Sunday, June 20, 2010

The status of Fatherhood

Today is the 100th Anniversary of Father's Day which was first celebrated in Spokane, Washington.

Barack Obama endorsed the vital role of fathers in a 2008 speech: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

In that 100 years we have seen fatherhood, once respected as the pillar of the family, denigrated into a figure representative of abuse of children and repressive of a woman's freedoms. Judges and lawmakers have seen fathers as nothing more than a cash machine whose sole purpose is to provide financial support for the children and their mother while being sterile in impacting the emotional development of those children.

The data is returning on a regular basis now which is showing that the 30+ year government mandated experiment in raising fatherless children is a failure. Despite government efforts fathers are still managing to be involved.

Decades ago, non-resident fathers were largely a result of the divorce process. Valarie King, a sociologist and demographer at Pennsylvania State University who just completed work on a five-year grant studying non-resident fathers and other researchers say many non-resident dads today were in a non-marital relationship that didn't last. Divorced fathers have been shown to be more involved, on average, than those who were never married to the child's mother, King says.

"People don't realize how much things have changed, but if we look at the numbers, we see big increases in fathers' contact with children and big increases in fathers' payment of child support," says Paul Amato, also a Penn State sociologist and demographer.

Efforts by father's rights organizations and child advocacy groups who have influenced legislation have had an impact on the ability of judges to break or prevent the child-father bond.

Research co-written by Amato and published last year in the journal Family Relations reviewed changes in non-resident father-child contact over three decades. The study, based on four national surveys using reports from 5,244 mothers of children ages 6-12, found significant increases in contact. In 1976, 18% of non-resident fathers saw kids at least weekly. By 2002, it grew to 31%. The percentage of dads who had no contact declined from 37% in 1976 to 29% in 2002.

Sexual partners and marriages may last for a short tie but being a parent is for life. There can be difficulty for fathers to maintain a parent-child relationship since physical distance spawns emotional distance and courts had often let mothers relocate children as though they were property. Government institutions still want to define a primary parent and a parent with visitation rights regardless of actual circumstances.

There still exist a mandated bias against fatherhood. Family service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by choosing to focus only on mothers and ignore fathers. This is the conclusion of a study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers.

The scientific study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family found that when mothers and fathers enrolled together in 16-week sessions to work on their relationships as parents and partners, their children were much less likely to show signs of depression, anxiety and hyperactivity.

There may be a biological basis for child well-being necessitating both parents. According to a study published in the February issue of the journal American Anthropologist, fathers among our earliest human ancestors may have helped jump-start the modern human population explosion by helping mothers with child rearing. Fathers in early human species would have aided in carrying children, as well as in their bathing, feeding, playing and teaching them the lessons of prehistoric life, said Northwestern University researcher Lee T. Gettler. They traded these services with the females for access to mating which allowed for monogamy and the modern family structure to develop.

It is this structure which profiteers who have heavily influenced government policy decisions have sought to breakdown. Just as we have seen in many health related consequences of trying to short-change biology such as the dangerous side-effects of fat or sugar substitutes we have also seen the dangerous side-effects of father displacement.

However, changes in custody laws, including Shared Parenting and parenting plans required by some states are providing children with more access to their fathers today and reducing many of the harms caused by father absence.

There is still much work to be done though. Not only is there anti-father bias still existing in the laws of many states and the minds of many judges and policymakers but it still exist among many institutions.

Google is one example of a company that presumes fathers to not be as equally important in the life of a child as a mother. Go here and see the bias displayed by Google.

In the 2011 session of the Indiana General Assembly I will be having parenting time coordination and presumptive Shared Parenting bills introduced.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Monday, June 14, 2010

How the Court of Appeals erred in denying mother custody

Recently I wrote about Paternity of X.A.S., a published opinion decided on 04 June 2010, in the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Briefly, the facts were that father had custody while mother had liberal parenting time and both were very active in the life of their son. Father wanted to move from Indianapolis to California to be with his new wife. The trial court said that the child stays in Indy. The Court expressed difficulty in deciding this one and that the call was a narrow one. Ultimately though the Court disagreed and reversed the trial court ruling.

I agree with the rationale of the trial court and believe that the Court erred in reversing that decision.

