In Bailey v Bailey published today the Indiana Court of Appeal reversed an order of the Fulton Circuit Court, Special Judge Richard Maughmer presiding, that provided that parents would have joint legal custody and 50/50 parenting time. This was a modification of the existing parenting time order although no petition was before the court to modify parenting time or custody. The court made the changes under the auspices of the Parallel Parenting provision of the 2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines when the parties appeared for mutual actions for contempt. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
These were high conflict parents. During the proceedings, there were approximately five contempt actions, one protective order, one request for emergency custody, one petition for modification of custody, one petition for restricted visitation, five attorneys, and two judges.
Judge Maughmer should be commended for taking the position ordering these parents into 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. While some trial courts have taken an approach to hostile or embattled parents by granting primary physical and sole legal custody to one parent to mitigate opportunities for conflict that may be ignoring the best interest of the child. Sometimes the parent who has instigated or perpetuated the conflict has been the one receiving the greater rights and responsibilities. Our reviewing courts have shunned this idea.
In 1996 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that “Allowing modification of custody in favor of one whose misbehavior has led to the supposed 'substantial change,' in circumstances rewards misconduct and should therefore be avoided.”[fn1] A few years earlier the court expressed its rationale for awarding sole custody and primary parenting time to one parent in high conflict cases.
In 1992 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals in arriving at its decision noted that “obstreperous parents sharing legal custody would have significant difficulties reaching a consensus on such fundamental issues as child-rearing philosophies, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[fn2] When divorced parents are charged with making major decisions as a unit, it is apparent that a relationship filled with hostility and resentment presents a significant obstacle. It follows, therefore, that when child-rearing becomes a 'battleground,'[fn3] modification of joint legal custody is a sensible step to take for the best interests of the children.”
One of our justices explained it this way;
Every day in our State, trial courts engage in the fact-finding process of determining which of two parents—oftentimes, both parents who have behaved poorly—is the better choice to serve as a primary physical custodian. All too often, this involves determining who between two parents is the lesser of two evils—which parent is least likely to poison the children and alienate them from their other parent. The majority’s opinion permits sidestepping this process and allows the trial court to “split the baby.” I would reverse on this issue and remand to the trial court with instructions that it award sole legal and physical custody of the children either to James or Jane and grant the other parent parenting time scheduled in a manner that is conducive to the best interests of the children.[fn4]
I contend that those positions are in error, especially given that at least one of the parents who engages in making child rearing a battleground will get rewarded with sole legal and primary physical custody. Concurrent with that is the risk that the parent who so benefits may be the one who instigated the culture of conflict. I believe that it also ignores the best interest of the child. It was this position that was advanced and held while the Domestic Relations Committee was reviewing the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines which were amended in March 2013 to include a parallel parenting section.
In 1989 and cited again in 1994 two other panels of the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the concept of Parallel Parenting when they held, “We must realize that, by allowing [families] to rely on the courts to settle such disputes, we deprive families of the opportunity to work out their problems and be the shapers of their own destinies. To the extent that we usurp the natural functions of the family unit – including handling fallings out – we put an obstacle in the path of reconciliation rather than removing one. By acting as we do, we assume the responsibility for the decisions that would be made entirely internally in a family if it were still intact. If warring family members can blame the court, they will be less likely to recognize and acknowledge their own culpability. Without a feeling of responsibility for, or participation in, either the decision or the result, there is less incentive for the individual family members to improve relations.[fn5]
In the immediate case though the panel reversed the trial court's order of Shared Parenting which modified the prior parenting time order. This is because the parties appeared before the court on dual motions for contempt. The panel articulated its holding in citing “[l]ongstanding Indiana law” which “has prohibited trial courts from sua sponte ordering a change of custody.”[fn6] When such an important issue as the custody of children is involved, a modification generally can be ordered only after a party has filed a petition requesting such a modification, the other party has notice of the filing, and a proper evidentiary hearing is held at which both parties may be heard and the trial court fully apprised of all necessary information regarding change of circumstances and a child’s best interests before deciding whether a modification should be ordered.
While it appears that the trial court was correct in its determination of Shared Parenting through a Parallel Parenting plan it suffered from basic due process requirements.
Notes
1] Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
2] Aylward v Aylward, 592 N.E.2d 1247, 1251-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
3] id at 1252
4] Dissent of Vaidik in Van Weirten
5] McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854, 856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)) (alteration omitted).
