The 2014 Strengthening Families Fall Conference, sponsored by the Indiana Department of Child Services, took place on 15-17 September 2014 at the Indianapolis Hilton North. This was the 20th of the Institutes which are offered twice annually. The three day institute offered morning and afternoon workshops that were three hours each in duration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The value in this event for parents, especially those in custody battles, is immense. While I have paid hundreds of dollars for similar one day seminars this semi-annual Institute remains the most affordable at $50 for all three days which includes breakfast and afternoon snack.
The courses I took were;
1] The Trauma of Child Molestation
2] Learn the Signs. Act Early. Resources to Support Early Identification of Autism and Other Developmental Concerns
3] We Collaborate Every Day with Clients, Co-workers, and Partners
4] Getting Dads Involved - Why and How
5] The Art of Effective Communication
6] Coaching
Additional conference offerings included;
~ Recognizing the signs and impact of stress, trauma, and abuse on the development and functioning of young children;
~ Laughter Yoga;
~ Heroin in Indiana;
~ Building trust;
~ Understanding addiction and brain disease;
~ Infant mortality;
~ Power of the mind.
1] The Trauma of Child Molestation was presented by John Day who has 29 years of clinical practice experience specializing in play therapy with traumatized children. He currently teaches full time at Wabash Valley College in Mount Carmel, Illinois.
Parties to divorce and adverse parental relationships have a proportionally higher rate of childhood sexual victimization than the general population. As our society is more willing to be open about sexual issues and reporting of abuse the victimization rate has declined. The rate of childhood sexual victimization in the United States is declining. Due in part to the heavy financial judgments levied against the Catholic Church and the corresponding media coverage as well as identification and funding of effective abuse prevention programs. It is currently estimated that sexual abuse of girls has dropped to 20% while the rate for boys has dropped to five percent. Participants learned how to identify the signs of sexual abuse in children through the presentation of case studies. They also learned about the short and long term neurological effects of trauma including how brain development is affected. I have previously written about How Parents Induce Child Molestation which presents some of the ways to reduce opportunities for childhood victimization.
2] Learn the Signs. Act Early. Resources to Support Early Identification of Autism and Other Developmental Concerns was presented by Steve Viehweg is a founding chair of the Indiana Association for Infant and Toddler Mental Health. He is currently Associate Director of the Riley Child Development Center. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is now the term used to cover an array of neurological conditions related to Autism. The affect rate is now said to be 1 in 68 by the age of eight years. As with any condition accurate assessment and diagnosis is critical. The overuse of ADHD and bi-polar labeling along with the subsequent use of drugs to tranquilize “normal” children for the convenience and profit of adults. ASD is at risk of being overly diagnosed and any diagnosis should be viewed with skepticism. Parents should learn about what behaviours actually constitute these conditions and what is merely misbehaviour or lack of discipline. Typical symptoms of ASD are easily perceived as disobedience or dishonour which will not be remedied through punishment or humiliation. In my case as a child both strategies only produced resentment, hostility and purposeful disobedience. Early diagnosis provides greater opportunities for remediation. The current average diagnosis is four years and five months. Diagnosis by age 18 months is preferable for the most effective treatment to occur.
3] We Collaborate Every Day with Clients, Co-workers, and Partners was presented by Elizabeth Waetzig is a partner with Change Matrix, LLC. In that capacity she consults in areas of mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice supporting collaboration between individuals, organizations, and agencies at the community, state, and national level. Marriage, parenting, employment, and other relationships require collaboration to be meaningful and effective. Even those high conflict parents engaged in fierce custody battles need to collaborate. Participants in this session learned about the essential elements of effective collaboration. This begins with establishing the goals of the collaborative effort or expected outcome and establishing the language and definitions to be used. By language I do not intend to convey that of a society but the situational language of the societal language. Attorneys and clients collaborate with the opposing party, a judge, CASA or GAL, and community service providers. Whether the technical language or law or laymans terms and definitions will be used must be understood if accurate delivery of messages is to be received. I have found that innefective use of attorneys and attorney/client conflict often finds its roots in a lack of implementation of some of the basic rules of collaboration. A guiding principle of collaboration should be ‘how can I help others help me to achieve my desired outcome?’
