Thus far I have given you a background of the Moore v Moore case and also an analysis of the two parents. Now I am going to provide some information to you about the third-party participants in this case.
Upon reading this you should understand their stake, the expectations of them and where I believe there may exist the potential for conflict. It is the structure of the child custody system that I believe has allowed for unscrupulous third -parties to exploit the weaknesses in the system to their advantage.
Parents have often come to me with complaints that evaluators, GAL's, therapists and other supposedly disinterested third-parties made recommendations not supported by the evidence. Often times it is difficult for me to accept these allegations as more than conjecture. Few parents find that their actions justify a downward modification of their custodial status. However, careful examinations of the parents and the evidence presented to the court often reveals that most non-custodial parents have rightfully earned that designation. I experience this first hand.
My client list is very exclusive and consists only of those applicants who present the most compelling or challenging cases. I maintain a high standard of rigor for my clients and those who fail to abide that challenge get dismissed. What remains are those who are most dedicated to preserving a relationship with their children and seeking to create custodial arrangements in their child's best interest. About 95% of the people who seek my assistance don't even both to apply for services. Rightfully so, they have earned the badge of NCP.
There are those compelling situations though which appear to be a miscarriage of justice -- clearly unlawful custody orders, apparent bias in the decision or third-party evaluators who appear to have made a recommendation fraught with glaring inequities and possible malevolence. Such possible malevolence by third-party evaluators is what has happened in the current case. Unlike most, though, this time there is a smoking gun.
There has long been allegations throughout the country that child custody evaluators [CCE] conspired to make recommendations directly opposite of what is in the best interest of the children. The motivation is hope that the parent receiving unfavourable treatment would litigate further to protect the children and hire another CCE. It appears that the this scheme may be unraveling here in Indiana with Child Advocates, Inc.
In the Moore v Moore case there are three current third-party contributors of which two are actively involved. Additionally there was a parenting coordinator [PC] in the past. My analysis here will primarily focus on the two active participants, Cynthia Dean - Attorney for the GAL Del Anderson, both of Child Advocates, Inc. Robin Pannell of the DRCB has also been involved this year and Parenting Coordinator John Ehrmann had participated through 2011.
For lawyers like Cynthia Dean there are particular standards that should be observed. I have taken the following from the American Bar Association [ABA] Section of Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases approved by the American Bar Association House of Delegates August 2003 --
“Best Interests Attorney”: A lawyer who provides independent legal services for the purpose of protecting a child’s best interests, without being bound by the child’s directives or objectives.
The lawyer should investigate the facts of the case to get a sense of the people involved and the real issues in the case, just as any other lawyer would. The lawyer is in a pivotal position in negotiations. The lawyer should attempt to resolve the case in the least adversarial manner possible, considering whether therapeutic intervention, parenting or co-parenting education, mediation, or other dispute resolution methods are appropriate. The lawyer may effectively assist negotiations of the parties and their lawyers by focusing on the needs of the child, including where appropriate the impact of domestic violence. Settlement frequently obtains at least short-term relief for all parties involved and is often the best way to resolve a case. The lawyer’s role is to advocate the child’s interests and point of view in the negotiation process.
From the guidance provided by the ABA readers should understand that it is the duty of the best interest attorney to attempt to get the parents to cooperate towards reaching resolution on child custody related matters. Particularly it is the duty of that attorney to make an "attempt to resolve the case in the least adversarial manner". To help you understand the role that Cynthia Dean has taken I will let you start by reading an email from her.
Here is an email dated 10 July 2012 from Cynthia Dean to Brian Moore --
Mr. Moore,
Please see the following response that I received from Mr. Deenik. He states Kristy Moore will agree to mediation as long as it does not delay the trial; which I believe you agree as well with this term. The second term is that you pay the costs. I am guessing you would have preferred to divide the costs. In deciding if these terms are acceptable, I suggest you consider that it is always better to reach an agreement than to proceed to Court and to allow a Judge to make decisions concerning your children. Secondly, successful mediation results in less “damaging words and statements” between you and Ms. Moore which will make it more difficult to co-parent in the future.
