Thursday, May 28, 2015

Is School Graduation an Accomplishment worthy of Celebration?

So it is the time of year again when students are graduating from college or high school and the resultant festivities abound. Of late has been the inclusion of elementary schools or preschools into the graduation process. It is a given that accomplishments are worthy of praise and celebration, especially those which are facilitated through rigorous application of one’s skills or knowledge. In light of that I believe all of this celebration honouring the act of completing an educational phase is misplaced.

From my perspective I saw being given a letter grade supposedly commensurate to my comprehension or application of the subject matter material as the equivalent of grading me on my “friendshipness” or “appreciation of the world” skills. This is because becoming educated should not be a chore. Rather it should result from the love of learning which is a step in the process of self-fulfillment. If education becomes task, a hardship to be surmounted, an ends in itself then it has been administered improperly. On that level it is no different than designing, building and then collecting never-driven automobiles in a museum.

I find the mystery of the niche carved out for celebration of formal education to be a compelling course of inquiry. Imagine if the same standard was applied to non-formal educational domains. Take healthfulness for example. Your doctor says that you have dangerously high blood pressure. This professional draws blood and has the nurse take your other vital signs. You are then scheduled for a follow-up consultation a week later. Throughout that week you sit before the screen of access to the magical world of the Internet and imbue yourself with knowledge about causes and remediation of high blood pressure. The scheduled day arrives and you return to your doctor’s office where you present to Doc your analysis of your condition and a diet, exercise and lifestyle management plan that will bring your blood pressure within the healthful range in under a year. Doc concurs with your assessment and plan in its entirety and gleefully proclaims you to be a success. Family and friends coordinate a celebration in honour of your achievement in remedying your potentially lethal blood pressure situation.

Celebrating the knowledge of how to improve one’s health or build a home for that matter is not going to extend your life or put a roof over your head. The knowledge must be applied. The same goes for athletics which has traditionally stood at the opposite end to formal education in the celebration spectrum. At a time far back in my life I was one of about 150 professional cyclist in the United States. Those of us competing at that level had already surpassed about 99% of the athletes who may have had similar aspirations. That was no cause for celebration though. Neither was finishing a race. It was the race that determined who would celebrate which was he who crossed the line first. The second guy was considered the first to lose.

With this comparative analysis in mind I return to education. Under the formal education celebratory schema applied to athletics the first celebration for me would have come upon acquiring a bicycle, which can be quite an accomplishment considering the price. This could be equated to demonstrating minimal proficiency across the domains of general knowledge such as is acknowledged through the awarding of a high school diploma. The next celebration would come when an elite bicycle is acquired which is tailored for a particular event such as a track sprint, track time trial, criterium, road race or road time trial. This would correlate to receiving a degree from a college or university.

There exist, however, a vast chasm between obtaining the equipment [or knowledge] and successfully using it in a real world scenario such as a race or occupation. So while we are attendant to the celebrations of our young people passing through another gate on the education continuum let’s keep it in perspective. Obtaining a diploma is no more of an accomplishment than Tiger Woods getting a golf club or Mark Donohue a race car. It is what they did with the tools of their passion that was cause for celebration.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©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

Friday, May 22, 2015

Why Integrity Matters and how the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation lost it

Integrity is an principle of character found upon elements including honesty, fortitude, dependability, and the equitable treatment of similarly situated people. Integrity is a demonstration of morality.

Nearly half of us were raised by parents lacking necessary integrity for us to form a secure attachment. These parents may have ignored our pleas for aid choosing to instead respond at their convenience. Others may have been less harmful but still harmful in administering physical abuse. Whatever the method employed to inhibit the establishment of a secure attachment these parents failed to demonstrate integrity. That is, they did not project to our infant selves that they would be dependable, that we were treated fairly, that we were of primary importance, and that they possessed the qualities necessary to fulfill their decision to be and undertaking as a parent.

As adults all of us look for integrity in the persons with whom we have relationships; be they personal or business. Likewise others are looking for that quality in each of us. When engaging in a reciprocal bond we do so upon trust. That trust is violated when an action lacking in integrity is neither acknowledged or corrected.

