Asking for what you want in your child custody case to achieve an agreement

A problem that I continually see in child custody conflicts are the perception by parents that they will be giving up control in a custody agreement; that the other parent is imposing a mandate upon me. This cognitive aversion to concession can be the result of the framing of proposals. A recent incident perfectly illustrates this point.

I was asked to install an electrical outlet in the liquor room of a restaurant. I was told where it was to be installed and to access electricity from an existing junction box. In that box was four wires tied together and one pairing that is hot when the light is turned on. So I joined the outlet to the pairing for the light switch instead of creating a grouping of five wires under one nut. This seemed reasonable as anyone who would come in and use the outlet, vacuuming or whatever, would likely turn on the light first. Now I have been asked to come back and rewire it because it was discovered that the refrigerator plugged into that outlet was not staying cool because it would not operate unless the light was turned on.

Therein lies the problem -- I was not told the objective. If I was told that the purpose for my employ was because the owner wanted to operate a refrigerator in the liquor room elementary logic would dictate that I install an outlet for it and ensure that it has a continuous flow of electricity. But instead I was told the process; wire an outlet to a particular point on the wall with no additional condition. It was as though I could have just as easily have been hanging a painting.

It is such hidden objectives that often confound child custody negotiations. I see this uniformly when parents are represented by attorneys. They each submit proposals drafted in the language of a court order; times, locations, duties, and such. Each parent enters the negotiation expecting to chip away his or her proposed order, bit by bit, as little as possible. This is the deconstructive approach. It ensures conflict and burdens negotiation. Contrary to this approach I recommend and present a constructive approach.

I try to minimize the impact of parental difficulties on the relationships as much as possible. Imagine or recall a time prior to the birth of the children when you envisioned your future parenting activities. Which of us detailed a schedule such as “Oh it will be such a joy to be able to play with my child from 3:00pm - 8:00pm beginning on Mondays and Thursdays and following through to the next day except on alternating weekends when the Thursday will continue until Sunday at 7:00pm and that I will be responsible for bathing the child and for providing all regular meals including dinner on those days while in my care and for providing transportation from day-care/school and when being returned on Sunday evenings.” Rather, I contend those fantasies were something more akin to “It will be great to get home from work to see our son, play with him, and prepare meals for him. Of course there will be days that I will want to come home and rest or I will have a client dinner. On those days you have you take care of the children unless you are too tired. If so he can stay at daycare until 6:00” That is the difference between objective and process. Parents usually have similar objectives but conflict is created or exacerbated by process. Process comes cloaked in the presumption of trying to tell the other parent how his or her relationship is going to be controlled.

A negotiation that begins with “What days are going to be the most difficult for you to tend to the children or provide transportation?” is more likely to receive a positive response. In any communication seeking fulfilment of an objective think first are you asking for your process to be fulfilled or your objective. You are more likely to be satisfied when you seek an objective.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Petition to Rescind or Vacate an Indiana Paternity Affidavit - Court of Appeals Opinion

In a recent published opinion the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a trial court should have granted a father’s petition seeking to rescind or vacate the paternity affidavit which he executed while he was a minor. Generally, minors are not considered competent to make important legal decisions or be held accountable for their actions. This is why minors may not contract and that proceedings for crimes committed by minors are initiated in a juvenile court. As for signing a paternity affidavit there is no requirement that the father be an adult or that an adult or guardian sign on his behalf. In the instant case the father was age 17 when he signed the paternity affidavit [1998] and he did so without counsel. It is upon Father’s challenge to the affidavit that he was under duress when he signed it and did not make an informed decision.

