11 February 2014
notes * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The arena of child custody battles can lead to some of the most vile, hostile, and divisive behaviours parents can express which can be detrimental to the well-being of children. When these offenders get organized and perpetuate their hate as a group the outcomes can be even more detrimental. One such hate-group is Mothers of Lost Children.
As an advocate for the well-being of children and knowing the needs that they have, especially when their parents are going through divorce, I am keenly aware of the necessity of maintaining gender neutrality in child custody laws and policies. Gender neutrality allows judges to make decisions that consider the needs of the children first. The danger with hate-groups like Mothers of Lost Children is that they are motivated to eliminate one gender of parents from the lives of children based solely upon their selfish interest. Creating state policies which discard adverse factors – that either gender may exhibit -- such as mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse in favour of gender based considerations puts children into dangerous situations.
Gender neutrality is the only legitimate means by which to advocate for the best interest of children. I am usually reticent to embrace any organization that is gender specific for inclusion into the policy formulation forum. This is not to say that they can't have legitimacy, as presentation of perceptions or needs generally attributable to a specific gender should be recognized. Gender specificity is surely justifiable in support or a particular gender but not so in policy application. As previously mentioned mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse are not gender specific. All are found to be attributable to mothers in greater frequency while generally in greater intensity among fathers. To effectively manage and mitigate these incidents they should be approached in a gender specific manner but not to the exclusion of a gender from acts adverse to children.
I long ago seemed to catch the ire of father's rights groups by my inconsonance with their agenda when I proclaimed that most NCP – which are overwhelmingly fathers -- are deserving of that status. Like most of those boisterous and hostile leaders of father's rights groups, Mothers of Lost Children are just as likely NCP's because of their behaviours. Some of which are aptly demonstrated in their actions of attacking the character of any person who recommends that they not be the primary custodians. This behaviour is identical to what I saw in some of the most veracious and vindictive father's rights groups. Blaming society, corruption and, fathers for the damage these mothers have cause to their own parent-child relationships supports the rulings against them. These behaviours reflect their failure to accept responsibility. The hallmark of my child custody based life coaching – usually of NCPs – is that parents accept responsibility for their predicament.
Mothers of Lost Children recently sent out an announcement about their efforts to spread their message of bigotry. There they stated: “Many thanks to Andrew Willis of Stop Abuse Campaign for his crucial help in getting us a Congressional Briefing on October 2! We now have the issue of Protecting Abused Children of Divorce and Separation deep into the halls of Congress.” They go on to say “[f]our brave mothers filed a joint complaint on November 6, 2013 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against a variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”[fn1] This is one of the tactics they use – attacking anyone who doesn't make a gender based decision siding with them – to intimidate those people who would seek to protect children from abusive mothers.
Their overwhelming bias and lack of concern for protecting children from all harmful parents is apparent in their request for parents to join in their judicial and legislative efforts. Specifically they say that “mothers from other states can join” and then they ask for the identity of the “partner/husband.” The evidentiary information they seek is only that which would be detrimental towards fathers;
“Criminal record (arrests and convictions)”,
“Reports of physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest”, and
“Intimidation against you that deterred you from reporting”.
They then ask for information about who was responsible for the “Removal of child(ren) from you after you reported criminal physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest.” Not surprising is that nowhere do they ask for court findings that substantiate their allegations or why they did not get custody of their children. Neither of those factors could support their agenda.
Mothers of Lost Children encourages the use of filing petitions for Domestic Violence Protective Orders as a means of absconding with the children and severing a parent-child relationship even when no act of or threat of Domestic Violence is alleged. An obviously bigoted and deceitful approach to child custody decisions should not be tolerated and Mothers of Lost Children should be ignored but they aren't. Those who do not join in their crusade to harm children are targeted for acts of intimidation and being publicly rebuked. After I was requested to make a presentation to the Indiana General Assembly on the subject of false allegations of Domestic Violence in child custody cases and my efforts to bring about gender neutrality and truth in DV cases I was personally vilified by the hate-group Mothers of Lost Children.