4] Getting Dads Involved - Why and How was presented by Jeff Newnam is the director of the Indiana Fatherhood Coalition and founder of the Indiana Dads Expo. Jeff speaks throughout the state about fatherhood related issues, leads training to help get fathers more involved, and advocates for the rights of fathers. I is well-established that children need the active participation of fathers in their lives if they are to thrive and develop into wholesome beings. Social workers, family law judges, the juvenile justice system, and policy makers need to collaborate on efforts to invite and facilitate greater fatherhood involvement in children’s lives. Societal attitudes, largely fed by popular media, discount the need for and value of fathers to children. Coupled with generations of children without active fathers in the home it is going to take a concerted effort to not only raise awareness but instill the values of fatherhood into both fathers and mothers. Corporate America profits greatly from demeaning fathers and helping to boost the number of fatherless homes.
5] The Art of Effective Communication was presented by Jack McGriffin who has 20 years of experience in an assortment of curriculum including creative problem solving, conflict and resolution, public speaking, and communications. Communication takes place in many forms. Technological advancements are rapidly changing the means by which we communicate and has outpaced the ability of most people to hone the art of communication to be adaptive. Like any art form, effective communication requires patience and practice. Lack of effective communication, I find, underlies most parenting or marital discord. A phrase a simple as ‘feeding the children’ has numerous interpretations which without clarification or situational context could lead to conflict. While one parent may see it as gathering ingredients from the refrigerator and pantry to be prepared and cooked another may see it as ordering a pizza or going out where someone else prepares, cooks, and serves the food -- at a much higher charge. Similar conflict can arise even when precision in form is used. Take the phrase “I will try and do that tomorrow” which can produce disagreement when tomorrow evolves with the task incomplete. That two-part phrase clearly states that on tomorrow I will make an attempt at the task and be successful in completing it. This is because it is a conjunction of two sentences; I will try that tomorrow -- I will do that tomorrow. Careless speakers may use that phrase although other meanings may be intended such as; I intend to have that done by tomorrow; I intend to try to get that done tomorrow, or; I am going to try to fit doing that into my schedule tomorrow. Body language norms have undergone dramatic changes along with the advent of technology. Attention diverted away from the speaker, including eye contact, was once clearly a sign of disinterest or dishonour. However, in our modern world, being attentive to televisions, computers, or hand-held devices while engaged in conversation can be perfectly acceptable. Hand-held devices may be being accessed to glean additional information or clarity on topics of discussion. In our less relaxed and hectic lifestyles facial expressions of angst or irritability may have nothing to do with the speaker or topic of conversation by may instead be reflecting thoughts related to other matters underlying conscious thought. To effectively communicate it is necessary to have a good working grasp of delivery and receipt of messages not only in language structure by situational and cultural usage.
6] Coaching was presented by Jack Needham who specializes in leadership development and executive coaching. For more than 25 years he has been training and coaching individuals in the art of self awareness and personal growth. I participated in this course because it is the same discipline that I practice - life coaching. This workshop would benefit a wide range of people from parents helping their children to managers relating to employees. As the title of the session indicates Needham presented background information and exercises related to coaching among a range of participants. This was little more than reinforcement of practices to which I am already engaged but it would benefit anyone who is in need of skills to help motivate and direct other people.
Each Institute offers a range of workshops that would be useful to parents in general but those who are engaged in child custody litigation or high conflict parenting would be better served.
The various sessions were attended by between 30 and 100 people of which less than 10 percent were men. I observed between two and five men in each session of which one was always me. In regularly attending these types of seminars I have made a general observation which is a truism revealed in restaurants and other group settings. That is, women in small groups, such as at a table, are louder and more boisterous without consideration of others around them moreso than men. This observation is not revealed as a condemnation of women, but rather, to illustrate a difference between women and men which was touched upon in some of the seminars. Women do tend to be more enthusiastic in discussion on matters involving emotion or feelings. While men often complain that they are under-represented in child custody awards, as the demographic of the Institute clearly demonstrates, they do not take an active role in getting educated and participating in child well-being events. This is “The Institute for Strengthening Families.” An outside observer could easily conclude while entering the hotel lobby that men simply don’t care about family.
The 2015 Spring Institute will take place on 20-22 April 2015. I will post information about that when registration is opened.