The trial court judge, Magistrate Kimberly Mattingly, held a hearing on the parties’ motions on August 12, 2009. She denied Father’s request to conduct an in camera interview of X.A.S. saying:
[X.A.S.] is such a young age, what [X.A.S.] is going to tell me is he wants his parents to both live in the same city. I can guarantee that. He’s going to say, given the choice, he’d rather live with his dad. I get that. . . . I’m not particularly interested in his wishes, even. He may tell me he wants to move to California with his dad. He may think that’s what he wants; it’s not what’s best for him. What’s best for him is to have two parents in the same city.

The Court often says it will not reweigh the evidence and that the trial court sits in the best position to examine the evidence and determine the custody arrangements of children. "We review custody modifications for abuse of discretion, and we are deferential to trial court judges in family law matters. K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453, 457 (Ind. 2009)."

In this millennium significant progress has been made in advancing what is truly best for children. Much of that has come out of the Marion County court system and other progressive cities while smaller, rural communities still lag and hold onto harmful prejudices. The Court is again erring on the side of harming children.

There is much to understand below the surface on this ruling. I am not concerned about whether this is a victory for fathers or whether it shows that the court is finally showing a willingness to reverse trial court custody orders. My concern is for the impact that this ruling will have on progressive judges and children.

Fatherhood victory?

At first blush this ruling may appear to be a victory for fathers and be championed as such. However, it should not. The father wanted to relocate to be with his new wife thousands of miles away from the mother of the child who was a significant figure in the life of the child on a weekly or near daily basis.

Fathers in general will be more likely to experience relocation because of employment searches after the 2008 economic downtown disproportionately affected males. This could be bad for children because it is important that children maintain a relationship with their fathers. Moreso for a boy age 12 as is in this case. It is more important that children maintain a relationship with both parents though.

In the present case the father indicated that he was relocating regardless of whether the child would relocate with him. Mattingly was confounded by how a parent could place a romantic interest ahead of an obligation to be a parent. I agree but the Court didn't.

The Court says Mattingly erred in characterizing the father as placing his romantic interest ahead of his child. Mattingly found, “Father’s insistence on moving with or without his son effectively robs [X.A.S.] of one of his parents.” The Court stated, "This finding casts aspersion on Father, his motives, and his actions in a way that is wholly unsupported by the record. Father remarried. His wife has a job in California. Therefore, Father is moving to California to be with his wife, and this difficult decision will not change even if he loses custody of X.A.S. To imply that Father’s decision in this regard is selfish, causing unwarranted harm to X.A.S., is not supported by the evidence in the record." I believe the father had another motive.

What was in the record was the testimony of the father that he was going to go live with his wife in the city where she is employed regardless of whether his child would be there. That is tantamount to child abandonment and, in my opinion, shows a complete disregard for the needs of the child.

I do not contend that relocation is bad for children. People move for employment reasons on a regular basis, children are uprooted and forced into making a move. That is fine for intact families. In a fractured family a new dynamic is added. One parent is forced into also having to relocate or lose significant parenting opportunities with the child, robbing that child of a parent at a most needed time; when being uprooted from school, friends and the community.

Following dissolution it is most often that women have custody of children and are the ones more likely to remarry and relocate. To call this case a victory for fathers is a mistake. It will be used as a precedent to allow mothers to remove children from the lives of their fathers.

Reversing erroneous custody orders

Parents, particularly fathers, have long sought relief from the Court to reverse erroneous child custody orders at the trial court level. In having their requests denied the Court regurgitates the same language throughout:
We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Leisure v. Wheeler, 828 N.E.2d 409, 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and any reasonable inferences from that evidence. Id.

In short saying whatever determination the trial court made based upon the evidence before it, even if it is only a scintilla, we will support.

It is welcomed to see the Court willing to reverse a trial court on a custody order particularly one that modified custody from a father to a mother as it is so rare that a father gets custody. I am not confident that this new found spirit by the Court will be used in a way that can benefit children.

"[W]e consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and any reasonable inferences from that evidence." That is rather strong language that says if I can find one reason to support the trial court then that trumps your ten reasons not to. Two cases are relevant to this examination of this immediate case.

