Non-Custodial Parents and School Access

The most common complaint I have received from parents is specifically that the custodial parent has not been providing copies of report cards and other school communications or that the school will not allow direct access. These complaints have not missed the attention of the Domestic Relations Committee that is currently amending the Indiana parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG]

First, here is what the IPTG stipulate to parents regarding school communications:
Section (D)(1) School Records. Each parent shall promptly provide the other with copies of a child’s grade reports and notices from school as they are received. A parent shall not interfere with the right of the other parent to communicate directly with school
personnel concerning a child.

Most Non-Custodial Parents [NCP] believe that the obligation is upon the custodial parent to always obtain and then provide copies of school records and communications to the NCP. However, this responsibility in placed upon both parents, not just the custodial parent. This is important to know because failure to do so can result in a finding of contempt by the court.

The right to access school records does not originate under the IPTG. Instead it is a statutory right. The Commentary to the previously quoted section of the IPTG provides this information:
Under Indiana law, both parents are entitled to direct access to their child’s school records, Indiana Code ' 20-33-7-2.

This is a lucid statement; yet to school administrators it is often esoteric. Here is a quick analysis of that statement; 1) It refers to a law; 2) The law gives parents a right;, and; 3) That right is to access “their child's school records”. Categorically, Done!

When I have confronted some school administrators about this I have been told that after consultation with the school's legal counsel that I would receive a decision. My patronizing response usually includes a comment about obfuscating their “educational” job. Soon after, the expected response comes; just tell the parent to come in, the records are available.

Similar to school records is participation in school activities. The IPTG stipulates the following:
Section (D)(2) School Activities. Each parent shall promptly notify the other parent of all school activities. A parent shall not interfere with the right of the other parent to communicate directly with school personnel concerning a child’s school activities. The parent exercising parenting time shall be responsible to transport the child to school related activities.

Again, this is a lucid statement. The Commentary provides additional clarity:
The opportunity for a child to attend a school function should not be denied solely because a parent is not able to attend the function. In such instance, the child should be permitted to attend the function with the available parent. Scheduled parenting time should not be used as an excuse to deny the child’s participation in school related activities, including practices and rehearsals.

This responsibility goes both ways. The NCP should not deny the child the opportunity to participate in a school function and may be forced to relinquish some parenting time to allow the custodial parent to facilitate the child's participation. Equally, the custodial parent may need to offer to the NCP the opportunity to facilitate the child's participation.

Sometimes the complaint to me has played out in a manner like this: I went on-line and found out that my son is going to the museum and parent chaperones are needed, that his grades in three classes went down and that parent/teacher conferences are now being scheduled. His mother told me about none of this. Doesn't that violate the IPTG? I want to have her found in contempt. This ludicrous scenario is usually the result of an insatiable desire for retribution brought on by resentment towards the other parent. Something the child doesn't need to be brought into.

The scenario is not lost on judges, practitioners nor the Domestic Relations Committee that is currently revising the IPTG. So, I direct you to the introduction to the section about the exchange of information:
A child may suffer inconvenience, embarrassment, and physical or emotional harm when parents fail to actively obtain and share information. Parents should take the initiative to obtain information about their child from the various providers of services.

Here the writers have stipulated as to why “parents” need to “actively obtain and share information” about their child's school records, activities and other activities. The irony of the parent seeking contempt for not receiving information received won't be lost on a judicial officer and may result not only in not getting the desired result of a contempt citation but a stern lecture from the bench about parental responsibility and additionally the possibility of having attorney fees assessed against the parent bringing the contempt action.

The DRC has proposed changing some of the language in the IPTG relating to the exchange of information to reflect the expanding technological capabilities of schools and community organizations and to also promote greater involvement with the schools and the child's activities by both parents.

The proposed language will seek to encompass the following concepts; that each parent is responsible to establish direct relationship with school; that each parent should obtain school information on their own without depending on the other parent; and that the parent with knowledge of the event should promptly inform the other parent of the date, time and place of the event. It is their belief that if a parent feels that doing this is such an onus then that parent isn't really servile enough to the children to be acting in their best interest.