I have sent an email to Chris Barrows to determine if he has time available and his current rate to give you an idea of the expense and if scheduling prior to trial is possible.
Best regards,
Cindy Dean
[emphasis added]
I have emphasized two portions of this email from Ms Dean. Second part first, she states that successful mediation results in less “damaging words and statements” between the parents. Very true and a strong incentive if your desire is to co-parent. Ms Dean is aware of the temperament of both parents. I showed to you email exchanges between Brian and Kristy in Part II of this series. When conversing about Summer parenting time schedule Brian closed a rather lengthy message with "I want to help make things easier for you." I also disclosed to you what Kristy said were her motivations and priorities -- Kristy has stated that engaging Brian in a legal fight is more important than the children's schooling. Particularly she acknowledged "I feel this is something that I have to do" when she was asked about wanting sole custody of the children. Her motives, according to her, is that this is being done "for the children."
Clearly it is Brian's intention to co-parent while Kristy's compelling drive is to be a single parent. As she said herself about sole custody -- "It would just make things easier for me." Cynthia Dean is aware of this. She has been to the court hearings, corresponded with both parents, reviewed the court record and been copied on numerous email messages between the parents.
Does it then seem at odds with the temperament that has been displayed by the parents that she would caution the parent who is clearly in favour of co-parenting about the hazards of failed mediation. Such an admonition would seem more aptly placed with the parent who is resistant to co-parenting. As you will find out in Part V her caution was clearly misplaced.
Now back to the first portion that I highlighted. There it appears that she is pressuring Brian into paying the entire cost of mediation. She alludes to the fact that if he doesn't agree to pay all of the cost then there will be no mediation and the matter will be left to a judge to decide.
This recommendation to blindly accept the entirety of the terms as presented by opposing counsel is inconsistent with generally accepted mediation strategies. Having both parented "invested" in the outcome helps to achieve conciliation. When one party, particularly the party who opposes reaching an agreement, is not under any obligation to pay a portion of the cost then there is no extrinsic motivator -- financial costs -- to achieve a prompt agreement.
There was also another option besides Brian pay all or supplant mediation in favour of trial. That was also consider the judge's order on the mediation fees rendered that day.
ORDER
The Respondent, having filed his Motion for Mediation on June 26, 2012, and the Court, having reviewed such Motion and being duly advised in the premises, now orders that:
1. Respondent’s Motion for Mediation is GRANTED.
2. The parties shall agree upon a mediator within 10 days and report such to the Court along with the date for which mediation has been scheduled. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, then the Court shall provide a striking panel or appoint a qualified family law mediator.
The parties are to each be responsible for paying half of the mediation fees and shall make arrangements with the mediator for payment of those fees. [emphasis added]
Certainly to me it appears that Cynthia Dean has demonstrated a bias towards the mother by parroting mother's wishes as expressed through her attorney, Jonathan Deenik, as the recommendations to Brian. Dean had a copy of the Motion for Mediation filed by Brian in which he asked both parties to pay equal portions of the mediator fees. Dean also receives copies of the Court's orders. Yet her email to Brian does not seem to convey the attitude of trying to achieve resolution in an expedient and non-confrontational manner.
Her recommendations go against sound, established protocol and are not in the best interest of the children. The person who should have been cautioned about the potential harm to the children is the mother who filed for sole custody and doesn't want to mediate.
In Part V you will get to read the full text of an email by Dean that demonstrates the depth of her collusion with Deenik. Ask yourself, has Cynthia Dean advocated for the best interest of the children by maintaining a neutral role in attempting to bring the parents together in the least adversarial manner.
Next I examine Del Anderson, the GAL provided by Child Advocates, Inc. I want to be graceful in saying this while still providing an accurate assessment of Mr Anderson's qualities. Understanding that the Types attracted to occupations in this field tend to be introverted and intuitive can lead to the expectation of a rather reserved individual who may appear contemplative while feeling out a response. However, I was still struck by the first impression of Mr Anderson as someone who is not firing on all cylinders, elevator isn't quite reaching the top floor or -- candidly -- I just don't feel that he ranks above average in intellect and has some difficulty in making logical conclusions.