6] See In re Marriage of Henderson, 453 N.E.2d 310, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (quoting State ex rel. Davis v. Achor, 225 Ind. 319, 327, 75 N.E.2d 154, 157 (1947)).
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 22, 2014
Indiana Court of Appeal Reverses Shared Parenting Order Today
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Father gains custody of Mother's child not of the marriage - Indiana Court of Appeals
The Indiana Court of Appeals today issued a Published opinion affirming a trial court's grant of custody of her child born prior to marriage[fn1] to her later former husband along with their child from their marriage. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The basis of the custody order came upon Father's emergency petition for custody alleging Mother's incapacity from Huntington's Disease and the effect it is having on her parenting and care of the children. Following a hearing in which the parents, Mother's medical practitioner, and child through an in-camera interview provided testimony the Court made these relevant findings when transferring custody of the children to Father subject to Mother's supervised parenting time.
1] The Court finds that an emergency exists based upon the present incapacity of Mothert to provide care and supervision for the children. The Court’s determination of Mother's incapacity is based upon the medical opinion of her physician.
2] In addition, the Court finds that the report of Mother's physician is supported by the testimony of Father, and during the Court’s in camera interview with child, and by Mother's testimony as well as her behavior in court.
3] The Court finds that Mother relies upon child to fulfill many parental functions, and that this contrary [sic] to child's best interests, as she is saddened and frustrated by the loss of her childhood. The Court further finds that Mother has struck and shoved child, and has consistently and pervasively denied the children parenting time with Father.
4] The Court notes that father is not the biological or legal father of child. Nevertheless, Father has acted in the capacity of the child’s father with Mother's encouragement and consent for many years, and the Dissolution Decree grants Father parenting time rights to child.
5] The Court finds the above facts to constitute a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under I.C. 31-17-2-8.5, and finds that modification of custody is in the best interests of both children.
6] Father shall have primary physical custody of both children immediately, subject to parenting time with Mother, which at this time shall be supervised by her sister . . . or such other relatives as agreed, or, if the sister is unable or unwilling to provide said supervision, parenting time shall only be at Family House or some other comparable facility close to Mother's home, at Father's expense.
Mother sought to have the trail court reverse the judgment.[fn2] She argued that she is entitled to relief from the judgment because father had no legal right to pursue custody of Child and the trial court was therefore not permitted to hear the issue. The appellate court disagreed for several reasons. First, although neither the parties nor the trial court specifically referenced this statute in the proceedings, Indiana Code section 31-17-2-25 allows for emergency placement of a child with a person other than a parent. Mother also pointed out, “child” for purposes of the dissolution statutes is defined as “a child or children of both parties to the marriage.”[fn3] However, a trial court adjudicating a dissolution may award custody of a child to a natural or adoptive parent of the child or to a de facto custodian.[fn4] A de facto custodian is defined in part as “a person who has been the primary caregiver for, and financial support of, a child who has resided with the person for at least . . . one (1) year if the child is at least three (3) years of age . . . .” Ind. Code § 31-9-2-35.5. Pursuant to this statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals has prior held that a trial court could determine in a dissolution action whether the husband was entitled to custody of a child not born of the marriage.[fn5]
Thus, the trial court not only had subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody determination for the child of the marriage, but also over the child custody determination involving a third party outside the marriage – Mother's prior born child. Moreover, Mother raised no issue as to the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over the parties. The trial court therefore possessed the two forms of jurisdiction required to render a valid judgment.
Based upon the foregoing and the best interest of the children the trial court's denial of Mother's motion for relief from judgment and return of custody of the children to her was properly denied.
notes
[1] No mention is made in the record of the identity or whereabouts of child’s biological father. The appeals court noted that they might have reached a different conclusion if Child's biological father had filed the motion for relief from judgment alleging a due
process violation in the proceedings which granted custody to a third party with no notice to or an opportunity for him to be heard.
[2] On April 26, 2013, Mother filed a Petition for Modification of custody alleging that
she exercised parenting time in January 2013 and Father had not thereafter complied with the parenting time order; that the emergency alleged by Father had passed and/or stabilized and custody of the children should be returned to Mother; and that if Father desired a permanent change of custody, he should be required to follow the statutory procedure for such modification. Mother also filed a Motion Pursuant to Trial Rule 60 seeking to declare the trial court’s order of July 26, 2012, and all subsequent orders relating to her child void.
[3] Ind. Code § 31-9-2-13(a).
[4] In re Custody of G.J., 796 N.E.2d 756, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.