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. 
Thursday, October 23, 2014
2014 Strengthening Families Fall Conference
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part XII The Response Filed
The is the twelfth but not final posting in this series. In formulating the issues that I would cover under this series I made one, now glaring, omission. That is, the resolution. In today’s posting I review my response to the State’s petition to bar me from performing certain activities related to child custody litigation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I presented to you some information about why the UPL complaint was filed against me and how Mr. Witte and his ilk use that to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana. I now present my response to the Complaint.
Before presenting my responses to the enumerated statements and allegations in the Petition I included a Preliminary Statement in my response.
My response next addressed the issues in chronological order. Most I readily admitted to as they were factually correct statements. Some were logically deficient or selectively took matters out of context.
Paragraph 7 response states:
This paragraph ends with “and be just a phone call away . . . .” What Witte omits by text and context is the remainder of the sentence “. . . even in the middle of the night, when your emotions or anxiety overwhelms you.” which relates to the purpose of providing emotional or spiritual support.
Paragraph 12 response states;
This is an otiose statement as it states that “some” not “all” or anything else that implies the practice of law. I could just have easily said that I can perform most of the acts necessary to build a space shuttle – tightening screws, connecting wires, applying glue, welding, etc -- while leaving the most complex actions to those specifically trained for them. Similarly, attorneys who offer unbundled legal services allow clients to perform the rote actions related to litigation while leaving the complex legal actions such as motion writing or argument at hearings to the attorney.
Witte seems to think that I told attorney Jennifer Bonesteel that I was an attorney also assisting her client. Paragraph 23 response states;
By Witte's own uncertain admission I stated that I was NOT an attorney or “words to that effect.” I am uncertain as to other appropriate methods to dissuade someone from the false belief that I am something than by saying I am not that something.
The 19 September 2011 email that I have from Bonesteel responsive to these allegations and my limitations as a non-attorney clearly stated in her words “However, as [Mr. Showalter] did not try to impose upon my judgment and on at least one occasion [Mr. Showalter] refused to give [client] legal advice, I think he’s probably aware of those issues and discussed them with you as well.” Apparently Bonesteel is saying something different to Witte than what she wrote in her email from three years ago or Witte just doesn’t understand how to interpret her statements.
Most of Witte’s statements did not contain enough information to either confirm or deny the allegation nor did they state an Indiana resident. Paragraph 30 implies that I have knowledge of the thoughts between an attorney and client. To that I responded;
I have no knowledge of the extent or content of conversations between Sims and her client. Therefore, I can neither confirm nor deny the substance of this paragraph.
It may be semantics by Witte’s allegation to me “drafting” documents, I believe, is misplaced. My response to paragraph 32 is;
There is not enough information in this paragraph for me to either deny or confirm. An Indiana resident has not been identified in this paragraph. This paragraph is purely speculative. Further if “draft[ing]” legal documents constitutes the practice of law then newspaper editors who reprint syndicated material to their column width, type-style, and other attributes would be plagiarists.
My closing paragraph followed general denials of the allegations made relating to the unauthorized practice of law. My response at paragraph 36 states;
This first contradiction that emanates from Witte's charge in ¶36 is that in his 32 paragraphs of foundation not once did he allege any act of harm or potential harm based upon my incompetence to the general public. Rather, his foundation is based entirely upon the precept that attorneys are not competent enough to make their own informed decisions inclusive of my input whether it have a viable legal foundation. Thus, I deny this paragraph in its entirety as there has been no demonstration within the Petition that I have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or that the public interest “requires” that I be enjoined from doing something that I am not doing. Further, that I will not become an attorney or provide specific legal advice directly to Indiana resident litigants as I would feel personally responsible for the outcomes of children based upon custody decisions by the court and I do not ever want to bear the burden of a harm inflicted upon a child by a parent to whom custody, care and control of the child was granted. Finally, that the outcome in the Scarberry case – the judgment being vacated and the children returned to the status quo expediently based upon my query – would not have been as expeditious had I not asked attorney Falk if he had considered filing a Motion to Stay.
