Northbound Interstate 65 remains closed around Lafayette, Indiana as crews work to replace a sinking bridge that had been on a safety watch list for years. The bridge is over the Wildcat Creek. It sank 9 inches as crews were working to widen the bridge. This incident brings to mind the beauty of the correlation between desires and outcomes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In my life coaching experiences I present to my clients a model that includes the principle of setting goals and taking actions that are congruent with the course toward attaining those goals. Most people don’t have difficulty in setting their goals. Assistance is often needed in establishing a reasonable timeline. The need for professional counseling lies in not only how to start taking the steps toward the goals but in altering one’s perceptions so the goals become achievable.
All actions that are progressive need to be mindful and deliberate. Individuals should be attentive to what they are doing, be vigilant in watching for and correcting errors, and working toward improvement in their daily lives. Being mindful helps to shed the perfunctory, auto-pilot mode in which most people operate. Mindfulness allows the scripts and biases which obscure truths to be revealed and responsibility for outcomes accepted.
When parents are able to see that what they have been conditioned to do to “make their lives better” is instead maintaining the status quo and keeping them dependent then they are able to start improving their lives. More importantly their actions which inhibit better parent-parent and parent-child relationships are then extinguished.
The emergency closing of an interstate reveals the extent to which seemingly unrelated systems are integrated and actually produce the results we choose. The collapse of the bridge was a choice made by people who include many of those wanting to see the federal minimum wage raised. I have heard the clamoring for a $15 per hour minimum wage for about four years now. The underlying basis of the argument is the extent of time which has passed since it was last raised and what an inflation-weighted wage would now be.
Commensurate with this argument has been a conspicuously absent clamoring for a rise in the federal gasoline tax to what would amount to an inflation-adjusted setting of 30.4 cents per gallon from the current 18.4 cents.[en1] Quite the opposite occurred recently when demand for motor fuel decreased as did the subsequent net gas tax revenue. This occurred while bridges and roadways continued to deteriorate from weather based eroding forces or settling of bridges such as the one over Wildcat Creek.
Inflation adjustment fails to satisfy a sufficient funding of the federal Highway Trust Fund which has operated in the red for 14 years now. The rubric for adjusting the federal gasoline tax would also need to include an adjustment for mileage and speed. This is because the gallons of gasoline used to transport the same vehicles the same distance has decreased as aerodynamic and technological advances have improved fuel efficiency. Additionally, the formula for force -- weight multiplied by rate -- must be applied as a rise from 55 mph maximums up to 75 mph during this time has greatly increased the pounding that tires exert on roadways. A mitigating factor is that the fleet of passenger vehicles is getting lighter as non metallic composite materials and more efficient tubular designs are being used in vehicle construction.
The actuality of what has occurred is taxpayer demands to reduce federal roadway repair funding on an inflation-weighted basis which results in needed repairs being delayed. The result is a closure of a major interstate. Thus, in the abstract and integrated systems sense, motorists who have failed to demand an increase in the federal gas tax have achieved the results of what they chose -- added costs from the deliberate failure to maintain the roadways they use. Now they get to spend the money on more fuel using the detours, more time sitting in traffic and greater depreciation or repair costs to their vehicles from increasingly rougher roads.
It is these deeper understandings of interconnectedness and how mindful action drives proper decisions that lead to successful goals. Systems naturally produce equilibrium. The example is such an exemplary model that I get giddy just thinking about it. We all get the results we choose.
notes
1] Figure achieved using the Bureau of Labour Statistics Inflation Calculator
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, August 17, 2015
The Beauty in the Nature of Getting Desires Fulfilled
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
My comments on the proposed amendments for 2016 Indiana Child Support Guidelines
Honoured members of the Domestic Relations Committee -
Following are my comments on your draft proposal of modifications to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. For brevity I will not include the text of my previously made recommendations but will instead only make reference.
