28 April 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Being a cyclist and advisor on the well-being of children I have no tolerance for the terrorist element known as “drunk drivers,” people who randomly target the general population for their deadly assaults. Over the weekend I was provided with some documents that demonstrate that a current judicial candidate has a drunk driving offense conviction. Typically I like to expose the positive attributes of candidates, for 'mud-slinging' debases the legitimacy of the election process. I have no personal ax to grind with the candidate here but feel so strongly about this issue that I am compelled to put it forth.
Certainly we can accept that people can make a mistake in judgment. I have no doubt been one who has done so. However, my mistakes in judgment, while injuring myself, have not harmed others. I even have a felony conviction back from around the same time. Mine however was a technical violation of the US treasury code. I didn't injure multiple people as Bruce Petit did.
I take exception to the leniency by which drunk drivers are treated simply because they are making a financial contributing to the automotive market. My ire is raised so much so that I once wrote cogent argument about why drunk driving should be a death penalty offense.
Drunk drivers thrive on the rush of narrowly escaping a deadly collision that may put the lives of the public in danger. That is nothing more than a game of Russian Roulette with you and your children being involuntary participants. This poor judgment exhibited in a motor vehicle demonstrates a clear need to keep these despicable people from ever being placed in the position of having control over the well-being of a child or the outcome of those guilty of drunk driving. I am concerned that a judge who has been convicted of drunk driving with little consequence doesn't view the offense as a crime and will be lenient on these dangerous offenders. In the alternative if he is harsh on offenders then he is a hypocrite. Either way it would be irresponsible of voters to put this type of person into the role of superior court judge.
To say that I am upset that Boone County Deputy Prosecutor Bruce Petit – the chief juvenile prosecutor – now wants to be put in the position of having authority over solomon like child custody decisions is putting it lightly. As part of my 2014 candidate interviews, I twice asked Bruce Petit to contact me for an interview about his candidacy. These occurred prior to posting my interview of his competitor Jim Holden. But Petit never contacted me to let you know his responses to the same questions I ask of all candidates.
These documents detailing Bruce Petit's drunk driving offense for which he was caught [We can't know about all the times, if any, that he wasn't caught. Apologists use the refrain it only happened once. He got caught once when he was involved in a collision that he caused which injured other people. Are we truly to believe that law enforcement catches all offenders 100% of the time?] are public record. Yet, no one at our local newspaper – the Lebanon Reporter – apparently managed to find these documents. That is unless they found them but didn't want to share with the public. We shall know the answer to that soon because within a day of me posting this it will get to the newspaper. If the Lebanon Reporter has the integrity to accurately report the criminal offenses of who Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer employs as his deputy prosecutors, the newspaper will answer that soon by whether there is a relevant headline.
Now I am going to call Jim Holden and ask for his criminal history then call one of my judicial friends and ask for a criminal history report on him. I will keep you updated.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Monday, April 28, 2014
County Prosecutor Disciplined by the Indiana Supreme Court for Drunk Driving is a Candidate for Judge of an Indiana Superior Court
Highlights from the 2014 Libertarian Party of Indiana State Convention
“I am especially thankful to all the contributors who made this year's convention a success” Dan Drexler, who has served as Libertarian Party of Indiana Chairman for one year now, told me. The members of the Libertarian Party of Indiana [LPIN] held their state convention this past weekend in Indianapolis. Some of those contributors were eight guest speakers who spoke about the current state of mainstream politics, the erosion of liberty and how citizens may move forward in regaining control of their government.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Bill Levin is a longtime entertainment promoter who was responsible for bringing local original music to venues in Broad Ripple as early as the 1980's. Bill spoke about the power of grassroots marketing and promotion to infuse the principles of liberty into public dialogue and policy. He shared some of his unorthodox approaches to generating campaign and political party interest outside of the popularly favoured two-party system. Or two factions of the Incumbent Party as I call them. Levin is also a candidate for the Indiana House of Representatives in District 96.