Underlying the entire Petition and the purpose of the regulation of the UPL is the protection of the public. Witte has stated that it is in the public interest that I be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law. Implicit in that is that I have harmed individuals cases or their relationships with their children. If such is happening then an immediate response would be warranted. I wouldn’t want Witte or the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court to be given the responsibility of managing our 9-1-1 system. All of the allegations in the Petition relate to activities that occurred during 2010-2011.
I was approached by the Disciplinary Commission about resolving this matter through agreement. As I am an advocate of non-judicial resolution of disputes I welcomed the opportunity. I spoke with an attorney for the Commission and exchanged emails then versions of a proposed agreement revised multiple times. When the language represented what I wanted I went to the Indiana Judicial Center and signed it. The agreement is currently being reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
XIII - The Resolution
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part XI Who has recommended me and my Conclusions
It has been awhile since I have posted an installment in this series but apparently by raising the ire of enough losing attorneys I have gained more credibility and requests for assistance. I am now getting back to a level of cases that affords me some leisure time again.
In propounding support for his effort to have the Indiana Supreme Court order me to stop assisting parents engaged in high conflict child custody battles mitigate their conflict Michael Witte has claimed that the public needs to be protected from my advice. Particularly he has claimed, “The public interest requires that Showalter be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law.” Such a claim sounds innocuous enough and I would gladly go along with it. However, it is Witte's implication of what constitutes UPL – acting as a watchdog over attorney's actions – that will have a chilling effect on child advocates who wish to reduce parental hostilities. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Witte's claim that the “public interest” – which he purportedly represents – “requires” that I be enjoined from further reducing parental hostilities and neglect of children implicitly states that those who feel that my assistance is of benefit are in error. Those who declare their support of a service through a recommendation are said to endorse that service. A common marketing strategy is the use of an endorsement. This occurs in politics through other politicians or activists, products through the use of celebrities and sports stars, and academia through peer review. If Witte is correct in his assertion then let's see who is incorrect – in his view.
Previously in this series I have mentioned the Craig Scarberry case. Witte alleges specifically that it was my input to the attorney representing Mr. Scarberry that is illustrative of from what the public needs protected. That attorney, Ken Falk, who is the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, considered my recommendations, followed those and when success was achieved in the Indiana Court of Appeals told Mr. Scarberry “Don't thank me, thank Mr. Showalter because it was his ideas that got your children returned.” Subsequently while in Mr. Scarberry’s care his daughter was again able to receive necessary medical treatments that the mother refused to allow while she had custody. Mr Witte considers that a negative result.
Bryan Ciyou is a well known and respected family law attorney who specializes in appeals. A client of his was embroiled in a hostile relationship with the former spouse. Much of the hostility was the result of the client’s personality issues and the other parent’s refusal to communicate. This client is now enjoying a better relationship with the children, has a more productive life, has nearly eliminated any depression indications, and is becoming more financially secure. Additionally, the litigation has nearly come to an end although we expect some new attack to come at anytime. The parties’ children now appear less anxious and are feeling fewer effects of high conflict parenting. Mr Witte considers these negative results.
Recently I attended Justice Steven David's In-Service program and was speaking with Judge Jeffrey Edens of the Boone Circuit Court. Edens replaced Judge David when he went to the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Judge Edens represented my former wife during our dissolution proceedings. We were less than friendly with each other at that time as I felt his actions exceeded the ethical bounds by which one should adhere to when advocating for a client in a child custody proceeding. As we were discussing some of the points made during the In-Service I made reference to my continued frustration that so many of these college educated professionals don’t appear to understand what is going on with these children from the child’s perspective yet I, who didn’t attend college, is capable of doing so. Edens acknowledged that I provide valuable input on public policy and am a benefit to children. Mr Witte considers that a negative result.
Judge Edens also said not to think any less of myself because I don’t have any college training and that I am much more intelligent than many who do have college degrees. I do assure you that I have always thought highly of myself and won’t think any less of myself because I lack some worthless piece of paper.