[5] Nunn v. Nunn, 791 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
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, March 17, 2014
Driving Children To School, Teaching Risk Aversion - Another harm to Children
15 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents are reticent to admit to harming their children and are less inclined to accept responsibility for doing such. While we possess an innate passion to protect our children the so-called rational mind often works studiously to defeat such an instinct. I have previously written about some of these in postings including Inducing premature puberty in girls - precocious puberty, Most Parents Encourage Sexual Abuse of Their Children
, and Self-Imposed Parental Alienation.
In a more thorough paper that I plan to write I will be devoting a portion to parents inducing depression into their children. But for today, I write about the simple act of delivering children to school in a vehicle and the complex web of adversities that it produces.
In 1969, the year of my birth, the percent of children walking to school was forty-eight. By 2009 that had dropped to just thirteen. What I am going to propose here is not that this decline in children walking to school is the cause of the various adversities that I will explore here. Rather, I present this as one of the factors in an overarching shift in parenting attitudes and activities that are connected to childhood adversities through causation or correlation.
The issue I address, children being delivered to schools in vehicles, is only a symptom of the larger and broader series of parenting behaviours that are choking children's development. The results are immediately observable in some instances, such as obesity, while other effects may not present until adulthood. It in now established that internalising behaviours in children may be linked with parenting styles that might not have traditionally been assessed, such as overprotectiveness.[fn1] The rationalization for the detrimental actions which rest under the umbrella of overprotectiveness is that children are vulnerable. Use of the term ‘vulnerable’ can be a good way of denying children the opportunity to take risks.
Risk engagement is an important resource through which children also learn from their own mistakes. This is a necessary learning process when children engage with their personal health and safety.[fn2] However, as with the divorce industry which harms children for profit so does the industry of fear. When confronted by sensational calls to protect 'vulnerable' children from a myriad of 'dangers' look to the motivation of those making the claims. The connections may not be clear. Large media conglomerates that control television and magazines suppress holistic and natural medical practices to perpetuate harm. Their motivation? Flip through a magazine and look for full page advertisements for drugs. Pay attention while watching television if you choose to engage in that activity.
Not allowing children to take risks associated with walking to school is like not allowing them to be exposed to chicken-pox: when exposure doesn't come until adulthood it is much more likely to lead to death. Children must be provided with knowledge about reasonable dangers, learn to be observant, and given the opportunity to employ their skills rather than be ferried around everywhere in a 4x4 (because hey they're safer in that than in the small car) because of parents overwrought with anxiety and laziness. Suddenly chucking them out when they're 18 and finding they haven't a streetwise bone in their body is catastrophe waiting to happen.
Children need to be allowed to take risks in order to develop ‘risk competence’. Most fatal accidents to children result from them not having learned, or not being allowed to learn, how to look after themselves’.[fn3]
Current child abductions in the US annually are 17 per 100,000. Only about 100 children (a fraction of 1%) are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical stranger abductions you hear about in the news. About half of these 100 children come home.[fn4]
Moreover, only 40% of these stranger abductions take place on the street. The average annual stranger abductions was estimated to be 147 per year for the years 1976-1987[fn5]. So while the population has increased the unadjusted number has declined. In the United States during 2011, more than 650 children ages 12 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes,[fn6] and more than 148,000 were injured.[fn7] A staggering 67,000 children died on average from the years 2000-2005 from unintentional injuries.[fn8]
Clearly the real danger, unintentional injury, is being neglected while children are being placed at greater risk of death by motor vehicle than from the perceived risk – stranger abductions. Children need risk-taking. They need to have the opportunity to build risk competence. The prevalent concept of children as immature, needy, and dependent must change or we risk turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. We already know that children under two years of age show that from their early tactile experiences that ‘risky’ activities is an integral part of their drive to extend their physical prowess and thus their independence.[fn9]So next time you pile the youngsters into the car to take them to school consider whether you are giving them the opportunity to develop risk competence, endangering them through the hazards of vehicular travel, and whether the expense of money and time is inducing stress in you and a subsequent hostile environment for your children.
Notes
[1] Hudson, J.L. and Rapee, R.M. (2002) ‘Parent–child interactions in clinically anxious
children and their siblings’, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 548–55
[2]Christensen, P. & Mikkelsen, M.R. (2008). Jumping off and being careful: children's strategies of risk management in everyday life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(1), 112-130.
[3] Baillie, M. (2005). ... And by comparison. Cardiff: Adventure Activities Licensing Authority.
