27 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nielsen has published two books related to parent-child relationships. They are Between fathers and daughters: How to improve your adult relationship (2011) and Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary research and Issues (Routledge, 2012) which are available through her website. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I have recently completed an article titled Correcting misconceptions on Shared Parenting for children under age 4 years. A review of a consensus report by Richard A Warshak and the Woozle Effect by Linda Nielsen. An Article for parents, practitioners and policy makers regarding parenting time which dispels much of the falsehoods surrounding Shared Parenting. Here I have provided a synopsis and a few highlights.
Two recent articles when taken together demonstrate that opposition to Shared Parenting by policymakers and judicial officers is not supported by current research but may be supported by misrepresentations of the data. The first article, Woozles: Their Role in Custody Law Reform, Parenting Plans, and Family Court, comes from Linda Nielsen, Department of Education, Wake Forest University who reminds us of the “woozle effect” which was popularized by a Domestic Violence researcher, Richard Gelles. The woozle effect as Gelles saw it was the misrepresentation of research findings to support a particular political purpose. The effect is borne of tenuous claims or those only partially supported by the empirical evidence which ignore that which does not support the agenda but is then applied much more broadly as it is repeated and cited beyond its original scope. The second article, Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report by Richard A Warshak details how the lack of clinical support for Shared Parenting that much of the papers, data, and presumptions supporting policies against Shared Parenting seem to have were a result of being tainted by the woozle effect.
While Nielsen referred to the broad topic of public policy in general in her article she did remind us that family law is an area in which woozling might be especially likely to occur: Quoting Johnson in support, “Distortions and misuses of social science data in family law matters derive partly from the political nature of the issues and from gender wars.”
In his article Warshak presented the result of a two year analysis of the various reports relating to early childhood parenting by separated parents. Warshak's stated purpose is “to provide the family court system — including lawmakers, mediators, decision-makers, parents, guardians ad litem, child custody evaluators, and therapists – with an overview of the research on parenting plans for children under the age of four years whose parents live apart, and to provide empirically supported guidelines that reflect a consensus among leading researchers and practitioners about the implications of that research for policy and practice.”
A multidisciplinary group of experts, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, met in 1994. This group issued a report which recommended that both parents be included in the children's “bedtime and waking rituals, transitions to and from school, extracurricular and recreational activities” among other things.
Warshak's analysis of multiple studies failed to find support for the hypothesis that overnights with fathers has a negative outcome for children, including infants. The decade between 2001 and 2011 saw increasing acceptance of overnights among mental health professionals, courts, and parents of infants and toddlers. Policy makers should therefore consider more salient variables when making policy decisions.
The draft article was reviewed by 110 of Warshak's colleagues who provided comments and revisions which contributed to the final article. Although not everyone agreed with every aspect of the article they did unanimously endorse the article's conclusions and recommendations. My end notes and the list of 110 of Warshak's colleagues appear in my article.
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, February 27, 2014
My new article on Shared Parenting provides an intersectional review of a consensus report by Richard A Warshak and the Woozle Effect by Linda Nielsen along with my clinical observations
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
In His Own Words - Bill Levin: 2014 Candidate for the Indiana House of Representatives
26 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Once in awhile a candidate comes along who appears so outside the norm that you have to ask yourself, is this the approach that is needed for more effective government? Afterall, the majority of Americans agree that government, as is the current norm, is not being responsive to the common people. So when I came across Bill Levin who is a candidate for the Indiana House of Representatives in District 96 I wondered Is this the approach that is needed for more effective government? So I interviewed Bill about his platform, ideology and the impact those would have upon children.
I first wanted to know what lead to Bill's decision to join the race to be a representative in the Indiana House. For him it was lack of effective representation either the Republicans or Democrats. That both put forth legislation intended to satisfy their respective parties but not respect Hoosiers. His platform has three major planks being gun safety, equal rights for all people, and marijuana legalization.
As he explains because we are an agricultural state Hoosiers should have access to the benefits of cannabis. The marijuana plant is useful as a building material, has health benefits including its use as an essential oil, and is a stress reliever. As marijuana use has come into play in numerous child custody battles in which I am involved I seek to find the impact on the child. Show me the harm or benefit. It was interesting that Bill mentioned stress relief and then connected that to abuse of children. His claim that “people who use marijuana don't [physically] abuse their children as much as those who are alcohol and prescription pain killer users” is consistent with my anecdotal evidence. People who are less stressed are less likely to abuse their children.