Problem number one that I have with him is that he was in court on 13 June 2012 when Judge Welch told all of the participants that the children's school was not to be changed unless she ordered it. The general start date of schools in the area was well known and the particular start date of Cornerstone could have been easily obtained. Yet, Mr Anderson knew that Kristy wanted to change the children's school to Pendleton, that mediation had been indefinitely postponed, that Kristy had enrolled the children in a different school in violation of the Court's order and yet he did nothing to reduce the disruption of the children's lives causes by Kristy's refusal to comply with the Court's order.
It has also been very close to one year now since Mr Anderson was retained to provide services to the court, including a written custody recommendation, which he still has not done although the date of the hearing as originally scheduled has already passed. He has managed to provide a thought to Robin Pannell of the DRCB -- "Mr. Moore might harm Ms. Moore and the children as a result of his "rage and pain."" In Part IV you will get to read numerous email exchanges between Brian and Kristy. You will be able to use your own judgment as to whether you feel Brian "might harm Ms. Moore and the children".
Finally, getting back to my first impression thoughts, is his ability to construct logical abstractions. Perhaps inability. When asked about his basis for recommending that the mother have sole custody and determine where the children attend school he gave this response -- there is a public school in the district where the mother lives. Therefore, the children could attend a school with children near where they live.
Before thinking that this seems logical enough understand this -- the Indiana Constitution provides that all children have access to a free and public education. Hence, there is a public school in the district where the father lives. It is easily within one mile of his home. Distance from mother's home to local school -- over one mile, about the same as father's.
We have all heard someone searching for a rational reason that appears to support a decision that was based solely on a feeling or an impulse. It feels phony. When the basis for the decision is illogical we know it is phony. Obviously there is a bias that exists but the "rationale" is offered because the provider of the opinion is aware that a justification based upon his or her apparent bias is not acceptable. Such is the case with Mr Anderson.
Prior to Kristy's Petition to Modify Custody there was a Parenting Coordinator, John Ehrmann, that helped facilitate the Settlement Agreement, select the children's school and address other issues. The parties participated in two mediation sessions in which Kristy refused to negotiate. Ehrmann, a Level II & III PC, had made a recommendation that Kristy get counseling for issues related to her attitude towards Brian. She has never done so.
There is not much I can say about Robin Pannell of the DRCB. I have not met her but have only read her report which was timely prepared. Kudos to her for not dragging this process out and, as I see it, failing to make any credit contribution to the process as Mr Anderson has done.
CCE's and these third party participants need to make efforts to ensure that they are cognizant of potential biases. I have take from On being a child custody evaluator: Professional and personal challenges, risks, and rewards by Daniel B. Pickar as published in the Family Court Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, January 2007 pp103–115.
"Experienced evaluators must also be aware of confirmatory bias, that is, the tendency to overvalue evidence that supports one’s hypotheses and a tendency to ignore non-confirmatory evidence. This may happen when the evaluator, based upon initial impressions of the parents, comes to conclusions too quickly in the process and then looks only to data which confirm these initial impressions. The evaluator must remain open-minded throughout the process and even aggressively search for data which is disparate from predominant analysis of the case.
The American Psychological Association CCE guidelines (APA, 1994) require that psychologists not only maintain awareness of personal and societal biases, but must also strive to overcome them or withdraw from the evaluation. In reality, however, most custody evaluators do have biases, some of which they may be cognizant and others not. Some evaluators may have preferred custody arrangements they typically recommend. Some may have a bias toward mothers or fathers, while others may have a bias regarding religious participation or concerns about homosexual parents. For example, with respect to gender bias, Bradshaw and Hinds (1997), in a study in Australia, found that, when 51 CCEs were analyzed for evidence of sex-role and sex-trait stereotyping, male and female evaluators significantly favored the parent of their own gender in their categorization of various dimensions of parenting behavior."