For parents it is critical that they demonstrate integrity to their children. This is more fundamental to providing a child of parents in conflict with the security that his or her needs will be met during the time of great flux. Honesty with the child, consistency, and fair treatment help to meet this need. Your bad day at work is not justification for ignoring your child, administering arbitrary punishments, or lying about the basis for not meeting a child’s wants or needs. As I imbue in my clients there is only one valid excuse: I failed to make that a priority.

Integrity is not differentiated in the business spectrum. Regardless of what is happening personally your customers, clients, guest, visitors, or however the other party in your relationship is titled he or she must be treated with respect backed by integrity. It is ultimately the responsibility of management at the highest level to ensure that everyone throughout the personnel echelon adheres to principles of integrity.

The incident at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which I wrote about in 2011 Indianapolis Motor Speedway - Indy 500, demonstrated the lack of integrity of the track personnel from the President down. The incident of being treated with such disrespect was the defeasance to our contract. That contract was terminated at my request to do so if the administration felt that they would be unable to compel their employees to be dignified in their treatment of me. After some phones calls at the administration office the contract was terminated.

I followed-up with an email to the president of the IMS Corp who refused to acknowledge my complaint sent to him. This further exudes his dereliction in personnel matters. The disputatious basis for rudely telling me to “just get out!” is irrelevant to the matter of the disrespect shown to anyone who is a guest of a business facility. Even if the employee had not been incorrect about her made-up-on-the-spot policy no visitor to a facility should be shouted at by an employee and told to leave upon challenging the employee to substantiate the so-called policy.

Collectively as stewards of our society we must demonstrate integrity for our children. This requires severing ties to those who lack integrity and harm children in the process. When a clerk at Wal-Mart say the clearance price on a toy my son had chosen she called over the store manager. The manager asked if there were anymore. When I responded no she took the toy from my son and said “This is not for sale” leaving my son sitting in the cart crying. Respect for my son, my character, and my duty as a steward of the society upon which my son would evolve required that I never make a financial contribution to Wal-Mart again. Regretfully I was in a jam once and made a late night purchase there in the past 15 years. But I have since made it a priority to never again be in the position of needing to patronize Wal-Mart. The love of my son requires it. He knows that I have integrity because I acted in accordance with a parent who possesses integrity.

Parents who punish their children through the arbitrary denial of parenting time or who, based upon their own feelings or circumstances, condition their dedication to their children are lacking in integrity. The children are acutely aware of the parental lack of integrity and respond accordingly, usually in a manner that the parent would label as a behavioural problem. They are behavioural problems but not on the part of the children. While these direct actions by a parent demonstrate a lack of integrity so does the failure to appropriately respond to acts adverse to the child. If I had not responded to Wal-Mart’s illegal, unethical and immoral business practice then I would have demonstrated to my son that I lack integrity and cannot protect him or meet his needs which is something a child of age two desperately requires.

The Indianapolis 500 as an event and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway as a business entity lack integrity. People who lack integrity are, collectively, harmful to children and as such I am still morally bound to avoid providing any support to those who lack integrity and thus harm children. As I seek to adhere to the moral absolute I will not allow myself to contribute to the harm of children for my personal enjoyment. I enjoyed spending 15-20 days a year at the IMS but that cannot come upon the harm to children. Hence, I will never purchase a diamond and, as I said previously, if you ever see me at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway feel free to run up and kick me in the balls to remind me that I need to affirm my integrity.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©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

Friday, May 15, 2015

Proposed ICSG Revisions completed; Open for Public Comment soon

The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] met in regular session at the Indiana Judicial Center on Friday 15 May 2015. Members made final grammatical revisions to clarify intent and improve continuity throughout the guidelines. In addition to completing revisions to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines the DRC has established a protocol for public comment on the revised guidelines as proposed.

Changes were made to reflect the statutory amendment in the emancipation age from 21 years to 19 years. Credits or adjustments for prior born or subsequent children are modified to follow chronological changes in family unit size. The section on birth expenses has been removed based upon the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s advisement that Indiana’s requirement that fathers pay 50% of birthing expenses contravened federal law.

Changes were made to reflect the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Neal v Austin which requires an educational support order to be sought before the child reaches the age of 19 years in any case where a child support order was issued or modified after 30 June 2012.