Courts have expressly recognized that a custodial parent’s relocation alone will not support a modification of custody. Instead, “it is the effect of the move upon the child that renders a relocation substantial or inconsequential—i.e. against or inline [sic] with the child’s best interest.” Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind. 1992).

In Swonder v. Swonder, 642 N.E.2d 1376, 1380 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) the Court found that it is proper to consider a custodial parent’s motivation when evaluating the propriety of a relocation that separates a child from a non-custodial parent.

In the immediate case a parent insisted on relocating without consideration as to whether the child would accompany the parent. The trial court felt that was not in the best interest and rightfully impugned the motives of the relocating parent which was in line with Swonder. The Court says that the relocation was not a substantial change affecting the best interest of the child and that Mattingly's feelings to the contrary was an error and thus she was reversed. However, Mattingly, while acting in line with Lamb, was clear that it was not the relocation alone but the affect of removing the child from the community and a parent who was substantially involved in the daily life of the child that led to the custody change.

Many of us have been affected by a trial court which has allowed our children to be separated from us against their best interest. What we have heard and I am confident that we will continue to hear "[W]e consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and any reasonable inferences from that evidence."

This ruling is not demonstrative of a willingness of the Court to be open to reviewing the trial courts. Rather, this ruling does nothing more than continue a long standing tradition of separating children from their parents to encourage potential harm to the children and the financial rewards that treating or managing the consequences of harmed children can bring to so many professionals.

Financial determination

Should financial conditions determine custody? The Court has already said no. It is inappropriate to modify a child custody arrangement as a means to effect an improvement in the child’s standard of living. Winderlich v. Mace, 616 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).

Mattingly found that preserving the relationship between Mother and X.A.S. would prove “nearly impossible” because the parties would “not be able to purchase numerous round trip airfare to allow frequent visits.”

In this case the father presented and the Court relied upon his testimony that he was willing to pay for the child to return to Indiana three times a year for visits with the mother. I say visits at this point because seeing a child three times per year is not providing Parenting Time but rather visiting. You visit with extended family three times per year but you parent a child much more often.

The Court has determined by this ruling that three times per year is frequent. I wholeheartedly disagree as I believe Mattingly does.

While the Court has previously stated in Winderlich that improving the child's standard of living cannot be used as a basis for modification of custody I believe that is being done here contrary to the spirit of the Winderlich ruling.

It is not that the father is using an improvement in the standard of living of the child as a basis for this reversal of custody but that it is being dictated by financial considerations. The Court relied upon the father's ability to provide financial resources to the child, i.e. pay for the child's flights, as its reasoning in reversing Mattingly.

This is essentially saying that if you have the financial resources you can dictate child custody decisions. I believe this is dangerous precedent.

There is no denying that finances have often dictated who one marries. Long ago it was not at all unusual for parents to chose a suitor for their daughter based upon how they felt that man would be able to support her. With the dynamics of the modern workforce and the earnings ability of women often exceeding that of men such is no longer the case.

The Court is now saying marry someone who is wealthy enough to provide infrequent flights for your child and you will essentially have carte blanche authority to remove your child from the frequent and meaningful interaction with the other parent.

Conclusion

This case is dangerous. It is replete with ill-conceived rational and motives. Children need both parents. Never is this more true than when both parents are actively involved with the child in the community on an ongoing basis, both are amicable and both provide a stable home. Magistrate Mattingly understands this and advances this precept in cases which come before her.

I agree that the Court should not be reversing the custody decisions of a trial court unless there is abuse of discretion. However, I don't believe that the Court should uphold a custody decision of a trial court if it can find any basis to do so. There should be a balancing factor. Of the many cases I have seen where the Court should have stepped up and reversed this clearly was not the one.

Trial courts are generally reticent to change custody based upon what the Court has said in the past. A stricter rationale than that required for an initial custody determination is “required to support a change in custody because ‘permanence and stability are considered best for the welfare and happiness of the child.’” (quoting Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96, 97 (Ind. 1992)).

This case hinged on the "permanence and stability" of a child's relationship with two parents and the community versus a living arrangement with one parent. I believe the Court got it wrong and showed that sometimes words have no meaning or have one that is not envisioned by most people.