Confirmatory bias exist throughout our daily lives. We may experience it when receiving a phone call from someone whom we were thinking about at the moment. Confirmation bias tells us that the uncanny event is the manifestation of some mystical connection with the person. But the other 25 times that thoughts wandered to that of that particular person we are unlikely to have thought about the person not calling, stopping by or being in the next aisle at the grocery.
As a dedicated father who was the primary support provider for my son at no less than 90% of the time and then stripped of custodial status after his mother filed for dissolution I must remain vigilant of possible biases on my part. My continuing education and strong dedication towards being gender neutral has helped me maintain objectivity and respect in the child custody litigation community while serving both male and female, custodial and non-custodial parents.
It is important that courts, litigants, practitioners and most importantly, CCE's, understand and acknowledge the potential for biases and the lack of objectivity on the part of CCE's. All children deserve to have two loving parents who will both strive to achieve accommodations that suit the best interest of the children. Absent having those two parents who will objectively cooperate for the needs of the children, it may be necessary for courts, through using these third-party participants, to fashion appropriate accommodations.
When those third-party participants fail to maintain their neutrality and objectivity then the benefits to the child may be lost and actual harm may be perpetuated or intensified.
If you need assistance with a child custody matter, including critiquing on CCE's, GAL's or other third-party participants, 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Part III Child Advocates, Inc. and third party contributors to child custody proceedings
Friday, August 24, 2012
PART II - Opposing Parenting Styles and Child Advocates, Inc. Biases
In the last posting I gave you a background as to the chronology of events. Yesterday was the hearing for the Motion for Rule to Show Cause alleging that Kristy Moore was in contempt of the Court's joint custody provisions and to determine the children's school. The Court made its' ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing which included modifying the parenting time plan. Before elaborating on that order it is helpful to know more about the past events between Brian and Kristy Moore then what the Court heard on Wednesday.
These are two parents with stark differences in personality type and resulting parenting styles as well as their perception of each other and their motives. Kristy has stated that engaging Brian in a legal fight is more important than the children's schooling. Particularly she acknowledged "I feel this is something that I have to do" when she was asked about wanting sole custody of the children. Her motives, according to her, is that this is being done "for the children."
It is troubling to hear these type of statements coming from a parent. She has conceded that paying an attorney rather than providing for her children's education "doesn't make sense." Still that is what she has done. Her goal, as she stated, is to get sole legal and physical custody of the children which she now shares equally with Brian. The $20,000 which she claims to have saved in the year leading up to this battle has nearly been depleted.
Brian is not without his shortcomings. His personality type is quite rare which often leads people to misunderstand his actions. The intuitive portion allows him to see the deeper meanings and bigger picture in life where others may see only what is apparent before them. Combined with strong feelings of personal integrity and morals often leaves him in conflict with others who do not share those. He has difficulty dealing with conflict in relationships and is easily agitated. The root of which is his full evaluation of ideas, much the way a chess player contemplates possible moves, which when paired with his principles produce one result which he forcefully advocates. There is little tolerance by this personality type of opposing viewpoints which are not based upon such an exhaustive examination of possible outcomes.
Kristy lives for the moment and does not anticipate or see the long-term consequences of her actions. She relies upon feelings and sensing rather that logic and intuition. She prefers to express her deeply held beliefs through actions rather than words. Attempts to discuss matters with Kristy, especially those including pushback on her objectives, are often viewed by her as an attack on her essence rather than the more likely failure to consider the long-term consequences.
Co-parenting for these personalities will be a struggle at best. Brian sincerely wants Kristy to be involved in all the decision making processes but gets extremely frustrated when Kristy appears to take the "easy way out". To Kristy, however, she is doing nothing more than choosing the most obvious solution for the situation as it appears on the surface in the here and now. She fails to see the deeper meanings or long-term consequences. This is much the basis for her wanting sole custody -- less thinking and planning.