Matt La Fleur provided an extensive presentation on the emergence of a burgeoning police state. His website PoliceStateUSA was formed as a grassroots alternative media outlet dedicated to exposing the systemic formation of an American police state. While the United States holds 5% of the world's population it detains 25% of the world's prisoners. The site features stories that demonstrate how liberties are being eliminated in the name of “public safety.” Most disturbing are the tactics used in schools to deprive liberty to children and indoctrinate them into a big government is necessary mentality.
Myself, Stuart Showalter, presented on how citizens can effectuate public policy. I spoke about, how as a private citizen, I was able to write and get my policy objectives written into our court rules and statutory law. I detailed the various opportunities available at the state level and process by which to return the principles of liberty into state public policy. My complete written presentation is available on my website under the public policy section.
Sheila Suess Kennedy, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, provided comments on upholding civil liberties. Like me, Kennedy was a Goldwater Republican who, when her principles were abandoned by the Republican Party, turned to the Democratic Party but also appears dissatisfied with their encroachment upon our liberties. While I left the Democrats she has stayed. But she seemed to feel at home speaking before Libertarians which support the principles that unite all freedom loving people. Kennedy has established the Center for Civic Liberties at IUPUI where she hopes to enlighten students about the establishment and function of government. One alarming survey results that Shelia revealed is that only 36% of Americans realize there are three branches of government in our republic.
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute provided a comprehensive update on the so-called Affordable Care Act and detailed some of the particular way in which the act denies citizens of health care liberty. Time Magazine calls Michael Tanner, “one of the architects of the private accounts movement,” and Congressional Quarterly named him one of the nation’s five most influential experts on Social Security. Tanner also detailed the way a numbers game has been played by administration officials. Decoding those revealed the true number of people who have been added to the health insurance payment plans under O'bama Care - only about four million.
Bruno Behrend, Heartland Institute Education Policy Fellow and Melanie Hughes of the Sudbury School of Kentukiana enaged the audience in a panel discussion about the role that government is taking in schools. Behrend provided the primer necessary for better understanding from where our education policy has come and what direction it continues. These speakers tendered practical steps to providing real education to students and moving America away from the 19th century Prussian system upon which the current system of education in the United States is based.
Melyssa Hubbard's book Spanking City Hall was inspired by her travails involving the City of Indianapolis slapping her with a lawsuit that didn’t mention its real motives -- trying to shut her business down. The underlying reasons for the lawsuit involved layers of intolerance and politics as usual. Melyssa founded the first Indiana Tea Party in 2007 and eventually won the lawsuit launched against her. Her book details those legal and political journeys while lightly providing encouragement to all individuals to maintain their personal sovereignty.
Chairman Drexler said that he was enthused by the spirit of the attendees at this years convention. “We have more candidates on the ballot this year, we are growing in numbers, and growing in support” remarked Drexler. I was equally enthused by the news that Libertarians are making strides into breaking the stranglehold that the Incumbent Party holds on mainstream politics. Stalwarts of the two faction system such as Shelia Suess Kennedy are joining the growing ranks of Libertarians. Many of us who have crossed over from Republican or Democrat to the other and still found that we are not being represented are moving to the Libertarian Party. As Dan says, “American's are being stripped of their personal liberties and having their financial decisions made for them by government. We welcome to the Libertarian Party those people who want to regain the rights taken away by the Democrats and Republicans.” People will be able to restore their liberty and get the government back in their control when the principles of the Libertarian Party are adopted. If you would like to support the effort to restore your liberty please visit the LPIN website and vote for Libertarian candidates when you see them on your ballot.
Like most people you are likely what is called the small “L” libertarian who supports libertarian principles but is not a member of the Libertarian Party. Take The World's Smallest Political Quiz [10 questions] to see where you stand on the political spectrum. If you find out that you are a supporter of libertarian principles then consider becoming a member of the Libertarian Party of Indiana.
Members of the public are invited to join Libertarians on Monday evening, 28 April 2014: 7:00pm, at La Hacienda Mexican Restaurant in Carmel for a post convention discussion about the progression of libertarian principles. Find additional details on Facebook.