At the time Father executed the paternity affidavit, the Indiana statute provided two ways to establish paternity: either through filing an action for paternity [I.C. 31-14 et seq] or by executing a paternity affidavit [I.C. § 16-37-2-2.1]. The statute provided that “Immediately before or after the birth of a child who is born out of wedlock, a person who attends or plans to attend the birth, including personnel of all public or private birthing hospitals, shall: (1) provide an opportunity for: (A) the child’s mother; and (B) a man who reasonably appears to be the child’s biological father; to execute an affidavit acknowledging paternity of the child[.]” [I.C. § 16-37-2-2.1(1998)]. Any request for genetic testing must be made within sixty days after a paternity affidavit is executed. [I.C. § 16-37-2-2.1(k)(1998)]. “A paternity affidavit that is properly executed [] may not be rescinded more than sixty (60) days after the paternity affidavit is executed except in cases of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.” [I.C. § 16-37-2-2.1(i)(1998)].

In this instant case Father alleged that he was under duress and that there was fraud or mistake of fact. Particularly, Father alleged when executing the paternity affidavit, he was seventeen years of age, lived in a foster home, and no parent or guardian was present when he visited Mother and baby in the hospital. Further, he was excited and wanted to see the baby. He readily admitted to having engaged in sexual intercourse with Mother. He stated that, during the visitation, a nurse handed him the paternity affidavit to sign. In establishing mistake or fraud he stated that he believed that signing the affidavit merely would give the child his last name. In establishing duress Father testified that at the time he “actually signed the affidavit,” Mother and Grandmother told him that he would never see the baby if he “didn’t man up and do what [he] was supposed to do. And that they’d go to the group home; run to the news and tell them I’m a child in the group home that had sex with her daughter, and she’d get the group home closed down and things like that.”

Furthermore, Father argued to the appellate panel that while acknowledging that the current statute with regard to the execution of paternity affidavits is not applicable, he should received special consideration because a subsequent “change in the law [] highlights the problematic and coercive situation [Father], a minor, was operating under[.]” It is precisely a scenario like that which father espouses that I envisioned when seeking a modification in the law, which was amended in the year 2010, to include a provision for counsel to a minor.

That section added to statute, now current, states that:
An individual who is (1) a (A) child’s mother; or (B) person identified as the father []; and (2) less than eighteen (18) years of age; must have an opportunity to consult with any adult chosen by the individual regarding the contents of a paternity affidavit before signing the paternity affidavit under this section. A signed paternity affidavit is voidable if the individual does not have the opportunity to consult with an adult chosen by the individual [I.C. § 16-37-2-2.1(t)(1)].

Of import is that the affidavit is now voidable if the minor did not have an opportunity to consult with any adult of his or her choosing prior to signing. Voidable still requires court action. The consultation is optional and the adult providing counsel need have no special expertise. The non-mandatory provisions were made to be so to allow for there to be less of a barrier to getting both parents identified as early as practical.

In the instant case though Mother disputed Father’s testimony that he was unaware of the contents or purpose of the document and did consult with an adult. Mother testified that upon handing Father the paternity affidavit for his signature, the nurse explained “everything” to “both of them.” Also, Mother clarified that prior to signing, Father telephoned his mother and stated to her that “Mom, I know the child is mine, I don’t care what you say and I’m going to sign the papers.”

Based upon the conflicting evidence the trial court was in the position of weighing the evidence and judging witness credibility. Father’s appeal is essentially asking the appellate panel to do just that. The reviewing courts have long held that “We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.” [Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. 2013)]. After the trial court denied Father’s request he filed with the trial court a Motion to Correct Errors from which the court’s decision upholding its initial conclusion was the basis for the appeal. The trial court’s decision on a motion to correct error comes to an appellate court cloaked in a presumption of correctness, and the appellant has the burden of proving that the trial court abused its discretion. [Petersen v. Burton, 871 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)].

At the time Father challenged the paternity affidavit the child was 15 years of age, Father had been exercising court ordered parenting time for 13 years, and Father’s recent attempts to get child support payments reduced had failed. While there are proper reasons and times for challenging a paternity affidavit I agree with the trial court that this was not one. Time and again, the appellate courts have emphasized that allowing a party to challenge paternity when the party has previously acknowledged himself to be the father should only be allowed in extreme and rare circumstances. [In re Paternity of R.C., 587 N.E.2d 153, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)]. This is because it gives the child a filius nullius status -- being the child of no one. This was not one of those rare circumstances.