The father was unemployed after having been accustomed to the lifestyle of his previously high paying job. He married someone who was willing to support him and his child even paying for airline tickets for the child to return to Indianapolis three times per year. He was insistent that he would go live with this woman, who may have been deployed for up to six months at a time, regardless of whether his child would also accompany him.

I believe ample opportunities for employment exist in Indianapolis, although maybe not at the pay scale he desires, and that Mattingly rightfully impugned his motives. She just got it wrong that his motive was to be with the wife he loved. It was to go where he was going to be financially supported by someone.

The Court concluded that "[W]e are confident that the relationship between Mother and son will survive." I do not share their confidence.

I believe that not enough significance will be attached to this case but that it will do more to fracture the bonds between children and two loving and fit parents than any other recent case.

Judges have recently started being more receptive to enforcing the true best interest of children upon their parents and I believe this case will now have a chilling affect on their likelihood of ensuring that children have access to two loving and fit parents.

I just hope I am wrong and eagerly anticipate the day I can proudly boast that I was. Until then I will work through the legislative process to reverse this dangerous ruling.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Court of Appeals reverses custody award to mother

The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG] were established with the concept of providing consistency in parenting time rulings. To that end there has been much success. As for judicial decisions establishing custody, those of us practicing in that arena have seen little consistency. Often times the higher courts have made rulings that seem to contradict each other when viewed without the knowledge of gender.

When gender was included it often was seen that the higher courts favoured placing children with mothers regardless of the particular circumstances and specific circumstances of the case would be tailored to support that prejudicial determination.

In Paternity of X.A.S., a published opinion decided on 04 June 2010, the Indiana Court of Appeals has thrown us another curve. This time the Court has reversed the trial court's modification of custody to the mother based upon father's insistence that he was moving to California with or without his child. The Court has sided with the father and reversed the trials court's change of custody to the mother.

It is difficult to tag this decision. I have been reading the decision repeatedly looking for what the Court intends to send as a message in this case.

Maybe the decision was an insipid one without any motivation other than making a decision in the best interest of the child. However, it is a published opinion. For clarification a "published" opinion means that it can be cited as caselaw. Essentially, in future appeals a party may refer to this case basically saying to the Court "here is what you said previously."

This case was decided but Judge Kimberly Mattingly in the Marion Superior Court. I have tremendous respect for Judge Mattingly and have spent numerous hours in that courtroom watching as she hears child custody cases. I believe that she clearly understands the needs of children and takes very seriously and appreciates her role as an arbiter of child custody disputes.

Although this case can be seen as the Court's willingness to establish policy in favour of fathers it can also be viewed as supporting relocation of children for financial purposes. At the same time I can see this case being used against giving fathers greater responsibility in the lives of their children or modifying custody.

I do not agree with the Court in this case nor do I side with Judge Mattingly completely. A careful examination of this case actually reveals that we may need to change the law.

At the opening the Court states, "Father and Mother both love their son and have been responsible, dedicated, involved parents."

This statement deserves pause. I would be extremely pleased if every decision was able to be introduced this way. Every child deserves two "responsible, dedicated, involved parents" and as much as we can do to accommodate that, we should.

The facts of the case are that both parents resided in Indianapolis and were actively involved in the life of their son. The boy, who is age 12, has been in the custody of his father for nine years at the time of the trial court decision in 2009. This was pursuant to the father petition to establish paternity filed in 1999.

Although there is no statements in the immediate record about why custody was awarded to the father in the 1999 filing mother has enjoyed liberal parenting time and the parents have cooperated to facilitate a healthy relationship for their son with each parent.

The Court acknowledged that "this situation will undeniably cause heartbreak for one of these parents" but inasmuch as someone must prevail "we find that while it is a close call, the record simply does not contain sufficient evidence to support a change from the status quo. Thus, we find that the boy should remain with his father."

Father has married a woman who is in the Navy. The ship she is stationed to has located in San Diego and father filed a notice of intent to relocate there. The mother objected to the relocation because she felt it would be best for their son to remain in Indianapolis where he had significant ties to the community and to extended maternal and paternal family members.

Father offered that he would pay for their son to fly back to Indianapolis for parenting time per the IPTG minimums.