The major revision is the removal of the Health Insurance Premium Worksheet for calculating health insurance contributions by parents. Under the so-called Affordable Care Act the parental contributions to health insurance premiums are not considered unless the amount paid exceeds 5% of the parent’s income. Public health insurance coverage will be included as a parental contribution subject to a child support credit.

The proposed revisions should be available under an announcement on the Indiana Supreme Court’s webpage. Members of the public will likely have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed changes. [I will make changes to this posting as I receive the updated information] Members of the DRC will review the public comments and then prepare a finalized version for submission to the Board of the Indiana Judicial Conference in September. The Indiana Judicial Conference will either accept as submitted or ask for changes before submitting the revised ICSG to the Indiana Supreme Court for adoption. The guidelines, as amended, will likely go into effect on 01 January 2016.

The current Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and Indiana Child Support Guidelines are now available in Spanish versions.

2010 Indiana Child Support Guidelines - Versión en español

2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Versión en español

The next regular scheduled meeting is 17 July 2015. DRC meetings are open to the public but are not public input sessions.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©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

Judicial bias against pro se litigants in Hamilton County Indiana

Confidence in the judicial system requires that litigants appear before a fair and impartial tribunal. It is not uncommon for an aggrieved party following the conclusion of a proceeding to feel or express a sense of bias in the proceedings or decision. More often it is the pro se litigants who are so miffed at the court system. In my experience I have found that judicial officers rarely hold a bias or deprive litigants of a fair proceeding. Pro se litigants frustrate the system by not being prepared, not following the Rules of Trial Procedure, and lacking a familiarity with the process that facilitates judicial economy. As with anything else there are standouts in the crowd.

When the Boone County Prosecutor, Todd Meyer, alleged that I had neglected my son and had me jailed I consulted three attorneys about the case. All of these experienced litigators who have been trained in qualified law schools and have passed the bar exam and remained in good standing told me I had no chance of winning. Plea agreement was the phrase of the day for each. Being that it was my ass on the line I was not at all prepared nor willing to roll over and play dead.

When Brian Moore was deprived of legal counsel at a contempt hearing and then threatened will jail time upon a compliance hearing, he appealed. He did so without the aid of any of the plethora of attorneys who have been trained in qualified law schools and have passed the bar exam and remained in good standing.

Mr Moore may have had good reason to shun the use of an attorney in appealing the denial of his request for legal counsel at the contempt hearing. I have previously written about the child custody cases and appeals which were handled by attorneys. In Determining the Best Interest of the Child: Obtaining an Attorney that can Effectively Advocate I cautioned that “[y]ou may think that if a law firm is employing him then he must be competent enough to perform his job. That assumption is in error. The self-described decision to treat psychological issues with a regiment of alcohol demonstrates the lack of rational judgment exhibited by this attorney.”

In Why a Competent Attorney is a Must or How to Stay in Prison I reviewed an appeal of a wholly incompetent attorney. In Should Indiana Attorneys be presumed more competent than pro se litigants? I again provided examples of how attorneys botched child custody cases. But before going into details of these cases I am going to move onto the content of the Hamilton County Courts website which a pro se parent brought this information to my attention.

The page “Representing Yourself in Court” contains this introduction;

As a "pro se" the first thing to do is to ask yourself, "Am I sure that I want to represent myself?" In answering that question, you must keep this in mind: YOU WILL BE HELD TO THE STANDARDS OF A LAWYER. You should follow all the rules that apply to lawyers. If you fail to follow the rules, you may be subject to the same penalties as if you were a lawyer.

Although the court personnel, such as the court's staff and the court clerk' staff, can answer some questions about the court's procedures, the law prohibits court personnel from giving you legal advice because the are not trained to do so.

There is an old saying: "The person who represents himself has a fool for a client." There are at least two reasons for this saying. First, you will find that the legal process is complex and difficult to understand. The person on the other side of your case will probably be represented by a lawyer. Without a lawyer, you will be at a disadvantage. Second, you have a personal interest in the outcome of your case, which will deprive you of the objectivity you need to present your case effectively in court.

You improve your chances of winning your case when you have a lawyer represent you. So, you should make the decision to represent yourself carefully.

