Oh those contentious parents who make child rearing a battle ground. In one of the most vociferous battles that I have encountered as of late is that of Paula Rorer Hubbard and William Shane Rorer. Mother was found to be in contempt of Father's parenting time and appealed. The appellate panel rendered its decision on Monday 14 April 2014 in an unpublished opinion. The appeal arose under Mother's argument that she was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of confinement, suspended, based upon inadmissible evidence and an improperly imposed jail sentence. The case originated in the Warrick Circuit Court where the Honorable David O. Kelley, Judge, presided. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Mother was found in contempt for her failure to facilitate parenting time between the parties' adolescent daughter and Father which had been recently reinstated following a three year lapse. Mother and Father had one daughter during their marriage which was dissolved in April 2003. After years of disputes between Mother and Father regarding custody and parenting time, the trial court suspended parenting time between Father and Daughter in September 2010. However, on 01 August 2013, the trial court ordered that Father was entitled to parenting time with Daughter who was then fourteen years of age.
Neither parent enters this latest fray with clean hands. The trial court observed that Parents have an “inability and refusal to co-parent effectively.” The disputes are deeply rooted and the duration of the battle appears to mystify Judge Kelley as noted:
The anger they share for each other and the desire to “get the best of the other” is much more important to each parent than meeting their responsibility to rear a child together in a responsible manner. There is plenty of blame to go around for each parent and a recitation of the offenses of each parent would serve no good purpose. Collectively, however, it is clear to the Court that the child and her overall welfare are secondary to the parents’ “personal war.” Given the number of years it has gone on one would think the parents would grow weary of combat but it appears to have worsened rather than improving.
The court has recognized daughter's manipulation of the parents' conflict:
[Daughter] has recognized this conflict and seized the opportunity to “drive the bus.” What teenager would pass on the opportunity to be in complete control of her life? It is clear to the Court that her rejection of her father is pleasing to her mother and continued rejection will guarantee a continued flow of favorable treatment from the mother.
Judge Kelley exemplifies the hopelessness in the predicament that judges face with these high conflict parents. As so many have similarly expressed to me, Judge Kelley articulated his feelings in this manner:
Numerous mental health professionals have not been able to address the parents’ issues and the Court has absolutely no expectation that it can make things work smoothly. The Court has considered drafting specific measures that would direct each parent how to be an effective parent but the Court doubts that either party would follow those directives and also it is not [the] Court’s responsibility to rear the child.
The order that went into effect on 01 August 2013 was initially breached at Mother's first opportunity. On 07 August 2013, Daughter initially refused to participate in parenting time with Father. Ultimately, however, she cooperated after the police arrived. On 09 August 2013, she again refused to participate in parenting time. On 12 August 2013, Father wasted no time in filing a petition for contempt against Mother. Father alleged that Mother “has done everything in her power to attempt to discourage [Daughter] from seeing” Father.
At hearing Father produced a police officer who had responded to the 07, 09, and 14 August parenting time exchanges. Mother objected to testimony and documentary evidence of the 14 August incident arguing that it fell outside of the allegations plead two days earlier. On its face to any experienced appellate litigator this is merely cumulative evidence that demonstrates a pattern. Thus it will not be held as a basis for reversal. Mother was clearly already on notice about these allegations. The Court so found stating that the Officer’s “testimony and Exhibit A were merely cumulative of the other evidence, and any error in the admission of the testimony and Exhibit A was harmless.” Thus the Court found that “[w]e disregard errors in the admission of evidence as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.”[fn1]
In finding Mother in contempt the Court found “from the evidence that the Mother has failed to take a positive or active role in encouraging the child to engage in visitation and is allowing the child to decide if she wants to visit.” It has already been observed that children are not to be put in the position of or allowed to make decisions regarding participation in parenting time.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines provide:
If a child is reluctant to participate in parenting time, each parent shall be responsible to ensure the child complies with the scheduled parenting time. In no event shall a child be allowed to make the decision on whether scheduled parenting time takes place.
Commentary:
In most cases, when a child hesitates to spend time with a parent, it is the result of naturally occurring changes in the life of a child. The child can be helped to overcome hesitation if the parents listen to the child, speak to each other and practically address the child’s needs.