When Craig Scarberry was desperately seeking assistance on regaining the relationship with his children after Magistrate George Pancol ruled Scarberry unfit to parent because he was “agnostic” Scarberry contacted the Office of the Governor, Mitch Daniels. While no one in the executive or legislative branch could intervene on his behalf to reverse such a miscarriage of justice Scarberry was given the name of someone to contact who could help in child custody matters. The person recommended to him by the governor’s office was yours truly. Mr. Witte considers the governor or his staff to not be intelligent enough to recommend someone of competence to Indiana citizens whose children are being harmed as a result of inappropriate or, as in Scarberry’s case, illegal court orders.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Witte has not produced one Indiana resident who has alleged that he or she has been harmed by the assistance provided by me. No one has come forward to allege that he or she needs protected from the information I offer or questions I ask. Quite to the contrary parents and children throughout Indiana thank me for providing the insights, guidance, and motivation that have improved their lives and relationships. The recommendations that I have made to Indiana legislators or judicial officers have become part of the Indiana Code, the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, and the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. Additionally, schools and other institutions in direct contact with children have adopted my recommendations. Children throughout Indiana are experiencing better outcomes because of my actions.
That is precisely what I want. I don’t want awards, I turn down offers of acknowledgement, and I don’t want the State or anyone else providing emolument for my public policy input. The only reward I seek is the personal satisfaction of knowing that the effects of high conflict parenting and divorce are being mitigated for the children.
That also is precisely what Mr. Witte doesn’t want. He wants to see litigation continue, parents bitter and hostile towards each other, parents emotionally and financially devastated, and ultimately for children to suffer the adverse consequences which result in more legal proceedings and presumptively the use of attorneys. Mr. Witte is all about the money -- money going to attorneys. The only threat I pose is lose of revenue for attorneys. It is Witte from whom the residents of the state of Indiana need protected.
UPDATE
I have received a settlement proposal this week from the Disciplinary Commission. It is currently being reviewed by interested parties. I will do a post about it soon.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to also contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Importance of Timing and Preserving Issues for Appeal
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In November 2010 the talk around the high conflict parenting campfire was that the Indiana Court of Appeals in Paternity of CH had granted trial judges the authority to appoint a Level II parenting coordinator over the objection of parents. A reading of the opinion though revealed that Mother’s basis for appeal was her contention that the court lacked authority to appoint the PC without a request by either party. What the mother, Kristy A. Lamm, failed to acknowledge was that the trial court on its own volition suggested PC to the parties and she, contrary to her assertion that
she did not agree to the appointment of a parent coordinator, had stated during the hearing, “absolutely . . . that would be great,” when the trial court announced that it was going to appoint a PC.
I was reminded of that when I read the 07 August 2014 opinion in Rippe v Rippe. In that appeal counsel for Appellant Jeanne Rippe, Timothy Logan, challenges three trial court orders. The final of the three addressed the issue of wife’s contempt for failing to disperse about a half million dollars to husband as ordered by the court. Instead of having a hearing Mr. Logan and counsel for husband on the record stipulated that they agreed to proposed findings and conclusions on the outstanding matters, including wife’s contempt finding, which the trial court adopted as its order ver batim.
The Court rightly opined, citing a long held standard, that the issue was waived by Mr. Logan failing to object to the agreement at the trial court level. The opinion states, “To the extent Wife’s arguments challenge the November 2013 order, we note that Wife agreed to the provisions in this order at the November 2013 hearing and did not raise any objections to it. She cannot challenge the agreement for the first time on appeal. See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Sloan, 4 N.E.3d 760, 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The issues in this order are waived. See Einhorn v. Johnson, 996 N.E.2d 823, 828, n. 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, (finding waiver where a party failed to make an argument to the trial court).”
As to the other two trial court orders, both of which were final appealable orders when issued in 2011 the Court also rightly noted that it lacked jurisdiction because a Notice of Appeal was not filed within 30 days. I take this opportunity to stress the importance of the time limitations in the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Time limits are not discretionary. Failure to file on time in a jurisdictional sense means that the document does not exist. Mr. Logan and all attorneys who file appeals should be aware of these most basic of rules but it is always an ongoing display of incompetence that I see when reading the opinion in Indiana child custody cases.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part IX Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
When public agencies, resources, and monies are spent in enforcement actions we hold as a society that they should serve the public good. They should not however be used to vilify, harass, or impede upon the liberties of another individual. Civil courts and civil causes of actions are available remedies for people who feel they have a legitimate grievance with another individual. This is not to say that an individual cannot be the target of an enforcement action. Individuals are primarily the targets of public enforcement actions but public enforcement is to be on behalf of the people. In this case Mr. Witte is to be acting as relator for the public rather than surreptitiously on behalf of attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera. Lopez-Aguilera has been disingenuous in offers to settle a child custody action in which she represents a mother who abandoned the children to strangers, refuses to participate in parenting time, and is primarily concerned with financial matters. She has also alleged criminal unauthorized practice of law. So, I wanted to ask her why she has chosen to engage Mr Witte into her personal vendetta and why she feels so intimidated by me. I posed some questions to Ms. Aguilera and provide her responses as follows.