The opposing point of view claims that marijuana is harmful to children because its use is associated with crime, gangs and is a gateway to more severe forms of drug abuse. It has generally been my observation that the most prolific gateway drug is alcohol. Levin noted that this report by the Obama administration in 2010 dispelled the gateway myth.
FlexForm and Elkhart County based automotive parts manufacturer must import the cannabis that it uses because Indiana law forbids Hoosiers from growing the plants for use here. Thus Indiana lawmakers have ensured that money is flowing out of the state that should be supporting agricultural operations here as Levin would have it.
A bill authored by Senator Richard Young that would allow Indiana farmers to grow industrial hemp crops was heard in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources which voted 7-0 in favor of the bill on Friday. Levin says that it will easily pass through the general assembly and be presented to the Governor Pence who he is confident will sign it into law. However when it comes to legalizing marijuana Governor Pence has taken a strong stance in opposition saying, “I don’t support the legalization of marijuana, and that’s been my position for a long time and will continue to be.” Former Republican state legislator Tom Knollman who had to resign his position because of progressive MS has objected to Pence's stance saying, “The art of being a good public official is being able to listen to both sides of an issue! I served as a Republican as a representative and am very proud of that. When the Governor refuses to look at both sides he loses my vote. I am sure my name is mud in his administration but I tried to always remember I am my brothers keeper!"
HJR3 seemed to capture most of the headlines and attention this year. So I asked Bill where he stands on adding the current statutory scheme defining marriage into the Indiana Constitution. Quite simply his response was, “I think gays should have the same right.” He expanded upon that by explaining that marriage is a contract that is often temporary in nature, If people of the same gender wish to subject themselves to the same contractual situation as those of opposite genders then they should be allowed. If two people regardless of gender want to establish that contractual arrangement then he wishes for them, “all the joy and love in the world.”
I asked about his thoughts on the Second Sentence which would have banned the State from recognizing not marital relationships similar to marriage. After a moment pondering his initial response had me laughing. Upon further explanation it is matters like Second Sentence that reflect what he had earlier described about both parties putting forth legislation intended to satisfy their respective parties but not respect all Hoosiers. He also acknowledged that while supporters of marriage claim that marriage provides stable relationships in which to rear children that they can be fleeting.
The last position I touched upon was gun education and safety. Levin wants it taught in every grade school. He noted that countries and jurisdictions where gun ownership is mandatory have lower crime rates and less gun assaults than the United States overall. One reason I suspect is because gun education is also part of the compulsory gun ownership process. Bill believes that teaching respect for guns and realistically demonstrating their impact can reduce their use in ways that mimic pop culture where the true impact is sanitized. Gun debates are always a hot topic but I think he takes a pragmatic approach to the issue. It's neither in support of gun rights or restrictions on people having guns but acknowledges that guns are part of our culture. They are a way of life. Educating children about guns may be a way to save their lives. It is this pragmatic approach that embodies his philosophy on government.
When it comes to the primary role of government Bill Levin feels it should be to provide “functional gears that make the cities or state work properly.” He wants to do his part in realizing that philosophical goal of government by putting forth bills that are "realistic, that are not party favoured, and are leaning toward benefiting Hoosiers."
People who want to do their part to help get Bill Levin elected to the Indiana General Assembly can do so by checking his Facebook page daily. As with any campaign he also needs supporters to donate to his fund-raising efforts which will help buy advertising. Supporters can go to his Fundrazr page to make a donation on-line. Finally, if you have a group of friends or associates that you feel would support the Bill Levin for House platform then consider hosting a meet 'n' greet with Bill at your home or business. Contact Bill through his Facebook page for details.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Monday, February 24, 2014
I may have to raise my prices as Congress seeks to create a greater disparity in standards of living and send more jobs to Mexico.
24 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats have proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by the year 2016. As part of their ongoing campaign to create a greater disparity in standards of living of Americans the Obama administration wants to boost the cost of living for low wage earners. Employer mandates that had been sought primarily by unions and just generally selfish people had already begun creating an earnings disparity which was exacerbated by the Obama medical coverage tax program. In The Health Care System that we all want I provided more detail about how it was more cost efficient for employers to have fewer employees but work them longer hours with overtime pay.