It is always my goal to promote healthy parent-child relationships in child custody cases. Yesterday I presented a Report to the Indiana Senate on the effect that banning civil unions would have on child custody. I am currently working with some legislators on crafting a bill that will provide opportunities for people involved in Domestic Violence to be entitled to assistance in breaking free from that. Included in my legislative proposal for Assessment-Treatment Confidentiality for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence I provide a copy of a Petition for an Order of Protection that did not include an allegation of abuse [page 12, paragraph 7].
That Petition was written by Angie Warnock. Particularly when I wrote about the murder of Angie Warnock and revealed how the alienation tactics she used which included filing that Petition I was again vilified by these hate-mongers. Interestingly when I wrote that posting I knew nothing about the case other than what I had read in the brief newspaper account which is included at the beginning of that posting. Instead I relied upon my years of experience in the field where I have identified traits that are common to particular personality dysfunctions such as parental alienation.
It should be the goal of all responsible parents to eliminate harms to their children. Unfortunately when one group of mentally ill unfit parents get together and collectively support each others' delusions it has the effect of perpetuating harm against their own children.
Being blinded to the reality of one's own behaviour because of an allegiance to one's demographic classification and clear expressions of their mental illness is the formula which allows the rational judicial officers to make the proper decisions which protect the children. We should be thankful for the “variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts” who are standing up against these hateful parents who try to alienate the children.
Over the years I have served numerous parents who endured ongoing hostile parent-parent relationships. By facilitating acceptance of the parent's responsibility for his or her custodial situation and recognition of the responsibility of the judicial officers parents can progress toward an understanding of the dynamics the lead to better outcomes for children. These outcomes are not a result of policies favouring one gender over the other but in parents, regardless of gender, recognizing that it their behaviours and their responsibility to ensure the best outcomes for their children.
If you care for the well-being of children and believe that child custody decisions should be made based upon the facts of the case and the behaviours of the parents rather than a mandated award of custody based upon gender then please call or write your congressional representative and tell him or her so.
[1] retrieved from Equal Access Advocates, http://www.equalaccessadvocates.com/2013/11/24/ca-protective-parents-association/ 27 November 2013
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Mothers of Lost Children promoting policies of harm to children and gender discrimination in child custody cases to the US Congress
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
How to get a 28 year Protective Order lodged against you and then waste time appealing it
22 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The Indiana Court of Appeals delivered an opinion in A.N. v K.G. Yesterday which it chose to publish. [A published opinion is one that can be used as precedent and usually reflects an important legal decision or a change to prior decisions] The matter was originally heard in the trial court by Barbara Crawford, Judge Marion County Superior Court.
On May 18, 2010, K.G. filed an ex parte motion for a protective order against A.N., which the trial court granted the same day. On June 11, 2010, following a hearing, the trial court granted him a protective order for two years. The protective order prohibited A.N. from acts of violence, stalking, and “harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or directly or indirectly communicating with” K.G. and three other persons.
Over the course of two years K.G. filed multiple information for contempt alleging that A.N. had in addition to making “non-stop” phone calls to his home phone and his ex-wife’s phone, A.N. had “spray painted [his] knew [sic] house.” Upon the first hearing, April 5, 2011, the trial court found A.N. in contempt. She received a suspended sentence of 120 days in the Marion County Jail and was ordered to complete 80 hours of community service and pay a fine. K.G. later claimed that A.N. had made numerous calls to his home and that he possessed a picture of his home phone that recorded the telephone number A.N. used. K.G. alleged that on one occasion, he spoke to A.N., who said, “I’m back[.] [Y]ou better watch your ass.” When reminded by K.G. that a protective order was in place, A.N. allegedly responded, “F*** that protective order[.] I can do what I want.” Apparently so but that can come with consequences. The trial court found that A.N. violated the protective order and ordered her 120 day sentence executed and placed her on home detention. The trial court thereafter extended the protective order to November 29, 2040, for a total of 28 years.
I won't go into a detailed legal analysis of A. N.'s appeal as most of it was without merit. However, the one issue that deserves attention was her claim that the judge acted as an advocate. This is something that it often brought to me as a concern by potential clients when the judge asked questions during the proceeding or made sua sponte [on the judge's own motion] objections. The Court of Appeals addressed it in this manner;
The record shows that the trial court’s questions were neutral, served to clarify K.G.’s testimony, and did not discredit A.N. or her defense. Although A.N. alleges prejudice since the trial court cited the photograph when explaining its rationale for finding A.N. in contempt, A.N. was not prejudiced because she cross-examined K.G. on the photograph. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not act as an advocate by asking K.G. foundational questions regarding the photograph. See Trotter, 733 N.E.2d at 532.
