19 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Today I present to you some of the aspects and considerations of parenting time, legal custody, and physical custody in Indiana and the effects these have on children. To begin I will provide definitions to some of the terms that are used in relation to child custody.
Legal custody is the designation of who shall decide the major life practices of the child such as health care, religious activities, and education.
Physical custody is the determination of how a child's time shall be divided between the parents or other custodians.
Parenting time is the contemporary term applied to physical custody that replaces “visitation” so as to embody the spirit that a parent's time with his or her children embraces all of the attendant responsibilities of parenting including social and emotional development.
Primary physical custodian is the parent who has the child for the most significant portion of time.
Shared Parenting is the term applied to parents who exercise a division of time with the children that allocates no less than generally 35-45% to each parent depending upon the jurisdiction or general practices of the court.
Sole custodian is the designation given to the person who is granted authority to singly make the major life decisions of the child such as health care, religious activities, and education.
I am presenting the relevant statutes first and will then refer to them by code in subsequent commentary. In Indiana the decision on legal custody and parenting time in dissolution of marriage are as follows;
IC 31-17-2-8 - Custody order
Sec. 8. The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, there is no presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parent or parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parent or parents;
(B) the child's sibling; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.
(5) The child's adjustment to the child's:
(A) home;
(B) school; and
(C) community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.96-1999, SEC.7;P.L.133-2002, SEC.32.
IC 31-17-2-13 - Joint legal custody; finding required for award
Sec. 13. The court may award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of joint legal custody would be in the best interest of the child.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9.
IC 31-17-2-15 - Joint legal custody; matters considered in making award
Sec. 15. In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under section 13 of this chapter would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so; and
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.3-2008, SEC.237.
IC 31-17-2-17 - Custodian may determine child's upbringing
Sec. 17. (a) Except:
(1) as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody order; and
(2) as provided in subsection (b);
the custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious training.
(b) If the court finds after motion by a noncustodial parent that, in the absence of a specific limitation of the custodian's authority, the child's:
(1) physical health would be endangered; or
(2) emotional development would be significantly impaired;
the court may specifically limit the custodian's authority.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9.
In Indiana the decision on legal custody and parenting time in paternity cases is governed by the Indiana Code as follows;
IC 31-14-13-2.3 - Joint legal custody; finding required for award; factors considered in making award
Sec. 2.3. (a) In a proceeding to which this chapter applies, the court may award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of joint legal custody would be in the best interest of the child.
(b) An award of joint legal custody under this section does not require an equal division of physical custody of the child.
(c) In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under this section would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint legal custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint legal custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so;
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody; and
(7) whether there is a pattern of domestic or family violence.
As added by P.L.95-2009, SEC.2.
IC 31-14-13-2 - Factors of custody determination
Sec. 2. The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the child's best interests, there is not a presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parents;
(B) the child's siblings; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
(5) The child's adjustment to home, school, and community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 2.5(b) of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.96-1999, SEC.2; P.L.133-2002, SEC.24.
IC 31-14-14-1 - Parenting time rights of noncustodial parent; in chambers interview of child; rebuttable presumption for supervised parenting time
Sec. 1. (a) A noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time might:
(1) endanger the child's physical health and well-being; or
(2) significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(b) The court may interview the child in chambers to assist the court in determining the child's perception of whether parenting time by the noncustodial parent might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(c) In a hearing under subsection (a), there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who has been convicted of:
(1) child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3); or
(2) child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4(b));
might endanger the child's physical health and well-being or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(d) If a court grants parenting time rights to a person who has been convicted of:
(1) child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3); or
(2) child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4(b));
there is a rebuttable presumption that the parenting time with the child must be supervised.
(e) The court may permit counsel to be present at the interview.
If counsel is present:
(1) a record may be made of the interview; and
(2) the interview may be made part of the record for purposes of appeal.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.15-2004, SEC.1; P.L.68-2005, SEC.19; P.L.95-2009, SEC.4.