I started by telling her of my ongoing effort to inform and assist parents in obtaining competent family law counsel and a series of articles about family law attorneys and particularly about reducing parental conflict. I thanked her for providing her insight into child custody matters and entertaining my questions. I asked about her thoughts on the best way to resolve child custody disputes but got no answer as to a “best” method although protracted litigation appears to be favoured by her. Likewise, she provided no strategies to mitigate conflict among parents. As for her preference of mitigating conflict or engaging parents in an intense child custody battle she didn't have an answer although her actions seem to speak toward a preference for the latter.
An interesting revelation was when asked about the behaviours or qualities that she believes a good parent reflects, she had no answer. This may be because she is not exposed to parents who have positive parenting qualities as demonstrated by her client selection. I asked about one case in particular in which her client physically abused the child and then abandoned the child to people she claimed were not know to her well enough to make a character judgment. I asked for her to logically justify her claim that that parent should have primary custody of the child. Not surprising though she would not discuss this ongoing case.
I then asked about attorney traits and strategies. I described attorneys who use a strategy of attrition to try to win a case by doing things like filing repetitive and numerous interrogatories along with other motions in an effort to increase a responsive parent's legal bills. I asked if she did that but she would not answer although her record clearly speaks for itself in this regard. As for what traits she believes defines a competent attorney her response was eerily similar to that of parental qualities – unresponsive.
Finally I asked for a brief statement that I would present as a direct quote here as to what she believe makes her an ethical family law attorney who serves the best interest of children. Not surprisingly she was also not responsive to this question.
In my discussions with my client, whose wife is represented by Lopez-Aguilera, and his attorney I expressed my parenting advice and thoughts about the judicial officer who will hear the case. Not surprisingly the court filings and responses by the client to Lopez-Aguilera have clearly intimidated her and with good reason – my clients get favourable results from the courts. While my clients, under my tutelage and with the assistance of legal counsel, make good decisions and file competent and effective pleadings with the courts Lopez-Aguilera takes this as the unauthorized practice of law.
Keeping in mind that the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to choose to define the practice of law in its rules we are left to determine this on our own based upon the reasonable person standard. Just as with all clients of mine complained of and the one upon which Lopez-Aguilera bases her spurious claim, my clients have the assistance of legal counsel. Consistent with the opinion by the ABA House of Delegates on Undisclosed Legal Assistance to Pro Se Litigants “A lawyer may provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before tribunals 'pro se' and help them prepare written submissions without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of the nature or extent of such assistance.[en1] This does not, directly or by inference, mean that non-lawyers assisting a pro se client through the turmoil of a legal proceeding are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law as Lopez-Aguilera and Witte believe and propound to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Thus, what Lopez-Aguilera has sought to accomplish – protracted litigation amongst combative parents – by her false allegations is not consistent with the ABA's opinion nor the subjective UPL standards. Although I believe that it conflicts with the ABA opinion and the relevant rule[en2] in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Lopez-Aguilera did obtain a court order for my client to disclose the name and nature of the attorney and assistance being provided to him. I think it would be technically valid and fun to ask for it to be certified for interlocutory appeal but, since her client has failed miserably at being a parent and Lopez-Aguilera is nothing more than a boiler-plate attorney it doesn't matter what she knows about my client.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
X - Who has recommended me and what I recommend
XI - The Charges
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Notes
1] This opinion is based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as amended by the ABA House of Delegates through February 2007. The laws, court rules, regulations, rules of professional conduct and opinions promulgated in individual jurisdictions are controlling.
2] Indiana Rule 1.2(C) A lawyer may limit the scope and objectives of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
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.