Of great contention is the amount of income to be attributed toward child support. The first paragraph of the Preface proclaims that the purpose of the Guidelines includes maintaining the “standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved or had the separation not been ordered[.]” Although most parents spend nearly their entire income, or greater, there are a few who place substantial amounts into investments, business ventures or have been and continue to provide ongoing support to extended family. Thus those monies have not been available for use by the immediate family and should not be considered income in calculating support. I suggest including language that invites judicial officers to consider a pattern of dispersing monies, expenses or investment that reduced the income available to the immediate family. This would be consistent with the treatment given to its opposite - the received support - as noted in the Commentary to 3A at [d] - “If there were specific living expenses being paid by a parent which are now being regularly and continually paid by that parent’s current spouse or a third party, the assumed expenses may be considered imputed income to the parent receiving the benefit.”
That last inclusion at [d] will be of substantial benefit in ensuring more equitable treatment of the parents and subsequent family members. As such, it should not be disturbed.
3C and its commentary were exhaustively vetted and I am satisfied with the proposed language.
The commentary to 3E at [2] provides a step toward figuring support in a manner consistent with actual expenditures - “In determining the amount to be added, only the amount of the insurance cost attributable to the child(ren) subject of the child support order shall be included, such as the difference between the cost of insuring a single party versus the cost of family coverage.” I have long advocated for this same approach such as if the one bedroom apartment is $600/mo and the two bedroom is $700/mo then the cost for the child is $100/mo which should then be attributed using the income shares model. This admittedly is inconsistent with the intent of reducing discovery as stated in Commentary to the Preface at Gross Income versus Net Income - “Under a net income approach, extensive discovery is often required to determine the validity of deductions claimed in arriving at net income. It is believed that the use of gross income reduces discovery.” Resolving support matters early in a manner that appears more equitable may reduce contention among parents and protracted litigation. Thus, reducing initial discovery to a point that an equitable support order cannot be found early may be a fallacious policy objective. I do not seek to revolutionize the calculation method at this point but merely mention this to keep the seed planted for future consideration. Likewise, I have previously advocated for a policy that promotes greater parental involvement by providing actual support rather than just money. Again, a matter for future consideration. Both of those were detailed in my report accompanying my testimony last year.
The Commentary to Guideline 8 at [2] provides the new language, “When determining whether or not to award post-secondary educational expenses, the court should consider each parent’s income, earning ability, financial assets and liabilities. If the expected parental contribution is zero under Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the court should not award post-secondary educational expenses. If the court determines an award of post-secondary educational expenses would impose a substantial financial burden, an award should not be ordered.” I vigorously applaud this inclusion and it should not be disturbed other than to add a factor of “a pattern of the parents’ expressed desires regarding the child’s post-secondary education.” The disparate treatment given to parents under court jurisdiction compared to those who are not in presuming that those under the court’s purview intended to and should pay a child’s college expenses has been inequitable and a long-standing injustice.
The thoughtful wordsmithing and grammatical accuracy is much appreciated as it provides a greater level of credence to the document which will manifest itself in greater respect by those subject to it. Of course the “or not” in the previous paragraph could be struck as “whether” presupposes both option of to act or not act.
The last thought for consideration is the potential to reduce overnight parenting time disputes by including language encouraging judicial officers, practitioners, and parents to take a liberal view of the parenting time credit by considering costs associated with a child during wakeful times. Children don’t each much, get taken to sporting or other events, or bounce around on the furniture and spill drinks while sleeping. Those things and their associated costs occur during wakeful times. Parents who provide substantial support for a child during the day should be credited for that support.
I appreciate the welcoming atmosphere that you have provided to me and other guests during the past two years as this review has taken place. I thank you for your consideration and, in some part, inclusion of my recommendations. I trust that you will always continue to pursue solutions that provide for more equitable treatment of parents, reduce conflict, and ultimately benefit the children.
Best Regards,
Stuart Showalter
A link to making a comment may be found here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Amendments for 2016 Indiana Child Support Guidelines open for public comment until 11 August 2015
The public comment period for providing input on the proposed amendments to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines [ICSG] in Tuesday 11 August 2015. I have provided a link to the website as well as some guidance for making comments in the recent posting Providing Public Comment on Proposed 2016 Indiana Child Support Guidelines.