A minimum wage hike will have the same effect. Non-partisan Congressional budget analyst have predicted a loss of half a million jobs as a result of the hike in prices. The greater effect is going to be the reduction in buying power of the remaining low wage earners. Minimum and low wage jobs are often held by workers producing the goods and services that we use in our daily lives: food service industry, retail clerks and stocking, daycare providers, and cleaning staff. Thus, the businesses that serve the low income earners the most will face more pressure to raise prices than the upscale and high end consumer business which already pay their workers well above minimum wage.
The other cost will be an increase in the realized tax rate for low wage earners. Often minimum wage earners have a negative or low tax rate after all of the exemptions and credits. Any increase in earnings will be taxed at the full rate of 15%.
Hardest hit will be first time job seekers such as students who need greater flexibility in scheduling. When facing an additional half million former workers who will be more desperate for jobs it is going to be a buyers market. Employers will be setting the terms of employment which may include fewer benefits, less flexibility in scheduling, and an expected increase in productivity.
Another likely result will be an increase in outsourcing to foreign locations as the disparity in wages will make transportation and capital investment overseas more rewarding. The good news is that this could help to offset some of the inflation pressures here and boost profits for the largest corporations. A boost for those of us invested in the S&P 500 or other blue chip companies that can easily adapt to these new wage pressures.
As for me I have resisted raising my rates although I have about a 2-3 month wait for new clients. If this proposed jump in the minimum wage takes effect then look for my hourly rate to go from from the current $120 to $150 in 2016 as I continue to tie it to about 15 times minimum wage.
The grand scheme is being realized – fewer higher paid workers that can be taxed more and more displaced people dependent upon government redistribution of workers incomes – which will only be hastened by a rise in the minimum wage.
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, February 21, 2014
2014 Indiana Child Support Guidelines Amendments - Parenting Time Credit
21 February 2014 2015 Indiana Child Support Guidelines * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
review scheduled for public comment
The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center met in regular session today to discuss the process of revising the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. Dr Betson appeared and presented to the DRC on the particular subject of the Parenting Time Credit.
Dr Betson first proposed a new way of classifying parents - Parent with Primary Residency [PPR] and Parent with Secondary Residency [PSR]. This is similar to what I proposed a few years ago as a way of mitigating the impact of the Non Custodial Parent label. I am pleased to see him do this as he suggested to the DRC the need to be sensitive to these labels. I will again be pushing for adoption of such new parenting distinctions.
Most of the discussion related to the manner in which Indiana calculates support and specifically the parenting time credit. Spending as anticipated by the ICSG is divided into three sections: 1] Transferred expenses which account for 35%. These are the expenses that follow the child such as providing food, travel to school or other activities, and the other incidentals that occur while a child is with a parent; 2] Duplicated expenses which account for 50%. These are the expenses that are assumed to be incurred by both parents and are additional to what an intact family would have. This would include any extra bedroom for the child, possibly a parent who normally used public transportation needing to get an automobile large enough to transport all children, and sometimes things such as clothing and toys which are currently considered controlled expenses; and 3] Fixed expenses which account for 15%. These are the expenses that include healthcare [the 6% rule], clothing, school book fees and the like.
Overall it is assumed by the ICSG that the cost of raising children in separate households is 150% the cost incurred by intact families. Indiana uses the income shares model and a graduated parenting time credit. The credit is applied to the transferred expenses [35% of total] which can result in up to a 17.5% credit if time is equally shared. The credit begins at 52 days and is very small, just over 1%, and only reaches 15% at 96 days. It rapidly increases from there. At 116 days the credit is 32% of the transferred expenses which is about 10% of total support calculation.[fn1] At 136 days the credit is 44% and then gradually gets to 50% at 183 overnights.
