18 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I have on numerous previous occasions detailed the nuances of language to you. Sometimes for fun, to attempt to make communication in relationships more harmonious or, as today, to improve your litigation skills. Particularly I want to draw attention to the differences between “facts” and “truths” for both the trained advocate and the layman. While law schools are adept at instruction on marshaling evidence, presentation of evidence, ensuring truthfulness in testimony and establishing the facts I don't feel as though enough attention has been given to “facts” and “truths”. To be effective practitioners I believe we need to better understand the application of words and here, the philosophical and etiological underpinnings of truth and facts.
Truth is a difficult term to define. Go ahead and try without using any resources beyond the concept already contained in that four pound mass in your skull. Write down what you have managed to compose in your mind. While you are at it go ahead and scribe your definition of “fact” which I'll get to after truth.
On the cusps of the 20th century philosophers such as Betrand Russell began to reject the identity theory of truth. According to the identity theory, a true proposition is identical to a fact. Propositions are what are believed, and give the contents of beliefs. Thus it was true propositions that were facts but not false propositions. However, Russell rejected the distinction among propositions as true or false as one cannot believe something known to be false. Borne from this was the correspondence theory. The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts.
Structured propositions, which are akin to sentences, can correspond to facts when they have the same form. The proposition that Parent A is abusing the child corresponds to the fact that Parent A violently beat the child.
The coherence theory states that a belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs. Individual judgments or beliefs then are certainly not the whole complete truth. Thus any statement of fact related to an act by a parent must be viewed in context to parenting in its whole – coherence. This belief of the idealists make little room between a system of beliefs and the world it is about, leaving the coherence theory of truth as an extremely natural option.
The pragmatist theory holds that true beliefs are guaranteed not to conflict with subsequent experience. I have to reject this theory in that what is true to someone is based upon a set of beliefs which are circumscribed by his subjective experience. As for my opinion I regard the correspondence theory to be most relevant to the arena on the child custody battle. So, as for truth, I offer the explanation this way:
– It is only the truth to me if it corresponds to what I believe to be the truth. –
Thus, what one believes – is the truth. At first impression this would seem to conflict with reality but it doesn't.
I use algebraic functioning to check truths. A truth statement can be accurate if it can be deduced through a mathematical process of attribution. This does not comport with reality though in the broader sense. Reality is relative to the observer. This brings us to the conflict among observers. Everything we “know” is based upon our experience – be it from observation or recitation by others -- and how our senses processed it. Thus, the same action can have more than one reality which can produce multiple truths.
Evaluating your witnesses can provide prior insight into the truths that may be revealed at trial. But what about those witnesses appearing on behalf of the adversary? It becomes the work of the practitioner to expose the alternate subjective realities to an adverse witness to produce a belief and subsequent testimony that comports to that which is advanced by his client. This presentation of contradictory stimulus to the belief structure of the witness will likely be done through documentary evidence. The eyewitness who truthfully testifies to observing your client “starting an altercation” at the child's school by yelling at the other parent before being removed can be reconciled to your truth when presented with additional stimulus. A cell phone video taken outside the school displaying a small puncture wound that is still bleeding supports your client's contention that the wound was made by the other parent with a ball point pen. The adverse witness now armed with this new information -- sensory stimulus – develops a new truth.
On 15 September 2009 Rule 201 of the Indiana Rules of Evidence regarding Judicial Notice was expanded to include the records of the court of this state as “facts” admitted into evidence. This is where contradictions in testimony can bolster or harm a case as more truths are introduced. Eliciting the “truth” in a judicial proceeding can produce a murky repository for which the practitioner much traverse in his effort to paint a clear picture of the circumstances favourable to his case.
Yet, while a vigorously contested case can produce mounds of evidence and days of testimony, this may be deficient. While witnesses are sworn to provide the “truth” to the court there is a particular type of fraud which is called an "omission". Anyone who is familiar with being a courtroom witness knows the oath -- to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is that "whole truth" that some people don't understand or try to avoid for which the practitioner must have prior awareness.
The threat of prosecution for the offense of perjury is designed to promote truthful testimony. IC 35-44-2-1 provides that a person who:
(1) makes a false, material statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true; or
(2) has knowingly made two (2) or more material statements, in a proceeding before a court or grand jury, which are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false commits the offense of perjury.
The statute is written in the affirmative sense in that the offender makes a “false” statement – the opposite of “truth”. Thus, the negation – lack of whole truth – is not an offense. Likewise what one perceives as false is subjected to the same demonstrations as the perception of truth.
These illusory truths that are revealed must be reduced to facts. This again is another subjective. In the correspondence theory “facts” are generally taken to be composed of particulars and properties and relations or universals, at least. As I say a “fact” is anything that is generally accepted as true. Hence, it was a fact that the world was once flat. That is, it is not a fact now that our world was once flat but for a period of time it was the general perception that the world at that time was flat and, thus, a fact.
Courts of law do not propound to be the forum which divulges truth. Rather, they are the creator of legal facts. Indiana Trial Rule 52 speaks of this duty as to produce Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The fact as opposed to the truth is a much more objective finding. Facts are what are accepted to be true by a population. A truth requires just a single observer. An event can produce numerous truths dependent upon the number of observers as well as the circumstances under which their sensory organs were stimulated and how their brains processed that information.
Truthful utterances therefore are the effect of an event reference on the sensory organs and the processing and memory formulation of the observer. Built into that is a range of subjectivity that requires a skillful navigator to wade through in an effort to provide an accurate recollection of an event. There is no guarantee that such accuracy will be received. Our higher courts have acknowledged this in saying that due process requires “an opportunity to be heard”. Never is there mention that courts are to make a “correct” verdict or reveal the truth.
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.