[4] National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children -- 2003 as cited by the Polly Claas Foundation
[5] Finkelhor, et al. The Abduction of Children by Strangers and non-Family Members, June 1992 Journal of Interpersonal Violence, p. 234
[6] CDC. Child Passenger Safety: Buckle Up Every Age, Every Trip Vital Signs. [2014 Feb 4].
[7] CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System [online]. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer). [2011 Sept 30].
[8] CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System
[9] Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical risk-taking – dangerous or endangered? Early Years, 23(8), 35-43.
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
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.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
IndyCar racing, integrity, building your custody case and why you must participate in a boycott
11 September 2013
Every time a client makes a case to me for an appeal it begins with the challenge to adverse witness testimony. This usually involves an accusation that the witness lied or that there was competing contradictory testimony from my clients' side. The Indiana Court of Appeals has been clear on this issue – it will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. See Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939, 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The court reasons “we afford the trial court considerable deference as it is the trial court that observes the parties’ conduct and demeanor and hears their testimony.”
Thus, it is imperative that witnesses demonstrate integrity to the trial court judge. The best way to do this is to practice integrity and live by proper ethical and moral codes. This may include sacrifice of wants and convenience on your part but when the custody of your children is at stake then those become a non-issue. A recent event in the sports world provides a great example of integrity, or lack thereof, and an opportunity for an appropriate response.
On 01 September 2013 IndyCar ran the worst auto race I have ever seen. That issue aside there was a huge ethical dilemma that occurred that day. In one of the numerous crashes during that race Scott Dixon – number two in the points standing – was pushed into the wall and the car stalled. Dixon exited the car and returned to the pit but IndyCar officials refused to return the car the to Target Chip Ganassi Racing stall for repair and reintroduction to the race so Dixon could increase his points standing. After a controversial penalty for Dixon the week prior Dixon was rightly upset by the IndyCar officials to not allow him to continue racing and accumulate points towards the championship.
Dixon expressed his disagreement with those decisions by IndyCar officials and he called for race director Beaux Barfield to be fired. Barfield, whose thin skin can't handle criticism, demonstrated his continued lack of integrity by fining Dixon $30,000. "Reflecting on it, I shouldn't have been so outspoken and I probably will be fined for it and I respect that," Dixon told The Associated Press last Wednesday. "For me, I love the sport, I want to see it better and what I did didn't help.
Dixon made a clear error by back-peddling on his comments. Dixon was justified in his condemnation of IndyCar. No sporting body should show favourtism towards or hinder any participant without just cause. That is what IndyCar has done and so has the Indianapolis Motor Speedway through its' unwritten and arbitrarily enforced rules. IndyCar has no integrity and based upon other past events neither does the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. I therefore have a moral and ethical obligation to no longer attend any event at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway or race conducted by IndyCar. I will abide by that obligation even though I have attended the Indy 500 all but about four times since 1978. If you see me at that track again please come kick me in the balls because I will deserve it. Dixon should demonstrate equal ethical strength by doing the same. Instead though he joined the sell-outs who compromise integrity for dollars. Dixon got fined and put on probation so he essentially withdrew his objection to the capricious manner in which IndyCar officials, Barfield in particular, run the racing series.
Integrity is vital. This is not just for parents experiencing child custody litigation but for all parents -- all people. Parents should demonstrate to children that those who are morally malignant will not be supported. If you are morally and ethically principled then you must show a deprecate response which, when it comes to these unethical businesses, is done through a boycott. This is not just Indycar but all businesses that have unethical practices. Wal-Mart, General Motors, Blockbuster Video, Dell Computer, Radio Shack, AT&T, and Sprint are just a few of the businesses which I will NEVER have a financial relationship with again because of their lack of ethics.
This moral and ethical adherence must be absolute, not just at times of convenience or outrage. Practicing this behaviour carries itself over into daily living including potential child custody litigation. Much in the way that practicing yoga and daily meditation has what can be perceived as indirect benefits so does living by an absolute moral and ethical code that includes not supporting or encouraging others to behave immorally or unethically. Living a moral and ethical life doesn't end with your direct actions but includes your choice also of whom you associate with or support. Don't let financial greed bankrupt your integrity.