While there are transferred expense for overnight parenting time up to one night a week it has been a policy decision to not provide a credit for that. The purpose there is to induce the PSR to seek additional parenting time. It is also to keep the PRR from trying to restrict to no time. After all, the PRR will get the PSR to accept some of the financial responsibility while still paying 100% of the court ordered support amount. As previously shown when the overnights gets around 116 the credit increases rapidly. This has lead to resistance of the PPR from agreeing to a higher number of overnights with the PSR. This problem is exacerbated in New Jersey where the half of the transferred expenses kicks in at 35% of overnights. Thus PSR's will often seek no less than 35% and sometimes no more than 35% while the PPR offers no more than 34%. This bright line creates a credit or loss of 17.5% of support dependent on 4 nights one way or the other. Indiana spreads it out over 131 nights, the majority of it being across about 35 nights. Upon surveying judges in Indiana there is wide discrepancy among their experiences in which they find parents trying to manipulate parenting time to affect child support payment amounts. Overall across Indiana it is not a significant factor.
Dr Betson is suggesting, and I agree, that when parenting time is at or nearly equal that some of what are considered controlled expenses – clothing, large toys – that would not reasonably always flow with the child should be included in duplicated expenses.
In 2008 the Indiana Supreme Court in Young v Young [fn2] ruled that a parent who exercises daytime responsibilities such as providing meals, travel to activities and other expenses cannot receive overnights credit as a way of compensating for that until the DRC changes policy. However, as Judge Murray – Chair of the DRC -- did on remand, as Young did not preclude her, she receiving evidence of those costs and then deviating from the bottom end support calculation rather than adjusting the number of overnights. The DRC discussed the matter and they appear to be satisfied with adding language to the ICSG to instruct practitioners on accepting evidence of support that does not include overnights. The resulting effect should be that the negotiation of parenting time focusing on overnights as a means to produce adjustments to the child support payment order should be reduced.
The DRC would like to be ready to submit their proposal to the Indiana Supreme Court by 01 July 2015. They will take public testimony on 16 May 2014 at the Indiana Supreme Court chambers on level 3 of the Indiana State House at the north end. There will also be a link provided on the Indiana Supreme Court website in the near future for the public to submit written comment.
There are numerous new members on the DRC this year which I will address in a future posting. The next meeting is scheduled for 21 March 2014 where the topic that Dr. Betson will present is how the O'bama health tax will affect the ICSG.
notes
[1] .32 x 35% = 11.2%
[2] Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2008)
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, February 19, 2014
Successfully mediating a high conflict Indiana child custody case which has been repeatedly contested
18 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Yesterday was a great day. In what has become on off my top five most litigated cases the parties are in at least a brief respite after reaching accord on all outstanding issues. This case first gained worldwide attention when the Madison County Indiana judge then presiding over the case ruled that the father was unfit to parent because he became agnostic in his religious beliefs. I quickly had that matter resolved by having the Indiana Court of Appeals issue a Stay. Ultimately the unlawful order was set aside.
The mother continued to litigate and most recently sought to have father's parenting time reduced to one half hour per month supervised. Although she actually wanted his parental rights terminated. Drugs/guns Shortly before that I had written about Self Imposed Parental Alienation but apparently she hadn't read it or did care. Additionally, she had recently alleged in a Petition for an Order of Protection that father had confined her at the police station and she was afraid to be there with him around. Multiple police officers, school officials, and an employer were ready and willing to appear at the upcoming hearing on her temporary protective order. But as that and about a dozen other filings from both parents were included in the settlement which included dismissing all outstanding matters, it won't be heard.
I am an ardent supporter of mediation even when it seems hopeless. In this case it was court ordered because of the overwhelming number of pending issues. After watching the mother go on the offensive for four years, which included bringing her now husband to a parenting time exchange to physically attack the father, I didn't expect much cooperation. The father initially thought it would be a perfunctory waste of time but he said “I was pleasantly surprised and hope that its a new path that leads to some peace in our children's lives.” I was likewise stunned at the culmination of over five hours of negotiation. This mother had gone on record in 2010 saying she had no intention of being conciliatory for the benefit of the children. Yet in the end the father got parenting time on an additional day each week, the 2013 IPTG implemented and other benefits that he sought. “I am satisfied with it as long as she will follow it” he says.