A trial court has a duty to remain impartial and refrain from making unnecessary comments or remarks. Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied. However, not all untoward remarks by a judge constitute reversible error. Id. at 567. The remarks must harm the complaining party or interfere with the right to a fair trial. Id. Further, the court does not engage in improper advocacy by stopping improper cross-examination on its own motion. Id.
The record reveals that each time the trial court interrupted A.N.’s cross-examination, the questions posed either mischaracterized K.G.’s testimony or were argumentative. However, the critical question here is whether the trial court’s remarks harmed A.N. or denied her a fair trial. See id. They did not. In the first instance, A.N. simply rephrased the question and proceeded with cross-examination. After intervening in the three instances of argumentative questioning, the trial court sought to move the proceedings forward, for example, by instructing A.N.’s counsel to “stick with the facts of these contempt petitions.” Consequently, A.N. has not shown that the trial court’s remarks constituted improper advocacy or interfered with her right to a fair trial. See Cook, 734 N.E.2d at 566.
Legal analysis of the proceedings aside, the important fact to take away from this is that violation of a Protective Order or a No Contact Order can result in a civil order of confinement. It can also lead to a separate criminal charge. As in this case A.N. is going to be burdened with being required to comply with this order until the year 2040. She seems to demonstrate a clear unwillingness to comply for the first three years, even after incarceration, and if it doesn't cease a criminal charge will likely follow.
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.
Under-reporting of crimes against children, Domestic Violence data collection - 2014 Indiana House Bill 1137
22 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A bill to add the under-reporting of crimes against children to the duties of the Commission on Improving the Status of Children and having the Department of Health evaluate Domestic Violence incidents was introduced by Representatives Hale, Turner, McMillin, and Macer.
The synopsis of the bill is;
Reporting of sex crimes against children. Requires the
commission on improving the status of children in Indiana to study and
evaluate the underreporting of crimes against children. Requires the
state department of health or the office of women's health to conduct
a study to determine the number of persons who are the victims of
crimes of domestic and sexual violence, the reasons why these crimes
are underreported, best practices to improve reporting, and the most
effective means to connect victims with appropriate treatment services.
Establishes a framework for the study, and permits the department of
health or the office of women's health to contract with a third party to
conduct the study. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by
the criminal law and sentencing policy study committee.)
The bill adds an additional duty of the Commission under IC 2-5-36-9 which states that the Commission shall also study;
(J) Underreporting of crimes against children, including the reasons for underreporting.
Much of the bill relates to having the Indiana Department of Health identify Domestic Violence incidents. Specific points of data analysis relate to domestic and sexual violence are stipulated in this bill. This data will give service providers and policy makers more specific and accurate information that will help guide them in targeting resources more directly to those in need. Here are some of the distinctions that the bill draws:
(a) Before July 1, 2015, the office or the state department shall conduct a study to do the following:
(1) Determine the extent to which crimes of domestic and sexual violence are underreported.
(2) Identify which crimes of domestic and sexual violence are more commonly underreported.
(3) Investigate differences between the reporting of crimes of domestic and sexual violence committed:
(A) against children;
(B) against adults;
(C) in urban areas;
(D) in suburban areas; and
(E) in rural areas.
(4) Investigate and identify reasons why the victims of unreported crimes of domestic and sexual violence do not report these crimes, both in general and with reference to specific crimes.
Concerning acts of Domestic Violence, this bill will have the Committee;
(8) Make recommendations concerning best practices to:
(B) provide resources for persons who are the victims of crimes of domestic and sexual violence; and
(C) make educational, therapeutic, and other resources available to victims of crimes of domestic and sexual violence who may have not reported the crimes.
Much of the remainder of the bill is in regards to data gathering and trying to identify variations in population victimization and trends. This section will expire on 30 June 2016.
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, January 20, 2014
Domestic Violence advocate for victims in civil proceedings - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 138
20 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Senator Vaneta Becker has introduced a bill relating to Domestic Violence advocates and service providers in civil proceedings.