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, April 22, 2014
Indiana Court of Appeal Reverses Shared Parenting Order Today
In Bailey v Bailey published today the Indiana Court of Appeal reversed an order of the Fulton Circuit Court, Special Judge Richard Maughmer presiding, that provided that parents would have joint legal custody and 50/50 parenting time. This was a modification of the existing parenting time order although no petition was before the court to modify parenting time or custody. The court made the changes under the auspices of the Parallel Parenting provision of the 2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines when the parties appeared for mutual actions for contempt. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
These were high conflict parents. During the proceedings, there were approximately five contempt actions, one protective order, one request for emergency custody, one petition for modification of custody, one petition for restricted visitation, five attorneys, and two judges.
Judge Maughmer should be commended for taking the position ordering these parents into 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. While some trial courts have taken an approach to hostile or embattled parents by granting primary physical and sole legal custody to one parent to mitigate opportunities for conflict that may be ignoring the best interest of the child. Sometimes the parent who has instigated or perpetuated the conflict has been the one receiving the greater rights and responsibilities. Our reviewing courts have shunned this idea.
In 1996 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that “Allowing modification of custody in favor of one whose misbehavior has led to the supposed 'substantial change,' in circumstances rewards misconduct and should therefore be avoided.”[fn1] A few years earlier the court expressed its rationale for awarding sole custody and primary parenting time to one parent in high conflict cases.
In 1992 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals in arriving at its decision noted that “obstreperous parents sharing legal custody would have significant difficulties reaching a consensus on such fundamental issues as child-rearing philosophies, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[fn2] When divorced parents are charged with making major decisions as a unit, it is apparent that a relationship filled with hostility and resentment presents a significant obstacle. It follows, therefore, that when child-rearing becomes a 'battleground,'[fn3] modification of joint legal custody is a sensible step to take for the best interests of the children.”
One of our justices explained it this way;
Every day in our State, trial courts engage in the fact-finding process of determining which of two parents—oftentimes, both parents who have behaved poorly—is the better choice to serve as a primary physical custodian. All too often, this involves determining who between two parents is the lesser of two evils—which parent is least likely to poison the children and alienate them from their other parent. The majority’s opinion permits sidestepping this process and allows the trial court to “split the baby.” I would reverse on this issue and remand to the trial court with instructions that it award sole legal and physical custody of the children either to James or Jane and grant the other parent parenting time scheduled in a manner that is conducive to the best interests of the children.[fn4]
I contend that those positions are in error, especially given that at least one of the parents who engages in making child rearing a battleground will get rewarded with sole legal and primary physical custody. Concurrent with that is the risk that the parent who so benefits may be the one who instigated the culture of conflict. I believe that it also ignores the best interest of the child. It was this position that was advanced and held while the Domestic Relations Committee was reviewing the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines which were amended in March 2013 to include a parallel parenting section.
In 1989 and cited again in 1994 two other panels of the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the concept of Parallel Parenting when they held, “We must realize that, by allowing [families] to rely on the courts to settle such disputes, we deprive families of the opportunity to work out their problems and be the shapers of their own destinies. To the extent that we usurp the natural functions of the family unit – including handling fallings out – we put an obstacle in the path of reconciliation rather than removing one. By acting as we do, we assume the responsibility for the decisions that would be made entirely internally in a family if it were still intact. If warring family members can blame the court, they will be less likely to recognize and acknowledge their own culpability. Without a feeling of responsibility for, or participation in, either the decision or the result, there is less incentive for the individual family members to improve relations.[fn5]
In the immediate case though the panel reversed the trial court's order of Shared Parenting which modified the prior parenting time order. This is because the parties appeared before the court on dual motions for contempt. The panel articulated its holding in citing “[l]ongstanding Indiana law” which “has prohibited trial courts from sua sponte ordering a change of custody.”[fn6] When such an important issue as the custody of children is involved, a modification generally can be ordered only after a party has filed a petition requesting such a modification, the other party has notice of the filing, and a proper evidentiary hearing is held at which both parties may be heard and the trial court fully apprised of all necessary information regarding change of circumstances and a child’s best interests before deciding whether a modification should be ordered.