Turning a post marital relationship into a high conflict custody battle is never good for the children. Kristy's disillusionment that she is doing this for the children and rejection of any attempts by Brian to get her to see the long term harm are significant roadblocks to swaying her from her compulsive drive to separate Brian from the children.
Brian has demonstrated throughout the course of this conflict that he attempts to engage Kristy in the process, seeking her opinion, and also keeping her fully informed. In an email dated 17 May 2012 from Brian to Kristy he asked for her input about scheduling Summer parenting time and offered to accommodating to her work schedule.
"I don't know what the schedule for Indianapolis Public Schools is, nor do I know your current position and what your specific schedule will be for the summer. I believe IPS may be going year-round now. I am sorry to hear that for your sake, because I know you used to say one of the reasons you went into teaching was to have summers off, and that you always enjoyed them. It is a shame that it would likely be very difficult for you to get a job in a township or rural school system having summers off, and that you won't be able to spend summers with our kids.
As always, I will do everything I can to make myself available to exercise my "right of first refusal," or "opportunity for additional parenting time," to watch the kids when you cannot. However, there may be times when this is difficult or impossible for me to do. Since it looks like you are stuck working summers, I want to help make things easier for you."
Brian then made reference to Kristy's mother, Pat, being used to babysit the children which is in violation of the Court's order. He took no legal action to enforce the order.
"I doubt that you should continue allowing Pat to watch the children as you have often done; such places you in violation of the terms of the Divorce Agreement and therefore, in contempt of court. Perhaps we could consider modification to the language of the Divorce Agreement that would allow Pat to watch the children if I choose not to do so. Please let me know if you are interested."
The following is the response from Kristy in its entirety.
"We will discuss my mom watching the kids in court. As far as i'm concerned, I have not been in contempt. Anytime that I was going to be gone more than 4 hours, I contacted you. You did not do the same for me.
I do have to work this week, However, I will be off Friday and next Monday. You can have the kids to me by 4:30 at my school. My last day of school is June 13th."
Kristy seems to fail to understand or doesn't care that notifying Brian about an opportunity for additional parenting time does not obviate her from her responsibility to comply with the Court's order by having someone other than Pat provide child-care services if Brian is unable or unwilling to do so.
Third-party participants such as evaluators, GALs and others employed to express an opinion about parents are more likely to side with parents such as Kristy. A strong basis for this is their personality types. Those similar to Brian are running the business world, working as engineers or employed in other fields where their logical thinking is exploited. Those similar to Kristy -- a school teacher -- are more likely to be in a social service type agency and base their decisions on feelings and the immediate term rather that a logical extrapolation of the long-term scenario.
Being pragmatic and rational by nature Judges often defer to these third-parties for recommendations to support their decisions. They should be aware of the possibilities that these recommendations may come with a bias that favours parents with similar personality types. Using these experts may seem logical on the surface but the deeper exploration of their motives and conditioning often leaves their opinions in conflict with a rational, sound and logical basis that would be in the best interest of the children.
In the next segment I will present the recommendations of the third-party contributors in this case. This will include Parenting Coordinator John Ehrmann, Guardian ad litem [GAL] Del Anderson, the attorney for the GAL Cynthia Dean and Robin Pannell of the DRCB. Through that examination I will show or recount their statements, how those reflect upon the parties and the actual or potential biases they possess.
If you are involved in a custody battle and want to develop a winning strategy 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Did Child Advocates Inc. conspire to violate court orders?
Child Advocates Inc, a private corporation providing service to the Marion County Courts, employs Guardian Ad Litems [GAL] and attorneys to represent children in custody actions. These advocates are supposed to be independent third parties representing the best interest of children when their parents are embattled in a custody fight. But what if an attorney for Child Advocates was colluding with counsel for one parent against an unrepresented parent?
Today I bring to you the first in a five part series about a recent case which demonstrates how this private corporation can perpetuate conflict and litigation to boost their own bottom line. When I make an accusation against a professional in the child custody arena I do so with great trepidation as I must ensure that I am absolutely accurate and do not tarnish my reputation in the child custody policy, law and litigation arenas where I am well respected.