The distinction between parenting time and legal custody recognizes that each provides a different set of benefits and objectives. In dissolution 31-17-2-8 provides the eight factors that a judicial officer must consider when making a parenting time decision. These include such things as the child's relationship with the parents and other people who can significantly affect the child's well-being, the child's adjustment to the child's home, school and community, and most importantly the child's wishes. 31-17-2-15 provides that when considering legal custody a judicial officer must consider the fitness of each parent, whether they agree to the custody arrangement, and interestingly the wishes of the child. 31-17-2-17 provides that the person or persons awarded legal custody “may determine the child's upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious training.”
Thus, parenting time is about developing, facilitating and promoting the parent-child relationship while [legal] custody is an administrative process that can be undertaken from afar and, although not practical, without interaction with the child. The interesting aspect of 31-17-2-15 is that it provides for the wishes of the child. While married parents may also consider the wishes of their children in these matters most certainly do not provide their children the authority to decide whether to attend school, practice hygienic activities, or observe parents religious decisions.
Granting to parents an award of joint legal custody allows for input from two decision makers - two researchers, two contemplative minds, two subjective viewpoints - providing input into the decision making process. Much as a patient may seek a second opinion from a medical professional before undergoing a major procedure children should also be entitled to second opinions before their health, education, or religious determinations are made for them. Setting aside these matters, it is important for children regardless of who their legal custodians are that they maintain a healthy and meaningful interaction with each parent. This is the purpose of establishing parenting time.
There is a basic premise underlying the opinions in the legal community that stability and continuity of care is in the best interest of the child.[fn1] However, as applied there is often not continuity in care as most often children experience a decrease in the time they spend in the care of their fathers. Much of this is due to a political agenda that has influenced policy makers.
Research and my observations have demonstrated that sole custody and especially primary physical custody requests are associated with exacerbation or creation of conflict. Courts are reticent to award joint legal custody and Shared Parenting arrangements once conflict erupts. This in a way becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, when the frequency of transitions is reduced, and high conflict parents avoid direct contact with each other during parenting time exchanges and shield their children from their conflict, the negative effects disappear. I contend though that conflict is a normal part of everyday life, and to completely shield children from normal conflict may be depriving them of an opportunity to observe resolution of disputes, healing and reconciliation.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines provide guidance for the purpose of parenting time.
A child whose parents live apart has special needs related to the parent-child relationship. A child's needs and ability to cope with the parent's situation change as the child matures. Parents should consider these needs as they negotiate parenting time. They should be flexible and create a parenting time agreement which addresses the unique needs of the child and their circumstances. Parents and attorneys should always demonstrate a spirit of cooperation. The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines are designed to assist parents and courts in the development of their own parenting plans. In the event the parties cannot create their own parenting time agreement, these guidelines represent the minimum time a parent should have to maintain frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact with a child.
When confronted with litigation involving child custody resulting from dissolution of marriage or a paternity action it is essential that you know the differences and purposes surrounding the legal and physical custody of the children. These two dimensions must be harmonized as decisions or agreements that recognize the child's needs and how these two facets of custody interplay with that are essential to the child's well-being and the probability that the decision will endure. Neither legal custody decisions or parenting time arrangements should be made in isolation. These considerations should be juxtaposed and integrated with each other.
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, March 19, 2014
Shared Parenting Time, Joint or Sole Legal Custody, and Joint or Primary Physical Custody - Indiana
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.
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.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Why some Non Custodial Parents should be and how not to get help changing that
07 March 2014
To: Stephanie - Stuart Showalter Scheduler [scheduler@stuartshowalter.com]
It is important to note that Mr Swindells was asked to provide his attorney number which he did not. His response relates to being asked by my scheduler to submit an application along with the initial $150 consultation fee. Here is the information for attorneys as it appears on my website. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I state it on my business card: Child custody decisions are not about the law, but are judgments based upon parenting skills and behaviours. Get on the path to making yours optimal – now! I suggest that this is done by harmonizing finances, physical and mental health, spirituality, diet and lifestyle which are essential to achieving a better custody decision and parent-child relationship.