If your clients' case involves conflicting accounts of the facts and you want to ensure his or her credibility in court then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Why Judicial Officers must Understand the Elements of Child Abuse
Despite 40 years of funding for Child Protective Services there appears to be no abatement in the abuse and neglect of children. Beyond the preventative measures come the interventions which can ultimately lead to the termination of parental rights following a hearing before a judge. Most don't make it to that level though. However, judicial officers are still involved along the way in the vast majority of cases and they need to be cognizant of the signs and elements of abuse if they are going to make placement decisions that protect children. In a case where the parents are separated or divorced then consideration of placement with the other parent must be made pursuant to IC 31-34-4-2. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
An ongoing case involving the physical and emotional abuse of a child in Marshal County is illustrative of why it is important for our judicial officers to be trained in recognizing the harm of abuse and what constitutes abuse – which is still a hotly contested topic. In this case the child has alleged abuse against him from age four to seven years.
According to court documents the child's father, Christopher Warren, admits “that he struck the child in the mouth for lying” and that he lost his temper again and hit the child. A 2010 DCS petition to declare the child a CHiNS alleges that the boy then "stated that his father had given him the marks that morning and told him not to tell anyone." The boy said "his father hit him 5 times in the head” according to the document. In late 2011 DCS again removed the child and pushed for him to be declared a CHiNS but Judge Curtis Palmer refused. Instead, Judge Palmer cited in his denial of the petition that it alleged “that the father has inflicted minor injuries”, "[n]o medical attention was necessary”, and that "[t]he only evidence that the father caused the injuries comes from statements the four-year-old child made to others."
Those findings are clearly intended to obfuscate the harm being inflicted upon the child and the father's culpability. First and foremost is that the child is in the care and custody of his father. The boy's mother, Amber McNeal, has previously been adjudged unfit as a parent. Thus, whatever happens to the boy is the responsibility of the father. While not intended as subject matter for this posting there may be disparate treatment here of parents based upon gender. I have written about the maternal preference and mothers being held to a higher standard in custody cases. In this case the distinction between harms caused by the father is incidental – being either neglect or an affirmative act bordering on criminal conduct. As to the injuries these are not “minor” except when strictly limited in scope to the physical impact upon the boy's body. The serious injuries to this child are to his emotional well-being and his character and consciousness which are forming at this age. This boy lives in a chaotic word where he is not having appropriate parenting, conflict resolution or discipline techniques modeled to him.
He likely lacks a sense of security in a family structure or safety within the home. In short, the father has inflicted an ongoing psychological trauma against his son. Already the boy has allegedly stated two years ago "I just want to kill myself." Words like this should not come from a child just entering elementary school or at any other time for that matter. Clearly a judicial officer aware of such anxiety in a young boy should not maintain the status quo of the circumstances where such trauma is inflicted.
I recently began working on an appeal of a ruling by Judge Palmer in which a child who had been alleged to have been sexually abused by her father was ordered to be returned to him although CPS and the child's therapist believed her allegations. I recently wrote about reporting inconsistencies of children disclosing sexual abuse –
“Few make an outright spontaneous report of all the details. This is why it may take multiple attempts and result in conflicts in the reporting. The adult receiving the report must be appropriately responsive to the child's reporting methodology or the child will regress in the reporting process. It is this type of sporadic rather than chronological reporting that results in some untrained judges failing to acknowledge or confirm the abuse. The consequences can be that a child is placed with an abuser because the practitioners and judge thought it was a custody ploy.”
Determining the veracity of an abuse allegation is a substantial burden for a judicial officer. The placement of the child which can be in a protective environment or back with the person who has inflicted the harm and may retaliate is the onus undertaken by someone who may have no more training in the abuse spectrum than a law degree. Children have different methods by which they disclose abuse. Those who forensically examine these disclosures must be attuned to the child's temperament, the psychological impact that the alleged abuse would have been likely to produce and an understanding of typical disclosure inconsistencies. It is for these reasons that judges must avail themselves of forensic training or the opinions of us experts in this field before undertaking the onus of determining the probability that abuse occurred and where the child would be most protected from further acts of abuse.
I am not one who is eager to have the government invade the sanctity of the home and dictate discipline and punishment techniques. When a child has been reduced to nothing more than a punching bag for an incompetent and unloving parent, as in this case, then there is a clear need for the child to be protected. In this case the boy has two parents who do not care about his welfare over their own desires and needs the intervention of the state to protect him.
Unfortunately the lack of understanding on the part of Judge Palmer of what constitutes abuse and neglect has left a child in harm's way. While the physical wounds which Palmer refers to as “minor” will readily heal while the child is properly nourished the psychological scars will run much deeper and greater in duration. It will take the assistance of many people to mitigate this damage and give this boy the zest for life that most hold and forever let the days be in the past in which he says "I just want to kill myself."
Virginia Black of the South Bend Tribune has written more about this boy. where much of my information about this case was obtained.
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.