Parents should inquire why a child is reluctant to spend time with a parent. If a parent believes that a child’s safety is compromised in the care of the other parent, that parent should take steps to protect the child, but must recognize the rights of the other parent. This situation must be promptly resolved by both parents. Family counseling may be appropriate. If the parents cannot resolve the situation, either parent may seek the assistance of the court.[fn2]
Mother failed in her duty to promote a positive parent-child relationship between Father and Daughter as well as failing to facilitate Father's parenting time. Evidence elicited at the hearing indicated that at the 07 August parenting time exchange, Mother engaged in the alienating tactic of crying and hugging Daughter when Daughter was ready to leave with Father. At the 09 August parenting time exchange, Mother would not get out of the vehicle and only cracked her window to talk to Father. A family friend testified that she never heard Mother say anything that encouraged Daughter to participate in the parenting time. Father presented evidence that Mother failed to ensure that Daughter complied with the scheduled parenting
Mother and Father have harmed their daughter to the point that when after three years of absence from the life of her Father she refused to see him. Social science research shows significant benefits to children when non-custodial fathers remain involved in their lives.[fn3] Yet, both parents allowed their ongoing disdain for each other to poison the well from which their daughter drinks. Rather than provide competent nurturing and guidance to their daughter they have instilled in her that she has no intrinsic value but, rather, is only a prize to be fought over and won. Both of these parents are abusive to their daughter.
As for the contempt citation, the primary objective of a civil contempt proceeding is not to punish the contemnor but to coerce action for the benefit of the aggrieved party.[fn4] A contempt order that neither coerces compliance with a court order nor compensates the aggrieved party for loss and does not offer an opportunity for the recalcitrant party to purge himself may not be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding. Thus, Mother holds the keys to her freedom by ensuring that she complies with the court order and facilitates Father's parenting time.
In nearly six years of working nearly exclusively on high conflict parenting child custody cases I have been able to observe a patter in these relationships. The hostile aggressive parent needs a partner in the conflict and ensuing battle. That partner is the other parent. This is not to say that both parents share equally in the blame or initiate the offending actions. It must be acknowledged though, as I have seen, that both parents play a role in perpetuating the conflict. This conflict is mitigated by creating a new concept of the parent-parent and parent-child relationships which ultimately benefit the child.
notes
1] Sibbing v. Cave, 922 N.E.2d 594, 598 (Ind. 2010)
2] Ind. Parenting Time Guideline § I(E)(3) (emphasis added).
3] E.g., Marcia J. Carlson & Katherine A. Magnuson, Low-Income Fathers’ Influence on Children, In re Matter of E.M. And El.M. (Ind. 2014) citing 635 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 95, 107 (2011)
4] In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d 1157, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Contempt of Court Jail Sentence when Child Refuses Parenting Time Upheld - Indiana Court of Appeals
Monday, March 10, 2014
Understanding when a child tells you that you are doing wrong by alienating the other parent - Parental Alienation
10 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Over the weekend I performed a forensic assessment of a boy who is age 7. He was presented with “difficulties in cooperation, completing assignments, and being attentive in class.” His parents have been involved in years of ongoing litigation. The mother relocated the children to another town, changed their school, and has alienated them from the father. The father sought my assistance in the discipline and schooling problems.
In doing an assessment of a child this age I ask that the child write a story as instructed as follows:
Write a story about what it would be like if you were the President of the United States. Who would work in the White House with you and what would you have your parents do as jobs? What rules would you establish and what would happen to people who didn't follow your rules?
This boy's story revealed some very telling information.
~ [child] wanted his White House to be located halfway between the homes of his mother and father.
~ The job for his father was to be a helper or advisor to him.
~ The job for his mother was to be “cleaning up dog poo”
~ The punishment for people who would not do what [child] wanted could escalate to having to “clean up horse poop with their hands.”
This boy clearly wants to be close to both parents. He obviously wants the counsel of the father who is very actively involved in the development of the child. The similarity between the job for mother and punishment for those who do not do as the boy wishes clearly indicates a hostility toward the mother. This is reflective of what I wrote about in Self-Imposed Parental Alienation in November of last year. In that I wrote;
The tragedy of self-imposed parental alienation is that the child generally has a healthy parent-child relationship with the targeted parent impeded by the instigating parent, but this also can create an enduring hostility toward that instigator.
Children are not blind to the dynamics of parental conflict. Throughout my years of observing a staggering amount of high conflict cases, often with elements of parental alienation, I have seen the result most often be the child turning against the instigating parent.
For those who would target the other parent in a programme of alienation it is worth considering whether the gain you may achieve from some type of emotional satisfaction derived from the belief that you may be winning the affections of the child is worth damaging the long-term relationship.
For those of you who are the targeted parent this should be able to provide to you some inspiration to parent the best you can, not retaliate, and enjoy a stronger relationship with your child in the future.