The decision whether to represent one’s self in court is of great significance. Hamilton County provides some cautions and admonitions that reflect upon this decision. There does appear to be a clear bias that pro se litigants will not be well represented and it could be interpreted that they are declared to be fools. There are a few statements on this page which strike me as being inappropriate in the context of judicial impartiality.

First, “[w]ithout a lawyer you will be at a disadvantage.” [emphasis added] Second, you will be deprived of “the objectivity you need to present your case effectively in court.”

Without the aid of counsel in court I concur that most litigants would be disadvantaged but this is not absolute. To say you will be at a disadvantage reflects a bias, whereas to say you may reflects a likely reality. I disagree that the objectivity held by a disinterested attorney is best for a parent facing the loss of a relationship with his or her child, or as in my case a significant prison term. It is the subjectivity, the interest, the bias, and the passion that a self-represented parent brings to the court that produces the advantage. Now, back to the examples previously referenced.

Although attorneys were ready to fold at the start and give 100% credence to the prosecutor’s allegations against me it was my subjective position that drove me to represent myself. For two years I appeared at numerous pre-trial hearings for about 12 total hours in court time before Judge Steve David. I withstood the trial date being rescheduled four times. The case got passed through four prosecutors among three counties. The last prosecutor moved to dismiss the case nearly two years to the day of my arrest. My response to the case that lawyers said was an “unwinnable case” was to immediately file to reinstate the felony charge and for a trial by jury because I didn’t want the case dismissed. Instead, my personal interest, my subjectivity, my pride for myself and my son required that the truth be presented to a jury which would declare that I had not deprived my son of necessary life sustenance which threatened his life. But now Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steve David would not allow such to happen and my motion was denied.

Mr. Moore could have taken the judge at his word that in defending against a contempt charge for child support payments that Mr Moore was not entitled to be represented by an attorney paid for by the State of Indiana. When he recounted the judge’s reasoning and ruling to me Mr Moore felt that it was improper. To me it was an absolute violation of his rights and I asked Mr Moore questions until he drew the same logical and legal bases for finding that the judge erred as I had immediately noticed. Mr Moore then, pro se, filed an appeal of that decision. The Indiana Court of Appeals in a published opinion [Moore v. Moore, 11 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)] delivered on 13 June 2014 sided with Mr. Moore and vacated the trial court’s contempt finding. The contempt citation has yet to be reheard.

Those attorneys who were admonished by the Indiana Court of Appeals for their blatant violation of the Rules of Appellate procedure are the ones who should read Hamilton County’s admonition that “[y]ou should follow all the rules that apply to lawyers.” If the lawyer doesn’t follow the rules he or she may risk sanction by the court or the Indiana Whitewash Commission of the Supreme Court, but you . . . you may risk losing a relationship with your child.

The decision to represent yourself is a serious one that requires you to consider your aptitude, your subjectivity, and your motivation. In Hamilton County you will apparently need to decide if you feel you can overcome the judicial bias favoring litigants represented by an attorney.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©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

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Has your Candidate made this pledge?

The disillusioned, disenfranchised, dissuaded and the generally ‘dissed’ members of our electorate lament the manner in which election results are often purchased by special interest and corporate donors. Campaign finance reform efforts along with term limits and other remedial measures are meant to address the reality of pay-to-play political donations. I contend, however, that most of such measures to reduce contributions by special interest and corporate donors is misplaced. Rather, the onus should be placed upon the candidates.

Illustrative of this is the mayoral race in Lebanon, Indiana. There mayoral candidate Matt Gentry, who is a former legislative assistant at the Indiana General Assembly, has made this pledge:

“As mayor I will not accept campaign contributions from contractors, engineers, consultants or law firms that do business with the city.”

Incumbent mayor, Huck Lewis has readily and willingly accepted campaign contributions from the very players who Mayor Lewis will likely financially impact. Watchdog Indiana has provided the publicly available records detailing contributions to Lewis’ campaign. Reducing special interest and corporate influence is solely within the purview of the candidates; to refuse influential donations and expose those candidates who accept them.

If you oppose the influence that special interest and corporate donors have upon campaigns then ask yourself if your candidate has taken the pledge to refuse donations from those who he or she may directly financially impact. If the answer is no then ask yourself why am I supporting someone who opposes a position on which I stand.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©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