Essentially it all begins with attitude and a willingness to accept responsibility.
From the hundreds of requests I get per year seeking my assistance many likely deserve and would benefit from my services but I am limited in my time and therefore have established an application process. I also do these blog postings and public policy advising so as to be able to assist the greatest number of children possible.
Each year though I encounter one of those truly ungrateful, greedy, inconsiderate NCPs who were aptly designated as such and really show their asses to me. It didn't take any spring thaw or sweltering summer sun to finally get this year's best. Consider this email I received in February.
From: Tim Swindells [timswindells@yahoo.com]
Re: Stuart Showalter Child Custody Life Coaching
On February 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM Tim Swindells [timswindells@yahoo.com] wrote:
Dear Stephanie:
So much for truth in advertising on his website as to a "free" initial consultaion. $150.00 is NOT free.
This lie will be posted to all father's, and divorce groups I belong to on Facebook, as well as the individual who referred you'all to me. The public needs to know the truth, plus the fact that it is obvious by your email he is not nationally available in any economical sense. He is simply taking advantage of people's misfortunes just to turn a buck.
T.Swindells
Attorney
ATTORNEYS
As a child custody coach Mr Showalter uses his vast child custody knowledge to help you achieve more favourable results for your client. He will also increase your productivity, reduce your workload and lower costs for your clients. He can help you formulate trial strategy, negotiate settlements, draft documents, conduct research, prepare witnesses,assist your clients in understanding the process and provide opinion testimony about your client.
Through his vast experience he can provide to you knowledge about the temperament, practices and expectations of numerous judges or opposing attorneys. He even goes so far as to advise on what to expect from the other parent based upon his or her religious or cultural background. If an extra set of hands is needed during trial or detailed note taking then you should consider using Mr Showalter for that also.
Recently Mr Showalter provided input to the appellate attorney representing Craig Scarberry, the Anderson Indiana man who lost custody of his children because he changed his religious preference to that of agnostic. In the appeal of that judgment it was Mr Showalter's input that prompted the attorney to file a motion which resulted in the Indiana Court of Appeals issuing a Stay of the judgment. Mr Scarberry's children were then returned to him.
Please contact Mr Showalter directly to schedule a no-fee initial consultation to discuss the services he offers.[emphasis added]
Nowhere do I offer free services to parents. Instead I ask for this.
SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION NOW
Mr Showalter limits his assistance to only those parents whom he believes he can provide the most effective assistance or whose children are at the greatest risk. He therefore requires that everyone have a referral and complete an application for services prior to deciding if he will provide assistance. Please contact his scheduler if you have additional queries.
CHILD CUSTODY COACHING APPLICATION [PDF]
PRIVACY POLICY [PDF]
Mr Showalter requires that you have a referral to receive services. This can be any attorney, judge, health provider or other practitioner. Referrals are also accepted from your elected representatives.
As you can see from his email, Mr Swindell attempts to defraud me by claiming to be an attorney to get a free explanation of my services. When his ruse fails he unloads with his virulent attack on my character. This is the essence of the types of behaviours that judges pick up on which justify a rational child custody and parenting time order that protects children from being subjected to this type of parent. His bullying behaviour based upon his feeling that he is entitled to free services and that anyone who doesn't conform to his wishes is going to be unjustly maligned by him. That is not the proper course of action to take when seeking the assistance of someone. It's especially unwise to demonstrate this behaviour to a judge or anyone else who has input on a child custody decision.
To those who are truly motivated by seeking the best interest of their children I gladly accept applications. To those who would seek to exploit my services in an effort to bully other parties to the action and inflict emotional harm on children don't bother applying because I am going to have you figured out before you know it.