In crafting the language of Indiana’s New Paternity Law I felt satisfied in maintaining the sixty day period to challenge the affidavit. I based this upon it being sufficient time for the euphoria or general emotion that may override rational thinking to have subsided or for information contradicting parentage to surface. Although neither court specifically addressed it, I feel that after 15 years of being a father to the child it is absolutely improper to challenge paternity even if genetic testing proves the man to not be the biological father of the child. In this instant case Father did not challenge his status as the biological father. Notwithstanding, allowing paternity to be rescinded at such a substantial time after the man has acted as a father to the child would be equivalent to an adoptive parent suddenly proclaiming that I am not the child’s biological parent and no longer want to continue my role as the child’s parent. Therefore, the child can go find a new parent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

25 Years ago today Judge Sarah Evans Barker sentenced me to Life

When I appeared before Judge Barker in the US District Court in Indianapolis as a young man just a few months into his third decade on this planet I was a much different person than he who exists today, yet much the same. It was a militant adherence to the concept that the US Constitution is absolutely supreme and that a government that favours racial discrimination and denies liberty and equity to its citizens must be abolished -- by force if necessary.

My fledgling mind packed with the latent learning of a neglectful and abusive childhood may have improperly synergized the academic indoctrination presented in an idealized manner. It was, afterall, our Founding Fathers who are so revered for penning the Declaration of Independence which proclaimed that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . .”[emphasis added] Thus, if on a ubiquitous basis the current government regime was denying to certain people their unalienable rights, I was entitled -- or obligated -- to endeavor to institute a new government. These were our natural rights as the Founders had proclaimed. Their use of “God” or “Creator” was a placeholder for nature as the anthropomorphized “Mother Nature” is similarly used.

I entered the courtroom where Judge Barker presides imbued by my self-righteous indignation at the way our government treated the citizenry and me. I was in the halls of government and yielded no respect to Judge Barker who appeared as the face of that tyrannical government accusing me. Prior to arriving I had been informed by an FBI agent that I was already convicted and to just try to get by the easiest that I could. My attitude reflected this during a hearing in which Judge Barker asked me about where my attention had wandered. I told her I was watching the stenographer and trying to learn the keystroke patterns that represented what was said. Barker then asked if I thought I should be paying attention to the proceedings instead. I promptly retorted that I did not need to because the outcome had been determined before I arrived.

In the end Barker leveled that gavel right across my forehead and sentenced me to an aggregate of 74 months, just 24 months in excess of the statutory maximum. That sentence was later reduced on appeal. So my statement that she “sentenced me to life” was not made in the sense of the life sentence that is meted to a substance distributor. Rather, she sentenced me to life in that she gave me life by sending me to prison.

I am confident in declaring that if not for her intervention -- disdainful as it appeared at the time -- that my corporeal existence would have dissolved soon thereafter. The forces that wish to maintain the status quo are ingrained and powerful. I had been accosted by gang members, chased by armed individuals, threatened with death by police officers, and associated with various schemes that involved illegal activity that would surely have lead to a much lengthier prison term. It wasn’t unlike me to clear a parking lot of people just by popping the trunk as it was well known that I often toted a machine gun.

A few years ago I sent a letter to Judge Barker thanking her for sending me to prison. I also provided to her a brief update about my public policy efforts regarding child custody and Domestic Violence. Last year while we both attended a civic event I recognized her, introduced myself and asked if she recalled who I was. It was our first face-to-face meeting since the resentencing following the appellate decision. I had no idea what her response would be. She did recall me which wasn’t a surprise. I do have a way about me that can leave a memorable impression. What I didn’t expect was that she reacted by wrapping her arms around me and embracing me like a mother would welcome a son home from a precipitous journey.

We spoke briefly about our prior interlude which took place nearly 25 years earlier. She made the profound statement that unified decades of actions and psychologically predictable reactions. She was aware of the motivations that drove my actions and what could have sent my formidable drive in a socially acceptable direction as I currently do in shaping public policy on child custody matters. She told me that she wished that we could have just talked together as we could likely have resolved the issue that way. Then added, but that is not the way the system is set up.