To resolve an additional complaint that the child's school registration is devoid of any mention of the NCP in an effort to alienate that parent from the child or school the DRC has proposed adding this requirement:
The noncustodial parent shall be listed as an emergency contact unless there are special circumstances concerning child endangerment.

As I tell most of these parents who bring this type of complaint about communication to me their focus should be on the child. They apparently discovered the necessary information on their own. Do they feel it is necessary to condescend the other parent or can they rise above, take the initiative, be the bigger person, be the proactive parent who takes the initiative with the school and their child's needs?

It is going to happen whether they can. It is not an onerous task to get involved with their child's school unless that school is intentionally circumscribing itself from you. It is the responsible thing to do for all parents to do and the sagacious have already done.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

On-Line Background Check and Faulty Reasoning

Recently I had the opportunity to be watching television and did. What made this particular episode of my rare television viewing worthy enough to draw me into writing about it was that I actually saw a commercial. My missed opportunity with the remote led to my viewing of the attempt by beenverified.com to mollify those in the dating scene.

My ire was raised by the statement made by the actress portraying a confident woman saying, “there's a lot to be said about a mother's intuition, but isn't it better to know for sure”. The implication is that beenverified.com provides that surety.

They profess to provide security through knowledge about the potential lurid past of the subject person for which you inquire. However, they do not interview the subject, query collateral sources or engage in any type of surveillance. Instead, they are nothing but an for-profit depository of public records related to court convictions.

I have often warned against using tools like sex offender registries as the basis for a determination as to scrupulousness of a person. I am keenly aware of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in many cases, particularly sexual offenses. I previously wrote about the false sense of security that these background checks provide.

Databases should be nothing more than a tool. When it comes to your personal safety or that of your children I recommend intuition over beenverified.com any day. Intuition is a function of the subconscious that analyzes a lifetime of events made applicable to a current situation and then renders a feeling. The human mind is a far superior instrument to the for-profit collection and dissemination of data provided by beenverified.com.

It is the role of marketing to get you to disengage your mind from a natural postulate and then be susceptible to reconditioning to accept a paradox. The veracity of beenverified.com's claims are spurious. I suggest that, for your safety, you avoid using this service if you believe it will inform you if the person has committed a crime.

Keep in mind -- Casey Anthony, as a rule of law, has not harmed a child; she has lied to police. O.J. Simpson, as a rule of law, has not murdered anyone. Not all people are convicted the first time they commit crimes.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

The Best and the Worst

I have been traversing the countryside and nearby towns lately perusing yard sales. This multifaceted endeavor, usually accomplished on my bicycle, is providing for at least a nominal degree of exercise. I am also getting the benefit of acquiring some useful, sometimes previously unknown to me, products that may just make my life a bit easier.

Often times I am getting the tried and true, quality constructed small kitchen appliances that simply can't be found at the modern mass-merchandisers. Commensurate to these benefits is the savings realized by often paying only about 10-25% of retail price. Topping this off is my acquisition of goods that I manage to resell for a profit which culminates in my ultimately having no final cost in my acquired goods.

Before this becomes soporific let me be succinct about the purpose of today's posting. Today two yard sales reminded me of the desultory fashion by which some parents approach their child custody matters.

I first stopped at a sale where the tables were uniformly arranged and the wares were separated by category. The CD's were even stacked label-side up and separated by genre. Everything was individually priced or signs on the table clearly indicated the prices such as CD's or toddler clothing. I came away with a book and a CD.

A few other sales occupied my time and curiosity until I came across what I have to describe as the most cursory yard sale I have come across to date. This was advertised as: 106 N. Main St.-Whitestown Everything must go! Glassware, furniture, golf cart, Harley stuff, 86 Dodge 300 convertible-original, signed baseball from 1950 's era. Too much to list all!!!

What I believe this actually is was an attempt to comply with a health department order. The items were strewn about a yard, most appeared rain damaged and nothing was priced. There was also a sign that directed shoppers to the spurious sale continuing inside a pole barn. Once in there I was treated to the delight of what appeared to be a squatters residence. There was a couch, television, bedding linens and various instruments of domestication.

So in this day I have faced the best and the worst of yard sales that I have been to this year. I was struck by the similarity to parents involved in child custody hearings.