While it appears that the trial court was correct in its determination of Shared Parenting through a Parallel Parenting plan it suffered from basic due process requirements.
Notes
1] Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
2] Aylward v Aylward, 592 N.E.2d 1247, 1251-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
3] id at 1252
4] Dissent of Vaidik in Van Weirten
5] McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854, 856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)) (alteration omitted).
6] See In re Marriage of Henderson, 453 N.E.2d 310, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (quoting State ex rel. Davis v. Achor, 225 Ind. 319, 327, 75 N.E.2d 154, 157 (1947)).
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Father gains custody of Mother's child not of the marriage - Indiana Court of Appeals
The Indiana Court of Appeals today issued a Published opinion affirming a trial court's grant of custody of her child born prior to marriage[fn1] to her later former husband along with their child from their marriage. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The basis of the custody order came upon Father's emergency petition for custody alleging Mother's incapacity from Huntington's Disease and the effect it is having on her parenting and care of the children. Following a hearing in which the parents, Mother's medical practitioner, and child through an in-camera interview provided testimony the Court made these relevant findings when transferring custody of the children to Father subject to Mother's supervised parenting time.
1] The Court finds that an emergency exists based upon the present incapacity of Mothert to provide care and supervision for the children. The Court’s determination of Mother's incapacity is based upon the medical opinion of her physician.
2] In addition, the Court finds that the report of Mother's physician is supported by the testimony of Father, and during the Court’s in camera interview with child, and by Mother's testimony as well as her behavior in court.
3] The Court finds that Mother relies upon child to fulfill many parental functions, and that this contrary [sic] to child's best interests, as she is saddened and frustrated by the loss of her childhood. The Court further finds that Mother has struck and shoved child, and has consistently and pervasively denied the children parenting time with Father.
4] The Court notes that father is not the biological or legal father of child. Nevertheless, Father has acted in the capacity of the child’s father with Mother's encouragement and consent for many years, and the Dissolution Decree grants Father parenting time rights to child.
5] The Court finds the above facts to constitute a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under I.C. 31-17-2-8.5, and finds that modification of custody is in the best interests of both children.
6] Father shall have primary physical custody of both children immediately, subject to parenting time with Mother, which at this time shall be supervised by her sister . . . or such other relatives as agreed, or, if the sister is unable or unwilling to provide said supervision, parenting time shall only be at Family House or some other comparable facility close to Mother's home, at Father's expense.
Mother sought to have the trail court reverse the judgment.[fn2] She argued that she is entitled to relief from the judgment because father had no legal right to pursue custody of Child and the trial court was therefore not permitted to hear the issue. The appellate court disagreed for several reasons. First, although neither the parties nor the trial court specifically referenced this statute in the proceedings, Indiana Code section 31-17-2-25 allows for emergency placement of a child with a person other than a parent. Mother also pointed out, “child” for purposes of the dissolution statutes is defined as “a child or children of both parties to the marriage.”[fn3] However, a trial court adjudicating a dissolution may award custody of a child to a natural or adoptive parent of the child or to a de facto custodian.[fn4] A de facto custodian is defined in part as “a person who has been the primary caregiver for, and financial support of, a child who has resided with the person for at least . . . one (1) year if the child is at least three (3) years of age . . . .” Ind. Code § 31-9-2-35.5. Pursuant to this statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals has prior held that a trial court could determine in a dissolution action whether the husband was entitled to custody of a child not born of the marriage.[fn5]
Thus, the trial court not only had subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody determination for the child of the marriage, but also over the child custody determination involving a third party outside the marriage – Mother's prior born child. Moreover, Mother raised no issue as to the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over the parties. The trial court therefore possessed the two forms of jurisdiction required to render a valid judgment.