Here is the synopsis of the bill;
Victim advocates in civil proceedings. Removes restrictions
on grants from the victim services division of the Indiana criminal
justice institute for certain entities to enter into a contract with the
domestic violence prevention and treatment council. Provides that a
court may allow a victim advocate to attend a civil proceeding and
confer with a victim as necessary. Specifies that a victim advocate is
not considered to be practicing law when performing certain services.
The following language would be stricken from the current statute;
[strike] However, the division may not grant more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the money necessary for the establishment or maintenance of a domestic violence prevention and treatment center during a specified time. The amount granted by the division for use by a single domestic violence and prevention treatment center may not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) each year. [close]
This is replaced by three lengthy section that define “victim,” “victim advocate,” and “victim service provider.” Each includes a provision that services relate to someone who “is not accused of committing an act of domestic or family violence” and other related offenses.
The fourth, and final, section is as follows;
(a) In any civil proceeding, a court may allow a victim advocate to attend the proceeding, sit with the victim, and confer with the victim as necessary.
(b) A victim advocate is not considered to be practicing law when performing the services described in this section.
What I do like about this bill is that it provides clear definitions and allows for advocates to become more involved in the judicial process in an effort to mitigate acts of Domestic Violence. However, unless I have missed it elsewhere I strongly oppose the unilateral approach that it takes towards Domestic Violence - essentially that Domestic Violence is the result of the “victim” not receiving services. The existing language ion the statute provides that services are to include “domestic violence prevention and treatment.” While prevention can be based upon avoiding perpetrators it should also include preventing perpetrators from committing the acts or having the desire to do so. This should include treatments such as anger management, effective communication skills, and cognitive behavioural therapy.
For illustrative purposes I will use shoplifting as an example. This phenomena can be attacked from two perspectives; 1] store based preventative measures [locked display cases, RFID tags, personnel selection], and 2] offender treatment [incarceration, CBT, employment opportunities]. It would seem logical to try this dual attack approach. Providing increased knowledge and security measures to stores but also providing services to the offenders to get at the root of what is sometimes simply an underlying compulsion to steal although one is sufficiently financially able to pay. To deny services to offenders would essentially proclaim the problem to be one that is victim based and incidents would likely increase.
Domestic Violence is a phenomena that can be attributed to a cycle. That is it is primarily a learned behaviour from parents. Perpetrators say or experienced Domestic Violence as a children as a means of exertion of control. In our society and similarly in Germany it is still widely acceptable to teach children, by example, that the reinforcing stimulus to achieve compliance with one's commands is violence. Similarly, “victims” have been taught that violence is the result of a violation of rules and that it is deserved. Both assessments are wrong.
Violence as a means of exerting control is wrong and both “victims” and perpetrators need to hear that message and be able to receive services that can help convey that message.
Proposed amendments -
NEW SECTION
As used in this chapter, “alleged perpetrator” means:
(1) an individual against whom an act of:
(A) domestic or family violence;
(B) dating violence;
(C) sexual assault (as defined in IC 5-26.5-1-8);
(D) human and sexual trafficking (IC 35-42-3.5); or
(E) stalking (IC 35-45-10-5);
has been alleged or substantiated.
AMENDED Sec. 4. (a) In any civil proceeding, a court may allow a victim advocate to attend the proceeding, sit with the victim, and confer with the victim [insert]or alleged perpetrator[close] as necessary.
This bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is scheduled for a Committee hearing on Wednesday 22 January 2014 in Room 130 of the Indiana State House at 0900.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Minors Filing for Domestic Violence Protective Orders - 2014 Indiana House Bill 1014
15 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Representative Kubacki, Chair of the House Committee on Family, Children and Human Affairs, has introduced a bill that will allow minors down to the age of 14 years to file for an order of protection using the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act [IC 34-26-5].
The synopsis of the bill is:
Minors filing protective orders. Allows a minor who: (1) is
at least 14 years of age; and (2) is or has been a victim of domestic or
family violence; to file an order for protection. Allows the matter to be
transferred to a court with juvenile jurisdiction. Allows a court to
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor.