Earlier this year I was called to meet with a parent well over a week in advance of the hearing. This parent was cognizant that adequate preparation was a precursor to a successful hearing. Just as the initial yard sale of this day, everything she had was sorted by subject, clearly labeled and organized in to folders such as evidence, law, pleadings and communications. Considering the voluminous data to comprehend and then convey to the attorney it couldn't have been done without her organizational skills.

Then there is the opposite. It was the email that arrived in the afternoon immediately preceding the hearing the next morning. The reply to the contract and scheduling information sent a month earlier had arrived to my scheduler seeking a meeting with me that evening and an appearance in court the following morning. For that type of person I have two words; good luck.

In these situations I usually tell my scheduler to send a reply the following afternoon stating that he needs an application to be mailed, as previously instructed, and then he will schedule an appointment.

No amount of frenetic planning or indignant discord is going to get me to provide assistance to this type of parent. There is nothing mysterious about what type of parent does this. The only mystery is the motivation and why they even bother with the process in their seemingly perfunctory manner.

I know this is an inveterate behaviour on the part of the parent that does not serve the child's best interest. It is indicative of the sporadic parenting in which this type of parent engages. I would not advocate for this parent but I would help. It is not my purpose to help a parent win a child custody battle though. I certainly don't want to be a party to compelling a child into a custody arrangement with a parent who he going to ignore the child's needs, miss important dates and treat the child as a bane as much as the impending court hearing.

There are situations where a child needs for me to assist a particular parent in a custody proceeding. More often though it is a parent who needs for me to ameliorate prior acts or those inveterate behaviours that led to a restriction on parenting time. Parents should always keep in mind that it is not about winning a case but, rather, trying to ensure that the child has the care, companionship and support of two loving parents.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Indiana Court of Appeals Remands Scarberry Custody Case to Commissioner Pancol

My head is spinning as I try to wrap my thoughts around the practicality, or lack thereof, of the Order from the Indiana Court of Appeals issued on 30 June 2011 in the case of Scarberry v Scarberry.

Briefly, Craig Scarberry is the Anderson, Indiana man who lost custody of his children in November 2010 because Madison Superior Court Master Commissioner George G Pancol found that Craig had changed his religion from Christian to agnostic and was therefor unfit to have custody of his children. The order was appealed and a Motion to Stay (not enforce) the order was filed which was granted, resulting in the children being returned to the previously practiced 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. Pancol recused himself during that process.

The immediate Order states, “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B), this cause is remanded to the Madison Superior Court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. No hearing shall be held nor new evidence received. This Court retains jurisdiction over this appeal. The Madison Superior Court is ordered to file with this Court new findings of fact and conclusions of law that are compliant with Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) within (20) days of the date of this order.”

Here is Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B) “Effect of Remand. The Court on Appeal may dismiss the appeal without prejudice, and remand the case to the trial court, or remand the case while retaining jurisdiction, with or without limitation on the trial court's authority. Unless the order specifically provides otherwise, the trial court or Administrative Agency shall obtain unlimited authority on remand. “

My understanding of this Order is, the Court of Appeals does not believe that there is sufficient findings and conclusions upon which they can review to determine if custody of the children was properly modified and therefore the trial court needs to redo its findings and conclusions. The argument before the Court was not whether the trial court improperly modified custody, but rather, whether the modification was improperly based upon Mr Scarberry's religious preference. It is clear upon a reading of the so-called findings and conclusions that such was the case.

I have previously written An Examination of the ORDER in Scarberry v Scarberry where I detailed the deficiencies in the Order and the basis for the modification being based solely on Craig's religious preference. By statute the trial court was required to examine and make its judgment based upon no less than eight detailed factors. See IC 31-17-2-8.

The remand Order seems contrary to the purpose of this appeal and the facts as they stand. Of great importance is that Master Commissioner George G Pancol has already recused, that is he abdicated in this matter. Yet, the Court of Appeals is now, in effect, giving Pancol a chance for a “do over”. I don't believe that anyone can have a doubt that Pancol will not issue new findings that are prejudicial and biased against Craig. In Pancol's bizarre and rambling Order of Recusal he so much as stated that he was correct in making the order but will recuse anyway.