She recognized in me what often is the underpinning of many youthful outburst. That is, not being given a voice. I was raised in an authoritarian household where I wasn’t allowed to question directives or rules. I learned that might made right. That authority is not derived from reason or logic but through a hereditary hierarchy enforced through brute force. To be heard, to surmount opposition, one gets louder or violent.

In school there was no place for cogent reasoning or questioning authority as it was called. A simple paralipsis would not satiate my need for a rational underpining to a rule. I recall getting hit for invalidating illogical mandates beginning around second grade. A rapid ascension toward mastery of logic skills took place immediately preceding middle school. Precocious in both reasoning and recognizing patterns in behaviours I knew how to expose and exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of my tormentors. The application of the skill reached its zenith in prison. I relished getting stripped naked and tossed onto the cold concrete floor of a solitary confinement cell for I knew then that I had won another round. I had used my figurative dagger to pry open the mind of someone and exposed a truth that was painful to confront, painful enough to provoke that type of retaliation. It was there that some of my fellow inmates got into my head as well.

There were two gentlemen in particular. One a congenial soft spoken fellow, an analyst who minded his own business and often went unnoticed. He was a hefty guy who waddled to and from his work detail without a change in mood and laid back in his chair, eyelids always hanging low, and simply observed the activities on the block. Our discussions generally centered on wherein lies the nexus between nature and nurture, and to what degree are we responsible for our own actions. We explored what may be referred to as human nature and the much broader scope that our decisions have on our lives. It was through him that I learned that I was completely responsible for getting myself to prison and that each person whom I blamed was only an actor whom I manipulated to produce the outcome that I needed. The other was a much more rapturous fellow who was physically fit and active. He was a tall slender guy who enjoyed the social life of activities in the yard or just hanging out in his cell which was where I eventually made my home. It was always a party there. He was a synthetic drug manufacturer who kept the DEA busy rewriting the chemical formulas for scheduled drugs. He was clearly one of the geniuses who was at the higher end of the group which is unusually large in federal prison. This guy raised awareness of consciousness. What or who directed our thoughts? Who wrote the scripts that we follow and why do we follow them? Are we being human by following the customs and norms of society or are the customs and norms of society depriving us of our humanity? He was the philosopher. The take away from him was to question everything. Not just from the why and how perspectives but also the who, as in who does it serve. My actions from that point forward were viewed by me at a much deeper level which naturally produces a longer-term outlook.

Judge Barker gave me an opportunity that I would not have found elsewhere. The confluence of actors and actions resulted in me being exactly where I needed to be. I am reminded of an ending scene in the movie The Matrix [this is a must see for so many reasons] in which the protagonist, Neo, asks why the soothsayer, The Oracle, told him that he was not ‘the one’ when in actuality he was. The Oracle told Neo what he needed to hear. Similarly, I was not sent to prison as a punitive measure but was sent there to give me a break. A break that Judge Barker could see that I needed. This provided the opportunity to learn the wisdom of others and fulfill the sentence that Judge Barker so generously gave to me -- life!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Elements of a strong marriage - Arguing

In any persuasive discourse it is necessary to first define the terms. Herein I use marriage interchangeably with any relationship similar to that of marriage in the sense that there is cohabitation, long-term commitment, intimacy and, while desirable but not necessary, passionate love. To argue is to use logic and reasoning in an effort to advance one’s position for another to adopt while being open to other positions offered. To fight is to use force, threat or intimidation to advance one’s own will by subjugating others to it.

I gather and process relationship information from my environment on an on-going basis. This includes first hand observations of families in their natural setting, clinical observations, courtroom observations, interviews of parents, and interviews of children both as children and adults about their childhood familial experiences. Another source comes from what I feel is the greatest art form available to us for examining human relations and events -- the motion picture. Movies provide visceral accounts of the dynamics of interpersonal relationships in a way that cannot be captured solely by the written word. Movies provide a history of relationship norms over the past few generations as well as previous generations as those were recorded in the compositions of the times.