On December 10, 2008, Father requested a Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau [DRCB] investigation, which the trial court granted. The DRCB filed its report with the trial court on May 1, 2009, recommending that X.A.S. be permitted to relocate to California with Father.

Judge Mattingly was not persuaded and denied the move of the child. She stated that father was free to move across the country but the child would stay here. The father said he would move regardless. She characterized father as being "folks who choose romantic partners over their children" and said she cannot "understand folks who can move clear across the country from their kids." I agree with her in that respect.

In my next post I will examine more closely the rationale that the Court used in reversing Mattingly and the implications that I feel this case may have on future child custody decisions.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Mother who chained child to bed is arrested

The political correctness that says hands off anything that portrays women, particularly mothers, in a bad light is being shunned and for good reason. This is not a gender issue but does provide an example of why children need both parents, especially fathers.

An Indianapolis mother is under arrest for alleged felony neglect of her daughter. The girl, age 11, was found in the home by the father of a friend of the girl. According to a story published in the Indianapolis Star the mother the mother chained her daughter to the bed because she had behavior issues while the mother went to work. This was based upon a statement by Lt. Jeff Duhamell, a spokesman for IMPD.

Unfortunately, for many children this is not an isolated incident. Most situations are not to this extreme but are as equally neglectful. Children living in single-parent homes were more likely to experience health problems, such as accidents, injuries, and poisonings.[fn1] There are millions of children who are not receiving the attention, discipline and guidance that they need as divorces affect one million children a year.[fn2]

A major problem for adolescent girls is that they do not receive effective discipline or have proper supervision. An underlying factor in this case is reportedly a discipline issue with the child. Statistical analysis of the behavior of children reared by a divorced or never-married mother revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.[fn3]

Current research tells us that children raised without substantial father involvement have much higher incidents of juvenile delinquency, dropping out of school, sexual assaults against them, drug abuse, suicide and neglect.

Fathers who avoid providing the necessary care, companionship and support to their children should be held accountable for the actions and inaction. More often though it is the laws and courts which are based upon an archaic principle that children do not need fathers intimately involved in their lives that is forcing children into these harmful situations.

Regardless of what has led to the situation with this mother and her daughter the mother should have never taken the action of chaining her child in the home. I have lived in an apartment complex where a careless tenant started a fire which nearly spread to my unit. Had a fire occurred in this complex this child could have certainly died.

The amount of money that will be lost by lawyers, court personnel, mental health providers, law enforcement, drug companies and judges by placing children in custodial situations that are in the best interest of the children should not guide public policy. It is time to start placing the needs of children first.

footnotes
1. Dawson, D. (1991, June). Family Structure and Children’s Health: United States, 1988. Series 10: Data from the National Health Survey No. 178. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2. Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62(4), 1269-1287.
3. Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines modifications hearing

The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center held a public input session on Friday 21 May 2010 to receive comment about the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. About 15 members of the public and stakeholders appeared and gave input. Following this session the DRC met to discuss the comments received during the hearing.

There was an overwhelming agreement that Section II(D)(1) provides the greatest confusion in the Guidelines.

"If the non-custodial parent misses a regular weekend because it is the custodial parent’s holiday, the regular alternating parenting time schedule will resume following the holiday.  If the non-custodial parent receives two consecutive weekends because of a holiday, the regular alternating parenting time schedule will resume the following weekend with the custodial parent."

I have talked to numerous judges, lawyers and parents who, among each group, have conflicting views on what this section means. The DRC clearly understands the problem and will be making a language change recommendation that will make this provision clear.

Numerous speakers made comments that included references to court ordered child support payments although the comment period was specifically for input on the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The comments were not entire lost on the DRC but since the Indiana Child Support Guidelines were amended effective this year it is unlikely that those comments will receive further attention.

The most important consideration from my point of view is whether children are getting the necessary access to both parents. There was overwhelming opinion that the guidelines are not being used effectively to ensure that children are receiving that. The DRC has echoed the opinion that the established minimum parenting time is being used as the standard.

The guidelines were established to be a tool to assist parents, attorneys and judicial officers in crafting parenting time arrangements. Instead, with much of the fault being attributed to attorney's misinforming clients, the guidelines are being applied as a rule for parenting time. The DRC understands that they need to craft stronger language advising parties that the guideline parenting time is a minimum that should be considered when creating a parenting time plan.