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, March 5, 2014
Helicopter Parenting and Overscheduled Kids: On Course for a Crash Landing? to be the subject of the 2014 Justice Steve David's Community In-Service program
05 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Justice Steve David's 14th annual Community In-Service program will be held on Wednesday 12 March 2014 at the Witham Health Services Pavilion at the Boone County 4-H Fairgrounds beginning at 8:00am. This year's theme is Helicopter Parenting and Overscheduled Kids: On Course for a Crash Landing. The keynote speaker for the event is Dr Greg Sipes.
Helicopter parents – those who assume the responsibilities and risks for their children – can be extremely detrimental to the children's well-being. These traits include being a solution provider rather than problem solving technique teacher, overscheduling rather than allowing for free thought and exploration, and being a safety guardian rather than letting children experience the beneits of learning through adversity.
Even personally transporting your children to school rather than allowing them to walk is a trait of helicopter parenting which had additional adverse effects. I will be writing about that issue next week when reasonable walking conditions resume. It is these behaviours that I caution parents against and also develop alternative strategies to ensure the well-being and proper development of their children. It is because this parenting style inhibits well-being and proper development of children that I make recommendations to the judicial officers hearing contested child custody cases that those parents should not have primary responsibility of the children.
While the various forms of physical abuse of children have been thoughtfully acknowledged by policy makers and judges the psychological damage through such actions as helicopter parenting has been slow to be recognized by the judiciary and less so by the public at large.
This year's Community In-Service – Helicopter Parenting and Overscheduled Kids: On Course for a Crash Landing – should help bring to the attention of parents, practitioners and policy makers the negative impact and consequences of helicopter parenting.
Persons wishing to attend may register using this form which must be returned to Witham Hospital by 07 March 2014. Registration fee is $65.
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 3, 2014
JD Miniear for US Congress Indiana 7th District - In his own words
03 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
As I have attended various events around Indianapolis this year I have continued to see the presence of a candidate for Indiana's Seventh US Congressional District which is currently occupied by Andre Carson. This candidate and community activist is JD Miniear who took time out of his busy schedule to speak with me about his campaign.
In 2010 JD Miniear was working on the Congressional campaign of Dr Marvin Scott. As the election returns came in and it was apparent that Scott wasn't going to win he announced to his staff in the room that he would not run again but thought that someone in that room would unseat Andre Carson. The eyes turned towards JD Miniear who in 2011 looked at the district as it had been reconfigured and he thought it was winnable race.
Miniear feels that he can upset such a well known name as Carson because it is that Carson is so well known. Well known for the types of policies and positions that go against the values of most Hoosiers and the principles of liberty that our constitution embodies. Miniear seemed upset by the “August 2010 racially charged messages” by Carson which proved to be untrue.
When I asked Miniear about his platform he was passionate about the electrical grid. I could see why as Miniear explained the importance of this often overlooked critical element of our national security. As a 2014 member of the EMP coalition Miniear will be advocating for responsible energy independence that is not jeopardizing the security of our country. He contends that O'bama and Andre Carson are pursuing an agenda that will jeopardize our national security and cost the average Hoosier family almost an additional $1000 per year. The administration's plan is to turn off six power plants in Indiana next year. The consequence ironically is going to be increased air pollution as more coal fired power plants go on-line in China where there is not anti-pollution technology like that which exist at Indiana power plants.
While it may not appear to be directly related to families and childhood well-being maintaining the integrity of our power grid is certainly important for everyone as is reducing the financial burden on working parents. Miniear also intends to fight the executive branch power grab if he gets a seat in Washington D.C. where he plans to go next week for a CPAC convention. Supporting the lawsuit against the NSA by Rand Paul and opposing the FCC efforts to put government monitors in newsrooms are two of the ways Miniear wants to protect our liberties.
Finally, Miniear's platform would provide protections to parents to have family autonomy that would foster childhood well-being rather than the social engineering programs that create problems for children.