The previous paragraph contains my proposition that movies are the greatest art form man has ever had. That is my opinion. It is also opinion that Earth is a sphere rotating on a 28 degree axis orbiting the Sun on an elliptical path while our solar system rotates around a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy which is hurtling through space on an outward trajectory from a central point of origin of all matter [and anti-matter]. It was once a “fact” that Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. I have not been to an observation point to determine whether the current opinion is correct but I find it to be the most valid opinion based upon the mathematical calculations. This is the essence of argument -- advancing an opinion based upon logic and reasoning. Thus, some opinions have greater validity. People who are dismissive of propositions in saying that “everyone has an opinion and that is just yours” are making what I call the equal weighting fallacy. Not all opinions have equal weight nor are some valid.

In my proposition that motion pictures are the greatest art form in that they can best capture the essence of humanity at any time I feel is validated and carries greater weight than the opinion that other art forms are best. Indeed our supreme court has acknowledge that viewing the live actions of people provides a better vantage point from which to make observations of their demeanor and subsequent judgments resulting from that as opposed to reading a record of their conversations.[en1]

In marriage I find that all too often “argument” and “fight” are mistakenly used interchangeably. This may be based upon the cascading effect of argument leading to fight when mutual respect is not honoured. Popular culture seems to perpetuate the confusion.[en2] Our young people seem to express an idealized view that a marriage without arguing is blissful and thus desirable. I contend that a marriage without argument is akin to two tectonic plates pursuing the same location without accommodation. The result is earthquake or, in the contractual marital terms, dissolution.

While I do not eliminate the possibility that two individuals may exist who uniformly draw consensus without discussion I heavily discount the probability of them finding each other and being wed. Most marriages are from people who met through proximity -- you marry those to whom you are regularly exposed. In the 1930’s most married couples lived within 10 blocks of each other when they met.[en3] Thus, when I hear a couple proclaim “we never argue” I feel sorrow for the lack of compassion in their marriage. Lack of argument is based upon two adverse possibilities. The first, and I find most common, is the power imbalance. The power imbalance provides that while each partner is free to express an opinion and support it with logic and reasoning, in the end, one partner has veto power. The subservient partner becomes conditioned to no longer express a conflicting opinion because regardless of how well crafted and supported the argument it can be nullified through authoritarian command. The second is that the partners do not value each other enough to make argument.

Argument requires effort. Proud I am of my son who won a few rounds at the national debate championships last year. He expended significant effort to formulate and deliver his arguments. Argument was something we had worked on since I obtained his first college level books on the subject for him while he was in grade school. We had always practiced rationality in his life. I never used authoritarian discipline or subjugation on him but instead provided the rational basis for my position which he then adopted as rational as opposed to his generally more primitive demands for immediate satisfaction. At age three he would accept my position that bright colours and characters on cereal boxes did not enhance the nutritional content of the cereal contained within but were intended to appeal to basic neural drives of children. This demonstrates a loving commitment, not to rule over but, to help him understand and grow as a person who can think logically and make wise decisions. The same is true in marriage.

Arguing to a marital partner says that I care about you enough to make an argument instead of simply imposing my way. Argument respects the other person by saying I believe that you are competent enough to understand. It says that I am willing to listen to and consider your proposition. It says that I value you enough as a person to expend the effort and time to engage you in a friendly banter over an issue.

Argument precedes advances in society. Argument is a way of vetting propositions and determining the best solution by consensus rather than authority or dogma. The status quo should be challenged in the pursuit of more viable or efficient alternatives. Marriage is a business partnership; it is the business of selling your product and services to your partner or buying your partner’s product and services for mutual benefit. So go on and argue . . . for the sake of your marriage.