The bill is very concise. The amendments to the current act are to;
34-26-5-2 which provides that the persons who may petition for a DVPO include including a minor who is at least fourteen (14) years of age, and
34-26-5-19 which adds the second class of people to whom a GAL may be assigned.
(1) child of one (1) or both parents; or
(2) a minor described in section 2(a) of this chapter who files an order for protection under section 2(a) of this chapter.
In October of last year I posted about the Societal Acceptance of Domestic Violence Against the Most Vulnerable in which I noted the high rates of acts of Domestic Violence committed against children and the lack of a societal or legal response to these crimes. I applaud Representative Kubacki for seeking to give these most innocent victims an opportunity to protect themselves against violence occurring within their homes.
While I expect to hear arguments against this bill based upon the sovereignty of the home and family I do not feel that these have any legitimate basis. Existing statute which has all been upheld allows for criminal prosecutions for acts of violence against children within the family unit.
This bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. I urge strong support for this bill.
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, January 13, 2014
Summary Dissolution of Marriage following Domestic Violence conviction - 2014 Indiana House Bill 1014
13 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Representative Kubacki has introduced a bill that would allow a court to grant a dissolution of marriage in under 60 days following the conviction of one of the parties for an act of Domestic Violence. The synopsis of the bill is;
Dissolution in cases of domestic violence. Allows a court,
in a dissolution of marriage case, to: (1) conduct a final hearing; or (2)
enter a summary dissolution decree; at any time after a petition or
counter petition for dissolution has been filed if a party to the action
has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence against the other
party or against any child living in the same household as a party.
(Current law prohibits a court from conducting a final hearing or
entering a summary dissolution decree earlier than 60 days after a
petition or counter petition has been filed.) Requires the court to: (1)
conduct the final hearing; or (2) enter a summary dissolution; as soon
as practicable. Allows a family law arbitrator to enter a summary
dissolution decree at any time after a petition for dissolution has been
filed if a party to the action has been convicted of a crime of domestic
violence against the other party or against any child living in the same
household as a party. (Current law prohibits a family law arbitrator
from entering a summary dissolution decree earlier than 60 days after
a petition has been filed.)
A new section, 31-15-2-13.5 would be added to dissolution statutory scheme
Sec. 13.5. If a party to an action for dissolution of marriage has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence against the other party or against a child living in the same household as a party to the action for dissolution of marriage, the court:
1) may:
(A) conduct a final hearing under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter; or
(B) enter a summary dissolution decree under section 13 of this chapter; at any time after a petition or counter petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed; and
(2) shall:
(A) conduct a final hearing under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter; or
(B) enter a summary dissolution decree under section 13 of this chapter; as soon as practicable after a petition or counter petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed.
I certainly agree with the overarching principle underlying this bill, extrication from a violent relationship, but also have a due process concern. That would be the finality of the conviction. A defendant has 30 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. If one is filed then a decision would likely not come in under six months. There may need to be an amendment to address this due process matter.
Such an amendment could read;
If a party to an action for dissolution of marriage has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence against the other party or against a child living in the same household as a party to the action for dissolution of marriage, and the conviction has not been challenged, the court:
1) may:
(A) conduct a final hearing under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter; or
(B) enter a summary dissolution decree under section 13 of this chapter; at any time less than 60 days but not less than 30 days after a petition or counter petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed; and
(2) shall:
(A) conduct a final hearing under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter; or
(B) enter a summary dissolution decree under section 13 of this chapter; as soon as practicable but not less than 30 days after a petition or counter petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed.
There is currently a pending bill to amend IC 31-19-11-6 which provides that a court may not grant an adoption following a termination of parental rights if that determination is under appeal. This follows the ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court in C.A.B. v. J.D.M., 992 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 2013) that the grant of adoption without parental consent was a due process violation. Consent was not needed following the TPR but when that TPR finding was reversed on appeal the adoption became voidable and the trial court should have set aside the adoption.
I see the potential for such legal ping-pong occurring here following the reversal of a Domestic Violence conviction. A court may be forced to declare a dissolution void and thus “remarry” the divorced parties.
Finally, I see a contradiction in section 1 which authorizes [may] a court to take action and section 2 which mandates [shall] a court to take action.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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.