The mother may be likely to do so after obtaining new counsel last year. “Aaron Freeman [attorney for mother] seemed like he was pushing for mediation.” That is in clear contrast to Mr Anthony Lawrence who rebuked three prior mediation request but did dump mother as a client in 2013. The proper selection of or omission of an attorney may be the greatest facilitator of mediation. As father noted “the people who go in with the idea that I am not going to bend could benefit by having an attorney to help convince them to compromise.” But as for father who was ready to compromise and had previously sought mediation multiple times he did not “see a need for an attorney at all.” Although he did concede that there was “no way I would have felt comfortable doing it without you.”
As a mediator myself, who specializes in high conflict parenting, I seek clarity and precision in the agreements so that each party knows exactly what they are to do. This also gives the court greater power to enforce the agreement as an ambiguous order in unenforceable.[1] In a section that the attorney mediator had prepared about extra curricular activities it made reference to parents attending the children's “games” to which I requested that “performances, recitals and any other activities consistent with the spirit of this section” be included. In a hostile parenting situation one parent could clearly raise the issue that a child's performance in the arts is not a “game.” There was also a provision that required the parties to dismiss their respecting protective orders. As the orders had already been issued by a judge, I requested that the language be changed to the parties shall each petition the court to dismiss the order because only the judge may dismiss the order.[2] Father was appreciative that the “order is more specific, it has less room for interpretation” which is critical to making the mediation worthwhile.
Overall the father felt that “it was worthwhile” Although he didn't get what he had on his agenda going in he did achieve the most important goal of mediation as he articulated. “Its not what I wanted but it is more than I had. It is the pain of mediation, we both don't get what we want but both sides need to give and take for the benefit of the children.”
For anyone who is involved in a highly litigious or high conflict post marital parenting relationship or any other contested child custody case I strongly suggest trying mediation. It may not get you to exactly where you want to be but as this father realized, “I walked away feeling like this is a start.”
Notes
[1] In order to be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order, a party must have willfully disobeyed the order. The order must have been so clear and certain that there could be no question as to what the party must do, or not do, and so there could be no question regarding whether the order is violated. A party may not be held in contempt for failing to comply with an ambiguous or indefinite order . . .
Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253, 264-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[2] IC 34-26-5-12 Dismissal
Sec. 12. If a petitioner:
(1) files a written request for dismissal with a court; or
(2) makes an oral request on the record to dismiss the case in open court;
the court shall without delay or any conditions dismiss the case without prejudice. [emphasis added]
As added by P.L.133-2002, SEC.56.
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, February 18, 2014
Girls are Defeating Women in Business, Politics and Law
17 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In the area of gender politics there is much blame to go around and outrageous claims coming from every angle. I have long advocated for equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of race, gender or lineage. Yet there exists a great resistance to bringing women into the male realm of being respected for mind and leadership skills over physical attributes. Interestingly this resistance is greatest from females and comes at an early age.
It is my intention here to dispel some of the myths about how a disproportional representation of women is maintained in the areas of business, politics, and law and who is behind it. I also intend to argue that such concepts as equal pay for equal work and proportional representation are false objectives that are inhibiting the advancement of women and will keep them mired in a dead end political quest.
A primary complaint of those pursuing gender equity is that men are considered successful when they express leadership skills, attain higher status in business and exhibit dominance while women are primarily judged upon their physical appearance – suitability to procreate. Often times this is attributed to the rules of a patriarchal society. Applying blame to men for suppressing the status of women through patriarchy, such as a perceived “glass-ceiling”, has been a long-standing mantra of so-called feminist. I contend, however, that there should be no objective to break through this purported glass-ceiling but an effort to bring men down through the glass floor to be more involved in domestic life.
In essence I am saying that the objective should not be for women to foreclose their traditional parenting and family role in pursuit of the material acquisitions and status achievements that represent successful males. Instead, I believe that measuring success based upon achievement of status and material accumulations is a fallacy that has been harmful to society and particularly the family unit. Men should be perceived as successful by balancing being involved in the lives of their children and other domestic functions as well as financial prosperity. Likewise, money should not be a substitute for or means of placating the effects of being an inactive, unattractive slob with a poor physique.
Women though are measured primarily by means of their physical attributes. The greatest scorn, ridicule and pressure to achieve nearly unattainable body images comes from girls. The message that girls tacitly express to each other is that, as a sex, they are not worthy of first being measured by something other than physical appearance. This is done first through the collective application of make-up. The direct message from these girls to each other is that as you naturally appear is not acceptable to your female friends and most certainly not your males peers.