Endnotes
[1] While we are not able to say the trial judge could not have found otherwise than he did upon the evidence introduced below, this Court as a court of review has heretofore held by a long line of decisions that we are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence, or that he should have found its preponderance or the inferences therefrom to be different from what he did. Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002).
[2] In the movie The Big Chill, while riding in a funeral procession, Mary Kay Place mentions that they last time she spoke with the deceased they had a “fight.” William Hurt responds by asking what was the “argument” about.
[3] Vandenburg, S.G. "Assortative mating, or who marries whom?" Behavior Genetics, 2, 127-158.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Electric Cars, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Absence of Logic

Nothing else seems to spark voracious debate on reasoning and logic like posting that there is a Logical Argument for God and cult participation, but, that a belief in God and cult participation is not rational. I enjoy the debate as it contributes to sharpening my thinking skills that are critical to the cogent reasoning that I employ for writing appeals of child custody and support decisions. During the course of recent debate on this issue I have been exposed to a plethora of logical fallacies and double standards. This brings forth another pleasure, examining the psychological implications and causations of the faulty reasoning. As for the theological ramifications I could care less. People should be free to believe whatever they wish so long as their behaviours based upon those beliefs do not impose upon or harm other people. The lack of cogent reasoning amongst the general population is concerning though as it does affect public policy and, consequently, the rights and well-being of children, especially those whose parents are engaged in a battle over the custody of the them.

So, for kicks I resorted to something that I have long reviled as a hypocrisy that is replete with logical fallacies and outright lies -- the electric car hypothesis. Earlier in this century electric car technology was the subject of much attention and scrutiny when California adopted a zero emissions law that required manufacturers of consumer automobiles to meet minimum sales quotas for vehicles that used electric motors. [motors use electricity, engines use organic fuels] The law was eventually repealed but not before significant debate and public protests which were generally aimed at General Motors -- a name that is not as contradictory as it may appear.*

In Los Angeles, California adolescents and young adults have a rate of chronic lung disease that far exceeds the national average. The culprit most attributed to this is smog as the result of fossil fuel emissions from automobiles. In support of electric vehicles Hollywood celebrities [a class of people whom I believe think they are imbued with the knowledge of how to solve all the world’s problems solely based on their status as actors] such as Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson purchased electric vehicles and advocated for their use. They were joined by other consumers and environmental activists who touted the benefits of electric vehicles. Hanks jokingly quipped that he was ‘saving America’ by driving an electric vehicle and received applause for such from what I contend is a less hypocritical audience.

The problem that I have with these advocates of electric vehicles -- and now hybrids -- is that their support is based upon a distinction bias. That is the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately. Electric vehicle proponents like to frame the issue as “electric good, gasoline bad!” When comparing motor to engine propelled vehicles electric does appear good. But that is an either or fallacy because it discounts much better and viable alternatives; walking, cycling, creating proximity of destinations, and using public transportation.

These consumers are rationalizing their behaviour and revealing their selfishness in such statements as “there is no pollution coming out of your tailpipe” and “it’s so quiet.” It is true that the electric vehicles do not emit pollution from their tailpipes. Their pollution is emitted from the smokestacks of the coal powered electricity production facilities, from the metal fabrication plants, the assembly plants, the transporters, and on down the line. The oil based asphalt material applied to the roof of a car dealership building or that used in the parking lot is the same whether an electric or gasoline powered vehicle is sold there. While the car itself may be quiet for the driver the noise of train cars hauling coal through neighborhoods of people in the lower economic class is not so appealing to their ears. The diesel emissions from the engines of those trains likely isn’t helping those children breathe easier either.

Additionally, when making claims about electric vehicle efficiency, these advocates for and users of electric vehicles misrepresent the truth or flat out lie, much they way Michael Moore does in his propaganda films. I can assure you that NO passenger automobile can travel 125 miles on the actual power produced by one gallon of gasoline. Yet that is a claim that electric car advocates make about those cars. An electric car may travel 100+ miles on 30+ kilowatt hours of electricity. That is about the equivalent BTUs emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline. The amount of kilowatts of electricity produced by a gallon of oil is about 15/kWh. Generally about 2 gallons of oil can be refined to one gallon of gasoline. This does not mean that it goes to waste because asphalt, diesel fuel and numerous other petroleum products are also made. I will still use a 1:1 ratio then because only about 1-2% of crude is lost in the refining process. So to be truthful proponents should admit that it takes over two gallons of oil to propel one of their electric vehicles 100+ miles. An improvement over most combustion engines but not nearly as efficient or economical as implied by the 100+ mpg ratings which are based upon the BTU rating for the burn of one gallon of gasoline. The rating does not account for the inefficiency of burning oil to spin turbines for producing electricity nor the electricity lost in the transmission process.