I wanted to know the one thought that describes JD's feelings of the primary role of government. For him it is to “serve the people by upholding the constitution rather than O'bamas view that government is the master of the people.” That view was succinctly expressed next when I asked him about the role of the federal government in education. Miniear thought it should be “very little.” He quickly pointed out that the US Constitution provides “no authority for a Department of Education” which he would not be against an effort to abolish. Thus, JD's thoughts on Common Core were no surprise. Without hesitation he said “Its too common.” Miniear made his thought on the draft standards recently posted by the Indiana Board of Education, which adopt the Common Core standards, when he appeared and spoke at a public hearing on Tuesday 25 February at the Indiana State Library. Miniear insists that “we should push towards having higher academic standards for Hoosier students rather than what is common.”
We often hear a romanticized version of America that existed in the 1950's where families prospered and there were few social ills. Yet contradicting this image is the teenage pregnancy rate which was cut nearly in half from 1957 to 1983 when in the latter year it gained attention as a social ill. So many so-called social ills seem to be erupting along with the calls for federal action. Miniear attributes much of this to Great Society programs which provided “subsidies for mother to have children out-of-wedlock.” He acknowledged that “there is some legitimacy to the problems but these federal programs are not the solution.” JD explained that there are numerous factors contributing to these social ills which don't need federal programs to cure but, rather, getting back to some basic fundamentals of life. These included that “people need to understand right from wrong” that the “socialist mentality” which encourages “avoidance of responsibilities” is promoting victimhood status and dependence. He cites the early breakdown induced by no-fault divorce and the increase in fatherless homes as a contributor to many of the factors that appear to cause these social ills including youth violence.
Miniear posits that much of the solution rests upon the federal government “getting out or doing reverse social engineering.” That is, creating new policies that provide more freedom for families or eliminating social engineering programs. When it comes to providing the opportunities for children it “does not a village it takes two parents, a man and a woman.” One way this could be accomplished is by allowing states to direct some of the child support enforcement funding to parenting time enforcement. This is because parents who are regularly able to exercise parenting time are more compliant with support orders. Given the widely known benefits of two actively involved parents in a child's life and that enticement is more effective than punishment the child support enforcement dollars could be better spent on parenting time enforcement.
He also sees benefits to early childhood education, protect children from sexual abuse and protecting the lives of the unborn. The policies of the welfare state that created single parenting he sees as the burden upon single parents who struggle to do their best for their children against a web of social engineering that creates great profit opportunities for numerous practitioners by creating problems for children.
One can't be around JD Miniear for any length of time without seeing someone who is deeply concerned about the course that America is headed down that is detrimental to the constitutional way of life that has allowed families and children to prosper but is increasingly threatened. One thing he is uniquely doing is being deeply involved in the EMP coalition. Others are not protecting the electrical grid as he and about the other 40 people across country in that coalition seek to do. It doesn't seem like a family or childhood well-being issue into you look a bit deeper at just how much our families rely upon a secure electrical grid.
So what lies ahead for JD is he is elected? Well he said “for the first six months I wouldn't mind just cleaning up govt rather than voting on bills.” This would include getting special prosecutors for IRS and other scandals as well as giving Congress subpoena and enforcement powers. But before he can get there to do the things that we desperately need like cleaning up and returning trust to government he needs your help. So please visit MiniearForCongress.com and share his message with your friends. If you live in the district then sign up for a yard sign. Amazingly he says that though it won't be a major news channel that “a financial contribution of as little as $5 can cover one television commercial.” The one thing that JD says everyone can do is “send your prayers.”
In closing I am going to leave you with JD Miniear in his own words: “When Mayor Greg Ballard received more votes in the Indiana 7th US Congressional District in his 2011 election against his Democrat opponent it paved the way for us to lay claim to the very real prospect we can defeat (D) Andre Carson this year. Andre’s membership in far left green energy committees and caucuses in Washington leave him guilty as charged when it comes to the Department of Energy stating the average residential customer can expect to see an $80 a month increase in their utility bills due to the administrations war on coal and fossil fuels. Our campaign is about returning power back to We The People as exemplified by Reverend Carl Kelley in this 2 minute ad. May God Bless you and yours and may God save America!"
If you are a candidate for elected office this year and would like for me to interview you about your candidacy and particularly child custody matters then please contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
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.