The attorney handling this appeal, Indiana Civil Liberties Union director Ken Falk, is in no enviable position. Normally a reviewing court would “vacate and remand” with instructive guidelines for a new hearing. This means that the order having been appealed would be tossed-out, as though it never existed, and that a new hearing would be held. The trial court would then issue new findings consistent with instructions by the Court of Appeals. In this case it would be that the judge is not to use the parents' religious preferences as a basis for determining custody.

However, Pancol abdicated. The normal procedure then would be to select a new judge. In the recent Oklahoma decision in Casey v Casey the Court of Appeals ordered that “The cause is reversed and remanded with directions for the trial judge to certify his recusal and for the case to be transferred to a different judge for determination of the property division.” In Scarberry v Scarberry the issue is the division of time with the children and who gets to make those important decisions regarding their health care, religion and education, not property as in Casey v Casey. Just as in Casey the new judge could look at the record [transcript of the hearing] and make a judgment.

It is difficult to understand why, here, the Court of Appeals wants the judge who is no longer the presiding judge in the case to go back and rewrite his so-called findings and conclusions. I will be fervently searching for any such precedent.

Ultimately, I see this case being litigated again based upon the continued failure of the mother, Christine Porcaro, to act as a responsible parent and her continued facilitation of violence and threats of violence towards Craig occurring around the children.

If you need assistance with child custody issues or coaching to improve your parenting skills then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

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.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Divorce does not absolve parents of responsibility

While counseling parents in high conflict relationships I am often confronted with the claims by a parent that he or she can't make the child do something the child doesn't want to. It is as though these parents now want me to believe that minor children of divorced parents are no longer the subjects of parental authority as are the children of married parents – something I just won't buy into.

This is often a very telling indication of what type of parent I am facing – an irrational one. This is precisely the reason the parents are in a high conflict relationship – one or both is irrational. To demonstrate the irrational philosophy about parenting the following colloquy usually occurs:
Me: So your children refuse to follow the parenting time order?
Parent: Yes, they just don't want to.
Me: Do you ever get tired of being their slave?
Parent: What do you mean?
Me: You know, taking them wherever they want, cleaning up after them, serving their every need since they have no assigned chores.
Parent: No they have responsibilities around the house.
Me: Well sure, when they are there I guess but aren't they out most nights?
Parent: No, they are at home every school night.
Me: School? Do they go?
Parent: Well yes.

This is when I get into some long diatribe about what a wonderful model parent I am speaking with and how I want this person to do “parenting seminars” with me so they can teach other parents how to raise a teenage child like theirs'. One who wants to do chores, who wants to be at home in the evenings doing homework, who wants to go to school and who wants to obey the commands and rules of this parent so much that it is no longer a rule but a desired way of life.

After this parent is done wiping the sarcasm from his or her face I usually get a natural response like, “Oh, I get it.” Quite simply getting divorced does not absolve a parent from a responsibility to ensure that the children are properly disciplined and respect the commands of the parent. It is rarely a problem in married households where the minor children get to decide which rules they will follow. Yet, in households led by some divorced parents the parent seems to behave as though the child is the one making the rules.

This may be the result of laziness, trying to win the affections and allegiance of the child or, as in the case I present today, an intentional effort to alienate the child from the other parent. Today's case comes from a recent unpublished opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The trial court found -

[Mother]'s testimony that she desires the [C]hildren to have a relationship with their father is not credible. [She] has interfered with parenting time and has consciously and subconsciously undermined the relationship between the [C]hildren and their father.
[Father] shall have regular email and phone contact with [K.N. and L.N].
[Mother] shall have no phone contact with [K.N. and L.N.] during the weekend parenting time in Indianapolis.
[K.N. and L.N.] shall have the right to earn one phone call per day with [Mother] during the full week parenting time based upon their behavior.
[Mother] shall impose consequences on [K.N. and L.N.] if they refuse to speak on the phone or email [Father].

Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying parenting time. Specifically, she argues that the trial court improperly ordered that 1) L.N. and K.N. shall earn the right to speak with Mother on the telephone; 2) Mother shall impose consequences on L.N. and K.N. for refusing to communicate with Father; and other unrelated issues. Mother also asserts that the trial court improperly found her in contempt.

Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to impose consequences upon L.N. and K.N. if they refuse to communicate with Father. She maintains that “[a]dministering consequences to a child for bad or inappropriate behavior is within the sole discretion of a party,” and the trial court's directive “is nothing more than a method for the court to punish the children for noncompliance with the court's order.”

The Court rejected Mother's argument citing the reasoning by the court in MacIntosh. There the court acknowledged that although a visitation order “necessarily direct[s] the conduct of the children affected by the marital dissolution,” the order is “not enforceable against the children” as the parents are the parties before the court. MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626, 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Thus it is the duty of the parent to ensure that the children comply with the order.

The MacIntosh court went further in stating that a custodial parent may not “justify inaction simply because a child refuses to cooperate with a visitation order.” MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626, 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines state this clearly in that “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.” IPTG § I(E)(3).

It has long been held that parents are responsible for the behaviour of their children which was recently affirmed in Norris – “our established case law . . . expects parents to control their minor child's behavior and attitude” Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Accordingly, the court in the immediate case found no abuse of discretion in ordering Mother to impose consequences for the failure to L.N. and K.N. to cooperate with the trial court's parenting time order.

Finally, Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt and therefore ordering her to pay Father's attorney's fees in the amount of $6,500.00 as a sanction. Mother contends that “there is no evidence to support the court's determination that [she] willfully disobeyed the court's orders regarding parenting time.” Rather, she maintains that the “[C]hildren have not abided by them.” This is a proposition that the court has soundly rejected.

The Court of Appeals in upholding the trial court found that the “evidence does support an award for attorney's fees and expenses incurred due to Mother's contempt. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in awarding $6,500.00 to compensate Father.”

In summary, Mother obstructed Father's parenting time with the children for months, called them repeatedly on the phone while with Father, maintained that it was not her responsibility to ensure that the children go to Father's for his parenting time with them and, generally, did not foster Father's relationship with the children.

Just as it is the responsibility of a married parent to ensure that his or her children comply with compulsory education laws, maintain their behaviour in manners generally acceptable by society and follows the laws, so is it for divorced parents. Divorced parents who decide that they will not enforce standards of behaviour upon their children, for whatever reason, are doing a disservice to the children.

Ultimately, failing to ensure that children participate in parenting time is contrary to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and, likely, contemptuous of the court's orders.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

The BIG PICTURE: Respect for Law and Texting while Driving in Indiana?

Never has something gotten so under my skin as the soon-to-be “effective” Indiana law prohibiting texting while driving. I have already written about the Safety in Texting While Driving where I detailed why it can be safe for some people to do that.

Today I want to throw all of that aside – disregard that this is a 'texting' issue – and focus solely on respect for the law.

The foundation of our representative democratic republic is respect for the rule of law which must be maintained if the Republic is to survive. Indiana, as all states, has a model Code of Judicial Conduct which establishes rules and guidelines for judges to follow.

The purpose of this is twofold, to ensure that litigants receive fair and impartial treatment from the court but also to instill and foster a sense of faith and trust in the judiciary by society at large. The courts are where we find ourselves in times of dispute amongst each other or when we have been accused of a trespass against society.

If we lose faith in the judiciary then there can be little incentive to use the judiciary to settle our disputes. In essence, judicial corruption effectuates anarchy. Similarly, as a country of laws, not men, we must have faith in our legislators also. Since the government derives its power from the people it is mandated that it obtain the consent of the governed before imposing obligations or restrictions upon the people.

Our Constitution provides that laws must be equally applicable and not single out particular people or classes of people for punishment or restriction without a compelling governmental interest – for the good of society. When laws become arbitrary and capricious we lose faith in the rule of law. Again in essence, oppressive or unjust laws effectuates anarchy.

This is where I find myself when confronted by this anti-texting while driving law. It is wholly unjust, oppressive and offensive to the very rule of law. Law should not be based upon a knee-jerk reaction, a fanciful whim or as a declaration to a particular interest group that “something is being done”. This is the reason that the framers of the Constitution have made it an extremely difficult challenge to amend the Constitution.

To better understand how this law is so unjust I will provide a hypothetical scenario with the same elements of the texting while driving issue.