Electric vehicle proponents do have a valid argument for their advocacy. However, they append global warming to their reasoning basis and draw an illusory correlation between glacial melting and the use of combustion engine vehicles. To support this perceived correlation they will show in their propaganda material chunks of glaciers falling into the ocean but not establish a direct cause and effect relationship.

Glacial ice acts much like the products in the dairy case at a grocery store. There, forced fresh stock rotation is achieved by loading milk in a single column from the back and letting those jugs slide down to consumers in the front. Similarly, Glaciers also use gravitational pull to project outward the mound of snow accumulating at the peak. As a glacier front reaches the ocean or other warmer surface it begins to melt and break apart. Concurrently snow is falling on the mound and the process continues. It is cyclical. Al Gore in his oxymoronic titled propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, used the image of a glacier front breaking apart and falling into the ocean laid over his narrative to support his proposition that global warming is occurring and harming the environment -- destroying glaciers. Gore commits the base rate fallacy of ignoring that a certain rate of glacial demise occurs naturally. When advocates use blatant false logic like this in their argument they lose credibility and what may be a legitimate concern must be dismissed based upon the violation of trust by attempting to dupe listeners.

Proponents of electric vehicles in making their argument commit a number of logical fallacies as well and ignore disconfirming evidence. They psychologically rationalize their use of electric vehicles through omission bias. By framing the argument as oil versus electricity they feel that they are on the moral high ground but they are discounting the harmful effects of driving regardless of the fuel source. Their use of electric vehicles, as I have previously described in numerous ways, does contribute to carbon emissions but also contributes to pollution in another way. By being on the roadway they are increasing congestion which reduces efficiency and boosts idling time of other vehicles. Additionally, their use contributes to total road surface area construction and maintenance. This congestion and construction/maintenance cause combustion engine vehicles to produce more emissions. Thus, by proxy, electric vehicles are causing carbon emissions.

Framing the argument as oil versus electric instead of oil and electric vehicles while omitting not driving can be analogous to rationalizing some form of child sexual abuse. Anal rape of small children results in much greater physical trauma to children than digital vaginal penetration, oral copulation, or fondling. Hospitalization, surgery, and lost productivity of caretakers at home is a significant cost of anal rape that doesn’t occur with fondling. Eliminating anal rape of children would reduce the overall trauma to children and costs associated with child sexual abuse at a rate likely to be commensurate to that of oil versus electric [coal] powered vehicles. Although I haven’t crunched the numbers I am well informed on child sexual abuse and roughly know the costs associated with sexual abuse by type. Much like fondling or oral copulation is to anal rape the use of electric vehicles compared to gasoline powered is still part of the same collection of offenses. The pollution caused by electric vehicles is just hidden elsewhere much as the still significant costs of the non-physical effects of child sexual abuse are not readily visible.

When all factors are considered, electric vehicles are not a viable solution to meaningful carbon emission reduction. To be genuine, these celebrities and advocates of electric vehicles should take meaningful steps instead of shifting the type and location of their pollution. To make more than token reductions in their environmental impact they could relocate their residence closer to their usual travel destinations, use human power for transportation [or where I am now maybe sled dogs], support and use public transportation, and in general think and act efficiently in all aspects of life.

Propaganda loses its allure when it is attacked through logical reasoning. Electric powered vehicles as the means to reversing global pollution build up have had their asses kicked.

Be skeptical, think critically!

*In the early twentieth century motor propelled vehicles were about one-third of all. Motor companies predominated the early automobile development. This does not imply that automobile producers can accurately describe their product. They continue to describe vehicles as having four or five speeds although the number of speeds that an automobile is capable of is infinite. Just one acceleration to braking event produces millions of speeds.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com