So with that in mind I present this summary of what I will disclose in explicit detail over the next four postings about the case of Kristy L Moore, Petitioner v. Brian S Moore, Respondent [49D12-0810-DR-44790] which is being heard by the Honorable Heather Welch.
Before proceeding I will provide some background on the case that gives you a foundation by which to measure all the forthcoming evidence. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on 10 December 2009 which resolved all issues including: that the school the children would attend would be decided upon with the assistance of the parenting coordinator, John Ehrmann; and, limitations upon the access to the children that Kristy's mother, Pat, would have due to her parental alienation tactics and the harm that the Court thought she may inflict onto the children. Less than a year later, on 21 July 2010 Kristy filed a Verified Motion to Modify Custody seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children. For purposes of the IPTG the Parenting Coordination process designated Kristy as the custodian but otherwise the parties shared legal custody and 50/50 parenting time. Throughout the time this matter has been pending Kristy has been represented by Jonathan Deenik [26335-49] of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey & Glazier, P.C. Brian is currently representing himself but had counsel at the time the Settlement Agreement was adopted by the Court.
The matter came on for hearing on 19 September 2011. The parties appeared in person and by counsel where the Petitioner presented her case-in-chief and then rested. I attended that hearing. The trial had been scheduled for a full day but after Deenik rested counsel for Respondent, Brian Moore, moved to dismiss. Judge Welch denied that motion but then indicated that she wanted a GAL and the DRCB to advise on this matter before Mr Moore presented his case. Mr Moore offered no objection to that plan.
Del Anderson was appointed as the GAL. As of this writing he has not issued a report. The DRCB issued its' report on 14 February 2012 in which sole legal and physical custody was recommended in Kristy's favour. A significant amount of time passed while awaiting the input of the GAL and the DRCB.
A major point of contention in this case is whether the children would continue their formal education at the school the parties had selected, Cornerstone Baptist Academy. Another issue facing the parents was Summer parenting time and if they should alternate their week-on, week-off alternating parenting time schedule. Brian raised this issue with Kristy through an email dated 17 May 2012. The parties appeared for a status conference on 22 May 2012 for the purpose of determining the remaining issues and getting updated on the progress of the DRCB and the GAL. At that hearing Deenik stated something like, "We had an entire day scheduled September 19, 2011, and used most of that day. Most of the issues were covered that day, so we only need about an hour or so to cover some remaining/housekeeping issues." However, my recollection and the court record indicate that the hearing terminated for the day when Deenik rested at lunch time, around 12:30, and Brian did not begin his case-in-chief based upon the wishes of Judge Welch.
A hearing was then scheduled for 13 June 2012 to determine Summer parenting time. Petitioner's attorney, Deenik, also raised the issue of a selection of the children's school for the 2012-2013 school year which Petitioner wanted to change from being Cornerstone. The Court had not allotted time to hear that matter so it was not heard.
Trial was then scheduled to occur in August. Brian sought to have a mediator appointed to the case so that the issues of schooling and Kristy's mother watching the children could be resolved. Chris Barrows was appointed as a mediator and mediation was scheduled for 09 August 2012, the day before school was to resume. On 07 August though, Deenik informed the parties that he had a conflict on 09 August and mediation that day would be unlikely.
Brian, foreseeing problems, filed a motion on 02 August 2012 to have the Court determine the children's school. As of the start date of school, 10 August 2012, the Court had not ruled. Brian resumed the children's formal education at Cornerstone. On Kristy's week beginning with Monday 13 August 2012 she refused to allow the children to attend school and made her wishes known to Brian who immediately filed a Motion to Compel School Attendance. On 16 August 2012 the Court ordered that the parties were to continue the children's attendance at Cornerstone.
The Cynthia Dean wrote the lie to Brian in an email in an attempt to get him to violate that order. My next posting will get you into the minds of Brian and Kristy so you can see why there is difficulty in co-parenting here.