At the entrance to roller coasters are signs indicating that riders must be at least 48” in height to ride. This is universal throughout all amusement parks. The purpose for this is to keep occupants from slipping out from under the lap bar.

Tragedy strikes three amusement parks one summer as a rider at each somehow comes out of the car and plummets to his or her death. Investigations occur at each and although much remains unknown someone discerns that the reports do show a similarity between all three riders – each was 61” in height.

Immediately there are calls for legislative action to ensure that these tragedies are not repeated the following season. Youths converge on the Statehouse and lobby for laws to make the rides more safe . Legislation is hastily crafted and introduced. Ultimately a bill is passed that provides these provisions; 1) That new measuring sticks must be mounted at the entrance to each ride with a red zone between 60.5” and 61.5” – riders in that height range will be banned from riding, 2) Those who violate this law shall be fined $500, and 3) That no law enforcement officer may require a suspected violator to be measured.

So now everyone can feel good. The class of people and the actions (61” in height) that led to these tragedies has been outlawed. I contend that it has not.

Instead I ask – If some 60.5” thru 61.5” riders slipped out from under the lap bar then why allow anyone under 60.5” to ride? I think society would be best served to look at the entirety of the situation in a logical manner and craft an effective law that will protect the populace.

Here is a continuation of the hypothetical based upon the principle of logic. Riders who are 61” likely fall into the category of adolescents – those thrill seekers who push the limits, test the boundaries and make us parents exclaim “What were you thinking?” I contend that the rides are safe for riders 48” in height and above but that some reckless youths did not follow the safety guidelines posted in the loading area.

I proposed that further investigation be done and then legislation crafted.

Upon reading the investigative reports and further interviews with witnesses it was determined that these riders who died had been playing a game wherein they raise the lap bar and try to use their strength to hold on. The smaller and younger riders do not try this and neither do the older, taller and wiser riders.

They had managed to hold the bar down in such a manner as to keep if from engaging the locking mechanism while fooling their less than attentive ride attendant from realizing this. I then crafted a law that contained these provisions; 1) That all roller coasters shall be fitted with lap bar devices that are electronically locked and may not be put into motion unless such device affirms that all bars are locked in the downward position, 2) That ride attendants receive training in properly securing ride occupants and observing unsafe behaviours, and 3) That state inspectors be allowed on the premises to inspect the rides at any time during operating hours to ensure compliance.

I hope that this illustration has provided you with enough information to see that one solution is a viable and effective means to ensure riders safety while the other is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction made without proper consideration of the facts and not written in a way that can achieve the desired outcome. In short, that one of these responses you will find to be stupid and make you think these regulators have no clue and these safety measures aren't to be taken seriously.

This now brings us back to the substance of the texting while driving law.

Sending, receiving or reading a text on a mobile device while driving is prohibited. A law enforcement officer may not inspect the device to discern if any of that was happening.

However, the law does not prohibit the use of these devices for phone calls. Neither does is outlaw using these devices to access “apps”. For those not so technically savvy an “app” is short for application which on these devices may be a game, weather radar, restaurant guide, dictionary or just about anything that can be viewed and perused. This law simply targets one medium of a much wider problem – negligent and unskilled drivers allowing themselves to be distracted while driving.

For laws to be respectable there should be a logical connection between purpose, language and results. Here the purpose is to reduce injuries and deaths in automotive collisions for which distracted driving is a contributor. The language does not cover distracted driving but instead narrowly focuses on receiving, reading or writing text messages only. The law also fails to include any reasonable method of enforcement thereby making it superficial at best.

The result here is that we have legislators who caved into pressure to do something, abused the legislative purpose, passed a law that will have no effect, created distrust in the law-making process and authority, and ultimately may have endangered people. For that, I feel they have not respected the position that they embody nor the purpose for which the legislative process exists.

This law should be challenged at every attempt to enforce it. Ultimately it should be repealed and instead the focus should be on improving driver skills and holding those who fail to maintain due diligence while driving accountable for their actions.

What I find most dangerous about this law and the abuse of the legislative process is how and when it will be applied to our children. If a majority of our legislators and the governor can be so careless as to pass a law like this – with no logical basis – then what can they possibly do with the custody of our children? For it is this thought that comes forth from the anti-texting law and truly infuriates me.

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

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.