Based upon the foregoing and the best interest of the children the trial court's denial of Mother's motion for relief from judgment and return of custody of the children to her was properly denied.
notes
[1] No mention is made in the record of the identity or whereabouts of child’s biological father. The appeals court noted that they might have reached a different conclusion if Child's biological father had filed the motion for relief from judgment alleging a due
process violation in the proceedings which granted custody to a third party with no notice to or an opportunity for him to be heard.
[2] On April 26, 2013, Mother filed a Petition for Modification of custody alleging that
she exercised parenting time in January 2013 and Father had not thereafter complied with the parenting time order; that the emergency alleged by Father had passed and/or stabilized and custody of the children should be returned to Mother; and that if Father desired a permanent change of custody, he should be required to follow the statutory procedure for such modification. Mother also filed a Motion Pursuant to Trial Rule 60 seeking to declare the trial court’s order of July 26, 2012, and all subsequent orders relating to her child void.
[3] Ind. Code § 31-9-2-13(a).
[4] In re Custody of G.J., 796 N.E.2d 756, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.
[5] Nunn v. Nunn, 791 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
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, April 15, 2014
Contempt of Court Jail Sentence when Child Refuses Parenting Time Upheld - Indiana Court of Appeals
Oh those contentious parents who make child rearing a battle ground. In one of the most vociferous battles that I have encountered as of late is that of Paula Rorer Hubbard and William Shane Rorer. Mother was found to be in contempt of Father's parenting time and appealed. The appellate panel rendered its decision on Monday 14 April 2014 in an unpublished opinion. The appeal arose under Mother's argument that she was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of confinement, suspended, based upon inadmissible evidence and an improperly imposed jail sentence. The case originated in the Warrick Circuit Court where the Honorable David O. Kelley, Judge, presided. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Mother was found in contempt for her failure to facilitate parenting time between the parties' adolescent daughter and Father which had been recently reinstated following a three year lapse. Mother and Father had one daughter during their marriage which was dissolved in April 2003. After years of disputes between Mother and Father regarding custody and parenting time, the trial court suspended parenting time between Father and Daughter in September 2010. However, on 01 August 2013, the trial court ordered that Father was entitled to parenting time with Daughter who was then fourteen years of age.
Neither parent enters this latest fray with clean hands. The trial court observed that Parents have an “inability and refusal to co-parent effectively.” The disputes are deeply rooted and the duration of the battle appears to mystify Judge Kelley as noted:
The anger they share for each other and the desire to “get the best of the other” is much more important to each parent than meeting their responsibility to rear a child together in a responsible manner. There is plenty of blame to go around for each parent and a recitation of the offenses of each parent would serve no good purpose. Collectively, however, it is clear to the Court that the child and her overall welfare are secondary to the parents’ “personal war.” Given the number of years it has gone on one would think the parents would grow weary of combat but it appears to have worsened rather than improving.
The court has recognized daughter's manipulation of the parents' conflict:
[Daughter] has recognized this conflict and seized the opportunity to “drive the bus.” What teenager would pass on the opportunity to be in complete control of her life? It is clear to the Court that her rejection of her father is pleasing to her mother and continued rejection will guarantee a continued flow of favorable treatment from the mother.
Judge Kelley exemplifies the hopelessness in the predicament that judges face with these high conflict parents. As so many have similarly expressed to me, Judge Kelley articulated his feelings in this manner:
Numerous mental health professionals have not been able to address the parents’ issues and the Court has absolutely no expectation that it can make things work smoothly. The Court has considered drafting specific measures that would direct each parent how to be an effective parent but the Court doubts that either party would follow those directives and also it is not [the] Court’s responsibility to rear the child.
The order that went into effect on 01 August 2013 was initially breached at Mother's first opportunity. On 07 August 2013, Daughter initially refused to participate in parenting time with Father. Ultimately, however, she cooperated after the police arrived. On 09 August 2013, she again refused to participate in parenting time. On 12 August 2013, Father wasted no time in filing a petition for contempt against Mother. Father alleged that Mother “has done everything in her power to attempt to discourage [Daughter] from seeing” Father.