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.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Self-Imposed Parental Alienation
23 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
First let me provide my definition of self-imposed parental alienation. Parental Alienation is the arrangement of behaviours that are intended to sever the relationship between the child and the targeted parent. When the behaviours create a condition in which the child is driven away from the instigating parent I call that self-imposed parental alienation. While the range of behaviours may be the same among different parents it is the child's cognition of the parent's performance that determines whether alienation is established.
The tragedy of self-imposed parental alienation is that the child generally has a healthy parent-child relationship with the targeted parent impeded by the instigating parent, but this also can create an enduring hostility toward that instigator. The child thus loses having a healthful parent-child relationship with either parent.
Self-Imposed parental alienation is the result of a loss of focus on doing what is best for the child. The very act of divorce is a selfish one. As Judith Wallerstein says in reporting on her 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce, “If children had the vote, almost all would vote to maintain the parents' marriage.”[en1] This is because divorce produces worse outcomes for children in nearly all cases and the children know it. The adults rationalize their selfish harm to children. It is through rationalization that an instigating parent accepts the alienation as just. If you want to do something, first declare it “good.” If we deem it good, it just is. This is seen simultaneously at an institutional level.
Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 requires that judicial officers make child custody and parenting time decisions by applying “the best interest of the child” standard. I contend however that a rationale view of divorce outcomes on children produces the realization that a court can not fashion post divorce parent-child relationships for the child that is in his best interest. Rather, I believe that the best interest standard is a delusional adult oriented view of child adaptations to divorce. Reporting from children and objective analysis convey the abject failure of this best interest approach. Empirically it has been aptly demonstrated that, on a whole, the children of divorce suffer adversities far greater than their counterparts who remained in intact households. The resultant effect is then that courts are limited to a standard no better than being able to fashion situations that are “least harmful to the child.”
The moral goodness rationalization is the folly of the parent who subjects himself to this type of abuse. Children are keenly aware of the dynamics of post separation relationships between parents. While some children may align themselves with the instigating parent -- becoming integrated in to the disturbed parents' vengeful orbit -- others may reject such an invitation at the onset.
Jared, a boy of age 7, exhibits clear hostility and resentment towards his custodial mother for her attempts to alienate the children from their father – relocating to a new city, seeking sole custody, displaying 'rescuing' behaviours following parenting time with father. Jared has demonstrated his disdain for mother's indignation over his fondness for father and especially her derogation of behaviours that mimic those of father. While initially having a strong attachment to both parents Jared's relationship with his mother has now been sabotaged by her resentment of father. Jared openly refers to his mother as “mean” and says she “doesn't like it when I act like you.”
As Jared enters the pre-adolescent stage he, like his peers in that group, are particularly vulnerable to being swept up into the anger of one parent against the other. It is the embattled parent, often the one who opposed the divorce, who initiates and fuels the alignment against the other parent. Mothers are more likely to have children aligned with them as are fathers.
Katie, a pre-adolescent girl, is demonstrating signs of a realization of mother's alienation attempts and is rejecting mother. In speaking with her about living with mother and her subsequent husband Katie presented anxiety about exhibiting affection for or attachment to father such as wanting to speak with him on the phone, invite him to school functions or display affection towards him when being returned to mother. Her time with father is relaxed and comforting to her but as the time with him approaches an end she becomes lethargic, somewhat uncooperative and resistant to leaving.
Terrance is an adolescent boy whose mother sought to extricate him from the close bond he felt with father since birth. Denying parenting time, returning or destroying items sent with him to her house and rejecting his desire to engage in activities of interest that were shared by his father were hallmarks of her alienation attempts. Terrance and his father managed to maintain meaningful contact throughout this time without father reciprocating the animosity of mother. Terrance now openly displays rejection of mother to other people, often indicating an intense desire to leave the household of his mother and that of her psychologically abusive current husband.
These children all demonstrate an allegiance to the targeted parent and feel that time with the custodial parent is an unwanted imposition for which they wish to be un-tethered. For younger children in this situation they seek a rescuer to remove them from the instigating parent to which they endure the relationship. As children grow older and experience a natural yearning for independence they also feel empowered to determine their own outcomes.
These children as adults become more steadfast in their resentment of the instigator. Sometimes they completely reject that parent who is banished into the child's past.
Some children are without facility for reconciliation with the targeted parents and become effectually isolated from two living but absent parents – one alienated as a target and the other alienated by imposition upon self. For the irrational parent who instigates the destruction of the child's attachments this potential, and likely, outcome is not foreseen. It is incumbent upon practitioners, family, friends and others in the support network to dissuade an alienating parent from perpetuating this harm to the relationships of the child with the targeted parent as well as to self.
[fn1] The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, 2000 Hyperion - Wallerstein, Lewis, Blakeslee
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.