The DRC established 11 areas that recommended changes will be made in. Assignments to those subcommittees were made during the afternoon meeting. In March I made a presentation to the DRC about "Virtual Visitation". This is one section that will be added to the Guidelines. I will also be seeking to have it added to the statutory framework in the 2011 session of the Indiana General Assembly.

Significant and informative feedback was also received in writing. I will be presenting some of those to you in the near future.

The DRC will meet in additional sessions this year for the purpose of writing the revisions to the guidelines. It is the goal of the DRC to have the revised guidelines available this year for consideration by the Indiana Supreme Court for adoption at the beginning of 2011. Information on this process and our proposals may be found here.


Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page


Subscribe

Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates

©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Change your Parenting Time order

The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Judicial Conference of Indiana will meet on Friday 21 May 2010 to take public input about suggested revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG].

This is a chance for parents with child custody orders that reference the IPTG to change those orders without going to court. Language that says that parenting time is per the IPTG will result in that time being subject to the revisions made in the guidelines.

I have previously written about the process of amending the IPTG which can be read here and here.

If you have ever complained that your Indiana child custody order does not give you enough time with your child then you need to take advantage of this opportunity. If you are not the speaking type please come to listen. The committee will be accepting written testimony.

Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page

Subscribe

Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates


©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

If you are really against Domestic Violence

There is a group of pretenders on FaceBook posting a status update in which they pretend to be against Domestic Violence. This post in intended to inform and offend because these ignorant people need to be offended. However, anyone who truly is against Domestic Violence will put aside their hurt feelings and prejudices and will read this.

Here is what is being posted;
While you SCREAM at your woman, there's a man wishing he could talk softly to her in her ear. While you HUMILIATE,OFFEND and INSULT her, there's a man flirting with her and reminding her how wonderful she is. While you HURT your woman, there's a man wishing he could make love to her. While you make your woman CRY there's a man stealing smiles from her. Post this on your wall if you're against Domestic Violence

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the majority of the victims of a crime does not want that crime to go away. In fact, this intentional obfuscation is deliberate by those holding a purpose and political agenda to ensure that domestic violence continues.

There is one sad reality that we must acknowledge and accept. Laws have been carefully crafted to ENSURE THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT ELIMINATED so that it can be used as a tool for financial gain. That is the reality, not opinion.

In 2005 four male victims of domestic violence filed a taxpayer lawsuit in California -- Woods. v. Shewry.

In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence. On 14 October 2008 the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held:

The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.

It is the intention of DV lobbyist and others who receive DV funding to ensure that children continue to suffer the direct harm and collateral effects of DV so they can continue to seek funding to "tackle the problem". Yet, they have no intention of eliminating DV.

With that in mind there are some policy makers who do want to see it end and want the laws changed to allow it to end. Almost two years ago I was asked to provide testimony at the Indiana State House on the topic of Addressing Domestic Violence and Child Custody Decisions.

Unfortunately, the message is still not being heard. Some lawmakers refuse to acknowledge at least half of all cases of DV. I heard it said this year "99% of all acts of DV are committed by men". Also, that "woman are the victims of DV." This is deliberate misinformation intended to INCREASE the acts of DV. I will explain to you just how social psychologists have framed this issue to actually perpetuate acts of DV.

I still feel ashamed that I ever let it happen but I did take an oath to stand beside someone who was mentally ill and I didn't think having her sent to jail was the proper solution.

After putting up with all the attacks and even having a gun pointed at our child and the physical abuse against him I finally called the Boone County Sheriff's Department one night around 11:00pm. We lived on a corner lot out in the rural area. She and her gun were leaving one direction while law enforcement officers arrived from the other.

When I asked about a protective order I was told by the deputy "No judge in this county is going to issue an order to protect a man." He was correct. When I tried to get one against one of my stalkers I submitted the affidavits from witnesses clearly stating that this girl was coming by my house 20 times a day, had come in my house while I was gone, had taken items, etc. A police officer even told her to leave me alone. The judge denied my petition.