Girls and boys also display a profound difference in the way they tease or insult each other. Boys for the most part demean one another by appealing to flawed character traits and when it is physical the insults are more apt to be based upon strength or stature. Girls on the other hand let the insults fly which are primarily directed toward one's physical appearance – often sexuality, even among younger pre-adolescent. So from an early age girls are programming themselves and their peers to evaluate one another based upon physical appearance and to use such as the measure of one's stature.
I further argue that while men do need to be more sensitive to their use of physical appearance when rating women that it is women who need to take the initiative. I would be thoroughly pleased if not another one of those fashion magazines that feature computer enhanced images of female models, that are produced by women and overly emphasize physical appearance as a measure of worth never made its way into the hands of a young girl again. But such is unlikely to be the case in a free market economy where supply meets demand. We must collectively work to reduce the demand on women to hyper-focus on physical appearance to the detriment of their character traits and skill base. A good place to start would be in boycotting the cosmetics industry.
Women tend to reduce themselves in stature by playing victim status. This is apparent in the false claim of a so-called earnings gap – same work, different pay rates -- which clearly does not exist. The latest number going around is that women only get paid 77% of what men do for the same work. It simply isn't so. I have sent both males and females to the personnel departments at various industries around my community and always found the same results – pay rate was not dependent upon gender. The fast food restaurant that promoted on their sign board “Now hiring closers, $10/hr” said that the rate was not adjusted based upon the sex of the applicant. There is some validation to the claim when it is placed in the context of rates of production.
To demonstrate the difference in production I will use an analogy of legal counseling. You could have your neighbor sit down with you and your attorney and advise you on child custody matters. You could select a church leader to do that. You could select me to do that. Any of us could dedicate the same amount of time at that session, print out and distribute the applicable law, and type away on the computer taking notes. But of those three I stand resolute in my proclamation that I would be the most productive in formulating your litigation scheme. Thus, while I am providing the same amount of work my pay rate should rightfully be much higher than the inexperienced neighbor who, although having never been involved in child custody litigation, did the same amount of work. Productivity is where a pay disparity is achieved and is justified.
Women have traditionally taken it upon themselves to be in the employ of others in fields that do not produce as much income and are therefore subject to lesser pay. I see it in the field of law that is becoming more infused with women. Law is a technical science but such rigid structuring is at odds with the needs of children and families who are in domestic relations turmoil.
It has been my learned experience that if a female judge sits on the bench that there is more likely to be a better outcome for everyone involved. While brilliant legal minds cross the lines of gender I believe that we have farther to go in acknowledging that. Women should embrace, compliment and reward the achievements of their counterparts in fields such as law or other academic achievements. But when a female post a photo of herself on Facebook after having a makeover which is then juxtaposed to the photo of her receiving an award for academic excellence the makeover photo will receive many more 'likes' and comments of praise than the academic achievement. Most disturbing is that the praises lauded upon the “beauty queen” will come from other women.
The final point that I propose is that seeking proportional representation based upon any birth trait demographic conflicts with the objective of being offered equal opportunities, accepted as individuals and judged upon their merits. The idea that we must have mandated numbers of legislators or other power brokers commensurate with the population distribution by gender I believe is insulting to women in that is says you don't possess the necessary attributes so we have to give you the position. It is also highly insulting to men such as myself who put forth effort to encourage and support opportunities for women to advance their position and status. I recently attended a symposium by the Indiana Commission on Women where the proportional representation issue was also raised. Implicit in the call for creating novel approaches to achieving gender representation parity is that women's issues or positions are not worthy of universal support but can only be supported by women. I feel that issues related to those which fall outside the realm of physical appearance are important and that the greatest barrier to those issues being recognized is not a patriarchal society but sabotage from other women. Particularly those who who objectify themselves.
The goal of everyone should be that we are all respected for intrinsic skills and abilities which we manifest into production for the greater good of our society. That while a physical appearance judgment spanning a wide swath of disciplines is useful and legitimate neither should it be the basis for determining one's worth. Women in particular need to stop facilitating this measure of character. To do so they must first cease objectifying themselves.
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.