At hearing Father produced a police officer who had responded to the 07, 09, and 14 August parenting time exchanges. Mother objected to testimony and documentary evidence of the 14 August incident arguing that it fell outside of the allegations plead two days earlier. On its face to any experienced appellate litigator this is merely cumulative evidence that demonstrates a pattern. Thus it will not be held as a basis for reversal. Mother was clearly already on notice about these allegations. The Court so found stating that the Officer’s “testimony and Exhibit A were merely cumulative of the other evidence, and any error in the admission of the testimony and Exhibit A was harmless.” Thus the Court found that “[w]e disregard errors in the admission of evidence as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.”[fn1]
In finding Mother in contempt the Court found “from the evidence that the Mother has failed to take a positive or active role in encouraging the child to engage in visitation and is allowing the child to decide if she wants to visit.” It has already been observed that children are not to be put in the position of or allowed to make decisions regarding participation in parenting time.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines provide:
If a child is reluctant to participate in parenting time, each parent shall be responsible to ensure the child complies with the scheduled parenting time. In no event shall a child be allowed to make the decision on whether scheduled parenting time takes place.
Commentary:
In most cases, when a child hesitates to spend time with a parent, it is the result of naturally occurring changes in the life of a child. The child can be helped to overcome hesitation if the parents listen to the child, speak to each other and practically address the child’s needs.
Parents should inquire why a child is reluctant to spend time with a parent. If a parent believes that a child’s safety is compromised in the care of the other parent, that parent should take steps to protect the child, but must recognize the rights of the other parent. This situation must be promptly resolved by both parents. Family counseling may be appropriate. If the parents cannot resolve the situation, either parent may seek the assistance of the court.[fn2]
Mother failed in her duty to promote a positive parent-child relationship between Father and Daughter as well as failing to facilitate Father's parenting time. Evidence elicited at the hearing indicated that at the 07 August parenting time exchange, Mother engaged in the alienating tactic of crying and hugging Daughter when Daughter was ready to leave with Father. At the 09 August parenting time exchange, Mother would not get out of the vehicle and only cracked her window to talk to Father. A family friend testified that she never heard Mother say anything that encouraged Daughter to participate in the parenting time. Father presented evidence that Mother failed to ensure that Daughter complied with the scheduled parenting
Mother and Father have harmed their daughter to the point that when after three years of absence from the life of her Father she refused to see him. Social science research shows significant benefits to children when non-custodial fathers remain involved in their lives.[fn3] Yet, both parents allowed their ongoing disdain for each other to poison the well from which their daughter drinks. Rather than provide competent nurturing and guidance to their daughter they have instilled in her that she has no intrinsic value but, rather, is only a prize to be fought over and won. Both of these parents are abusive to their daughter.
As for the contempt citation, the primary objective of a civil contempt proceeding is not to punish the contemnor but to coerce action for the benefit of the aggrieved party.[fn4] A contempt order that neither coerces compliance with a court order nor compensates the aggrieved party for loss and does not offer an opportunity for the recalcitrant party to purge himself may not be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding. Thus, Mother holds the keys to her freedom by ensuring that she complies with the court order and facilitates Father's parenting time.
In nearly six years of working nearly exclusively on high conflict parenting child custody cases I have been able to observe a patter in these relationships. The hostile aggressive parent needs a partner in the conflict and ensuing battle. That partner is the other parent. This is not to say that both parents share equally in the blame or initiate the offending actions. It must be acknowledged though, as I have seen, that both parents play a role in perpetuating the conflict. This conflict is mitigated by creating a new concept of the parent-parent and parent-child relationships which ultimately benefit the child.
notes
1] Sibbing v. Cave, 922 N.E.2d 594, 598 (Ind. 2010)
2] Ind. Parenting Time Guideline § I(E)(3) (emphasis added).
3] E.g., Marcia J. Carlson & Katherine A. Magnuson, Low-Income Fathers’ Influence on Children, In re Matter of E.M. And El.M. (Ind. 2014) citing 635 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 95, 107 (2011)
4] In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d 1157, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
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.