If you are having difficulty with enforcing a child custody order or are experiencing parental alienation 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Understanding Joint Legal Child Custody - Indiana Law and Lawyers
This past week I wrote about parental access to school records in a case involving a mother, Kristy Moore, and father, Brian Moore, who share joint legal custody and equal parenting time pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved by the court on 10 December 2009. In this matter Brian paid the enrollment fees for the children last week at the private school which they had previously attended. This week it was Kristy's time with the children but she didn't take the children to school claiming that it was too inconvenient for her.
In response Brian filed on Tuesday 14 August 2012 an Emergency Motion to Compel School Attendance alleging that Kristy had terminated the children's formal schooling during her parenting time. When Brian attempted to drop the children off at school that day while exercising additional parenting time while Kristy was at work the school then informed him that he could not bring the children to school there anymore.The following day, in response, Kristy's attorney -- Jonathan Deenik -- filed a counter motion requesting a hearing to determine the children's school. Brian had filed a similar motion on 02 August, over a week before school started, after he suspected that Kristy was not going to continue the children's formal education.
On Thursday 16 August 2012 Brian also filed a Motion for Rule to Show Cause alleging that Kristy had violated the court's joint custody order by unilaterally changing the school which the children would attend. While the legal custody statutes don't explicitly forbid unilateral decisions it is implicit in joint custody situations and every attorney, even Jonathan Deenik -- attorney for Kristy Moore -- knows this.
Indiana Code 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. [emphasis added]
Indiana Code 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.
In stating that a "custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious training " the law implies that parents awarded joint legal custody must agree upon such matters as school, healthcare and education. As a practical impossibility, two custodians cannot make opposing determinations for the child.
Thus, it is generally impermissible to make a change in one of the legal factors affecting a child absent an agreement between the parties or an order of the court. In this immediate case Brian had paid for the children's continued enrollment in their current school as the parties had agreed. Kristy had given indications over the Summer that she didn't want to have to take the children to that school any longer. She has not disclosed at which Indianapolis Public School she is now teaching but I can surmise that the children's school is not on her current route and she would have to awaken earlier to get the children to school.
So when it came time for her to take them to school she simply didn't do it and had a friend take the children to Brian for additional parenting time. Once confronted with Brian's Motion to Compel School Attendance, Kristy enrolled the children in South Madison Community Schools -- the school where the principal violated the school records law which I wrote about -- the next day.
However, she did not have the permission of the court nor had Brian agreed to the long distance change in schools. Brian immediately filed a Motion for Rule to Show Cause alleging that Kristy had violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement as adopted by the court. The court agreed stating, "Respondent and Petitioner do not have permission of the court to have the children attend a different school then [sic] they attended during the school year of 2011-2012 unless they both agree pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on December 10, 2009. If either party violates the Court's order, they may be found in contempt of Court" [emphasis added]
The Court is aware, Jonathan Deenik was aware and Kristy Moore was aware that both parties must agree to make a change such as schooling or religious indoctrination, or to make non emergency medical decisions. This does not mean that both parents are required to consent to all legal requirements such as permissions for school events. But this caveat does apply -- the other parent must be notified and if that parent objects then permission is not granted. Parents should attempt to agree on as much as possible because case law is clear that when parenting becomes a battleground then joint legal custody is not appropriate.
In the case of the Moore's it may not be. This latest action by Kristy and Jonathan Deenik clearly demonstrates their desperation. Although their are ample studies that directly correlate absenteeism and lack of parental involvement to lower academic performance this IPS classroom instructor chose to not send her children to school or provide home education. This only provides more support for former parenting coordinator John Ehrmann's recommendation that Kristy receive counseling which she never did.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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. 
Monday, August 20, 2012
Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Commission to meet on Wednesday 22 August 2012
The Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Commission of the Indiana General Assembly will be meeting at 10:00 a.m. in Room 233 of the Indiana State House on Wednesday 22 August 2012. The meeting had originally been scheduled for Tuesday.