I recently briefly discussed this issue on WIBC 93.1 FM. A link to that interview is available here.
The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC], the judicial body responsible for writing the ICSG, met in regular session on 17 July 2015. At that meeting a folder containing 465 pages of public comment was distributed to the members. Members had been reading comments prior to the meeting. During the meeting revisions were made to the proposed amendments based upon comments received. Members also discussed whether to make some substantive changes based upon the input received from the public.
The majority of the comments related to matters such as the change in the emancipation age or health insurance coverage. Those matters, however, reflect bringing the guidelines into compliance with legislative mandates and are not discretionary on the part of the judiciary which promulgates the ICSG.
While decisions regarding the proposed changes are not based upon popularity it does help the DRC members to know whether an issue raised by members of the public are unique to an individual case or are broadly applicable. For this reason not all comments need provide novel ideas.
The revised ICSG are expected to be adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court by 01 March 2016. Parents should use the Child Support Calculator at that time to determine if a modification is necessary. Indiana Code 31-16-8-1 requires that the amount of support calculated deviate by at least 20% and that no less than one year has elapsed since the last child support payment order was issued or that the circumstances have changed to such a degree that the current order is unreasonable.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Guardian Ad Litem to stand trial for perjury in Indiana child custody case
In Indiana, Del Anderson, a Guardian Ad Litem employed by Child Advocates, Inc., was sued by a father in a child custody dispute after Mr. Anderson testified in an 05 February 2013 child custody hearing that the father had caused the child’s school to go on “lock-down” following a threat by the father. The problem for Mr. Anderson is that the allegation was not true.
The principal and superintendent of the school as well as the Pendleton Chief of Police all appeared at a subsequent hearing held 05 April 2013 to testify that no lock-down had been employed at or around the time that Mr. Anderson alleged. Additionally, all testified that the father had not presented any behaviour that caused concern. I also testified about the ease at which I was able to determine that no records existed of a lock-down or police action at the school.
From time to time I hear from a parent who proclaims that the system is rigged, that there is bias against him or her, no one else is looking out for the best interest of the children, lawyers are just taking money and doing nothing to help, and that he or she is being unfairly demonized. Generally, the solution lies in getting that parent to change his or her perception of the process and take a proactive and positive role. On rare occasions the parent who appears to suffer from a persecution complex has a well founded complaint. Such was the case when this father, Brian Moore, was referred to me by a local attorney.
Through our therapeutic sessions Mr. Moore and I were able to alter his perception of the system and he became a skilled self-represented advocate. However, even I was detecting that there was a bias against him by some of the ancillary players involved. One of those was Del Anderson, the GAL, assigned to the case. Mr. Anderson’s duty was to advocate for the best interest of the children. There seemed to be little if any interest in the children expressed by Mr. Anderson. Instead, he appeared to me to be more interested in finding ways to justify the mother’s request to be the sole custodian of the children.
Mr. Anderson, according to the complaint filed this year, had engaged in a pattern of trying to persuade the judge to remove custody of the children from Mr Moore by presenting biased or false evidence against him. Mr. Anderson’s attorney, Cynthia Dean who is also employed by Child Advocates, Inc., had previously sent an email to Mr Moore instructing him to follow her interpretation of a clear and unambiguous order. Had he followed Dean’s instructions that would have placed him in violation of the order. The mother, Kristy Moore, on her own volition violated the order by doing just as Dean had instructed Brian to do. Thus, Kristy was the one found in contempt. I previously wrote about that in Child Advocates' Cynthia Dean should be removed from Moore v Moore case.
Mr. Moore had filed a motion to remove Mr. Anderson as the GAL back in 2012 when it was apparent to him that Anderson was not advocating for the best interest of the children. However, that motion to remove Anderson was denied on 12 September 2012 about five months before Anderson would fabricate the “lock-down” allegation. “I could see from his behaviour during the February [2013] hearing that this man had waged war against me in retaliation,” said Brian Moore who gained “a jaded view of the court system” during that process.