Another thing that the deputy said that night when I said was being abused by her was "Come on, you're a man." As to say, what's wrong with you, you can't stick up for yourself?

This illustrates the imbalance of power dynamic that helps to perpetuate DV attacks.

Judges and prosecutors are TRAINED to keep it going. They use phrases like "it's better to err on the side of caution" when issuing an order that is not supported by the evidence and is known to place the woman in a superior power position.

What they are really saying is, I need to remove power from one person and give it to another so that the [legally] powerless person will strike out violently from frustration. If you had never done anything to harm your child but a judge issued an order for you to leave your home, never have contact with your children again and pay all of your spouse's expenses, would you feel frustrated?

Guide to Psychology dot com reports that violence is the last resort of the weak and powerless. That a man will commit an act of DV out of pure frustration for not being able to do anything else.

Anyone who has objectively looked at DV situations and responses from the legal community know the reality for men. The police automatically assume that the man is the cause of the violence even if he shows signs of an attack and the woman doesn't. Judges will refuse to issue orders of protection for male petitioners and will issue them to keep men away from their home, children and workplace without any evidence to support the unjustified order.

The male victims feel disregarded, accused and powerless by those in a position of legal authority who have been trained to intentionally do this.

Psychologist Steven Stosny, Ph.D., based in Germantown, Maryland, says the things that make batterers turn to aggression are what he calls "core hurts." They boil down to a few--feeling disregarded, unimportant, accused, guilty, devalued or disrespected, rejected, powerless, inadequate or unlovable.

Karen Parker Thompson, a domestic violence expert, says she knows that 85-95% of victims are females so that is what they tend to concentrate on.  However, what she doesn't tell you is that men are victims in about 75% of cases.  

The Center for Disease Control reports that half of all DV cases include mutual aggression.  There is just no data to support that women are victims at a higher rate than men, especially 85-95% which is an absolute lie by Thompson. Daniel Whitaker, PH. D., in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of Public Health, a CDC publication, reported that 70% of DV victims in non reciprocal cases are men.  That means that when one person attacks another that a man is the victim is more than two-thirds of the cases.

Mandatory arrest laws, once thought to protect women from domestic abuse, are now being repealed because the rates of arrest were much higher for women and this was contrary to the propaganda effort used in passing the laws. A 1998 study of arrests in Los Angeles revealed the effects of the "must arrest" law: When the number of arrested men doubled, the number of arrested women quadrupled with the implementation of mandatory arrest. The laws are now being adjusted to conform to the desired result of having more men arrested by giving police officers the discretion to not arrest females.

DV does happen organically in some people but policy makers, judges and prosecutors intentionally try to ensure that people are physically assaulted by creating a power imbalance. They do this for the very reason that when a problem is solved the money flowing to solve the problem dries up.

The U.S. Department of Justice has a component called the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) whose objective is to "reduce violence against women". According the USDOJ the OVW has awarded nearly $4 billion in grants and cooperative agreements. This money has been used to create partnerships among "police, prosecutors, victim advocates, health care providers, faith leaders, and others".

A perfect example of how a problem won't be solved because of those who rely upon the funding; The "war" on drugs. The "drug problem" will never be solved so long as people are making money off the "fight". Same with the multi-billion dollar DV industry.

Anyone who is serious about combating DV will read what Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. , Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami, has to say about it in Facing Reality on Domestic Violence

I have also written False Allegation of DV and Bogus Restraining Orders Harm Men, Women and Children and The Spurned Woman Who Cried Domestic Violence which may be viewed here.

Until there is a willingness to use truth in addressing this topic there will be no movement towards ending it.

As a victim of domestic violence I have been an advisor to legislative bodies, law enforcement, educators and others about the realities of domestic violence and effective solutions to combat it.

To those of you who perpetuate the MYTH that men are not victims of DV - You are shameless abusers of children!!!

If you truly want to combat DV then you will post this as your FaceBook status instead:

While a man hits a woman, there's a man wishing he could stop being hit or having things thrown at him. While a woman complains that she feels helpless, powerless and abused there is a judge abusing the rights of a man and making him helpless and powerless. I acknowledge that women commit acts of Domestic Violence as much as men and it is not a gender issue. Post this on your wall if you're against Domestic Violence.

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

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.