Representative Randall Frye is the new chairperson this year. He has represented House District 67 since 2010.
I have an emergency hearing in Marion Superior Court from 10:30-11:30 and will try to attend after that. I have already sent information to the chairman.
If you are a parent who is involved in child custody litigation 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Friday, August 17, 2012
2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines - Completed?
The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference met on Friday 17 August 2012 to complete revisions to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Once formatted the revised guidelines will be sent to the board of the Indiana Judicial Center for approval or further modification. Then the guidelines go onto the Indiana Supreme Court.
Once approved in final form the amended IPTG will be promulgated for at least 60 days before going into effect. I expect that date to be 01 March 2013.
I will post details on specific changes over the next few months. Briefly though there are two revisions worth noting now. New Year's Day is no longer considered a holiday. Instead the Christmas/Winter break will be split in half. The other revision is to the language about resumption of regular parenting time following a holiday. When a holiday creates the loss of a regular weekend for one parent then the other will have three in a row.
Implementation of the new guidelines will not be automatic. Custody orders entered prior to adoption of the new guidelines will remain in effect unless the court orders that the new guidelines apply if one or both of the parents make that request.
If you need assistance with a child custody matter 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Pendleton School Complies with the Access to School Records Law after my contact
Yesterday I wrote about the plight of a father attempting to get his children's school records from Pendleton Elementary School. If you know me well then you are aware that I am a great fan of the silver screen. While I have a pile of 30 flicks that I have yet to watch I felt the urge to again watch the 1934 version of The Scarlet Letter. It is a rather forceful rendition of the Nathaniel Hawthorn novel by the same name which explores the shame that a woman faced after being publicly humiliated for bearing the child of a priest out of wedlock.
The public humiliation is a credit to the mores and ethical standards of a community which shuns those who trespass upon those norms. The modern day Scarlet Letter can be the social media networks where messages about offenders can quickly be spread. Such was the case yesterday where, here, I told you about Ms. Natalie McQuade, principal of Pendleton Elementary School, who said that she would not provide records to a father about his children unless he obtained a court order. However, the law enacted in 2005 is quite clear -- a nonpublic or public school must allow a custodial parent and a noncustodial parent of a child the same access to their child's education records.
Still, Ms McQuade chose to discriminate against this father in violation of both federal civil and criminal laws. The Pendleton community should be outraged. Regrettably they won't be. If she had said that African-Americans or Jews had to get a court order you can bet that her employment would have been terminated and Jessie Jackson or Morris Dees would have been leading protests through that small Madison County town.
But alas it is just gender discrimination against males -- tolerable bigotry to most -- which, as in any form of discrimination based upon birth traits, I do not tolerate.
After publishing yesterdays' post I sent copies to the South Madison Community School Corporation superintendent and board members. About a half hour later Mr Moore received a phone call from the principal stating that she would provide the requested records to him immediately and without a court order. Thus, the South Madison Community School Corporation saved the taxpayers from an expensive and embarrassing federal civil rights lawsuit.
South Madison Community School Corporation Superintendent Joseph A. Buck contacted me within an hour and stated, "[O]ur number one concern must first be the safety of the student. As in most cases involving parents that are in a custody battle, there are two sides to the story, as is the case with the situation you are referring to."
Concern must also be established for the well-being of the children. School corporations should not invoke unsupported "safety concerns" as a means to discriminate against fathers and shun them from participation in their child's formal education. Fathers play an important role in the lives of children. Removing them can have a detrimental psychological effect on the children who are half of each a mother and father. To shun one parent based upon gender is to tell the children that that half of them is not as good. The damage can be more acute for boys who already often suffer through a feminine centric educational rubric.
It should never have to come to this though. As I explain in School Records and a Parent's Right of Access each parent is entitled to records regardless of custodial status. In the case of Mr Moore he does have legal custody but was discriminated against based upon gender.
If you are a parent who has been denied equal access to your child's school records and needs an experienced attorney to file a federal lawsuit against the school 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.
©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