On 30 March 2015 attorney for Del Anderson, Trent Gill, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that Mr Anderson was immune from liability for his actions while performing his duties as a GAL. That argument is misplaced at best and actually frivolous. It could only be uttered by a woefully incompetent legal counsel. What makes it frivolous and aptly demonstrates the stupidity of its author is that immunity applies to the performance of one’s duty. I spoke to numerous GALs that I know in addition to reading materials that I have about GAL training and GAL duties and obligations. Nowhere in any of my research on this topic was I able to find any semblance of a duty described as “providing false testimony in a court of law.” Rather, quite the opposite was true. I was able to find numerous accounts of a GAL’s responsibility to testify truthfully, give objective assessments, and be unbiased toward the parents.
Commissioner Shannon Logston is presiding over the case against Mr. Anderson. On 20 July 2015 Commissioner Logston ruled that Mr. Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that he has immunity from prosecution for his acts as a GAL is denied. In that ruling she cited that there exist a genuine dispute with respect to a material fact regarding the actions of defendant Anderson and whether those actions involved gross negligence so as to remove said actions from statutory immunity.
At the summary judgment hearing Commissioner Logston curtly rebuked attorney Trent Gill’s facetious argument. Logston stated, “I don’t think lying to the court is protected by civil immunity.” Logston again responded to the argument saying, “I do not believe that in any way whatsoever someone is protected if they lie to a court . . . by civil immunity or common law immunity . . .” Responding to Gill’s repeated immunity assertion she said, “I don’t agree that that is covered by civil immunity.” Gill was apparently missing the substance of her declarations which she summarized as, “And I don’t believe that that is what is intended by immunity . . . is to defend someone from intentionally making untrue statements to a court . . . as part of their job.” Clearly Anderson’s perjured testimony, which amounts to gross negligence in the performance of his duties, removes his immunity provided by Indiana Code 31-17-6-8 and common law.
A jury will be empanelled in the Marion County Superior Court 13 where Mr. Anderson will stand trial although no date has been set at this time. The cause number of this suit is 49D13-1502-CT-003909.
Although the Marion County Prosecutor declined to file criminal charges against Mr Anderson in 2013 the evidence revealed at the forthcoming civil trial may be cause for reconsideration. The prosecutor has until 05 February 2018 to file charges.
For those who have encountered the slanderous allegations by third-party interlopers in child custody proceedings they don’t have to accept it without recourse. Brian Moore is thankful that he has pursued this matter saying, “It was tremendously refreshing to see a judge demonstrating that she could see that Anderson was behaving as an adversary toward me.” The critical element leading to this success is preparation. I eluded to that in Just when you thought it was safe to lie on the witness stand where I detailed some of Anderson’s false allegations.
The wheels of justice do turn slowly and it can be an arduous endeavor but for those who have the patience, proper guidance and fortitude to allow the system to work they can find solace in Mr Moore’s accomplishments. It has seemed at times that the court was clearly against Mr. Moore. His income was imputed at $50,000 and his support obligation raised to an impossible to pay level. He was then denied access to legal counsel at a contempt hearing and faced incarceration. But he availed himself of the judicial process by appealing both. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that his income could be imputed to a maximum of $22,200 and in a published opinion the court ruled that indigent parents who may face jail time upon a finding of contempt are entitled to a pauper attorney. By properly using the courts Mr Moore was victorious in those two child support related appeals last year and has overcome a nearly insurmountable hurdle in this case -- statutory and common law immunity. Although it has be trying for times over the past five years for Mr Moore he concludes that, “Commissioner Logston has resuscitated my faith in the judiciary.”
As for what Mr Anderson can expect to be held liable for Commissioner Shannon declared that, “damages don’t have to be monetary,” “time, emotional distress, . . . loss of parenting time.” Jurors will be asked to consider the monetary value they would place on having their children taken away from them based upon a false allegation. Additionally, Mr Moore will be asking jurors to award punitive damages substantial enough to send a clear message to any witness in a child custody proceeding that they best be honest with the court.
If you are experiencing similar difficulties in your case please contact my scheduler if you would like to apply for my services.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
