19 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Today I present to you some of the aspects and considerations of parenting time, legal custody, and physical custody in Indiana and the effects these have on children. To begin I will provide definitions to some of the terms that are used in relation to child custody.
Legal custody is the designation of who shall decide the major life practices of the child such as health care, religious activities, and education.
Physical custody is the determination of how a child's time shall be divided between the parents or other custodians.
Parenting time is the contemporary term applied to physical custody that replaces “visitation” so as to embody the spirit that a parent's time with his or her children embraces all of the attendant responsibilities of parenting including social and emotional development.
Primary physical custodian is the parent who has the child for the most significant portion of time.
Shared Parenting is the term applied to parents who exercise a division of time with the children that allocates no less than generally 35-45% to each parent depending upon the jurisdiction or general practices of the court.
Sole custodian is the designation given to the person who is granted authority to singly make the major life decisions of the child such as health care, religious activities, and education.
I am presenting the relevant statutes first and will then refer to them by code in subsequent commentary. In Indiana the decision on legal custody and parenting time in dissolution of marriage are as follows;
IC 31-17-2-8 - Custody order
Sec. 8. The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, there is no presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parent or parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parent or parents;
(B) the child's sibling; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.
(5) The child's adjustment to the child's:
(A) home;
(B) school; and
(C) community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.96-1999, SEC.7;P.L.133-2002, SEC.32.
IC 31-17-2-13 - Joint legal custody; finding required for award
Sec. 13. The court may award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of joint legal custody would be in the best interest of the child.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9.
IC 31-17-2-15 - Joint legal custody; matters considered in making award
Sec. 15. In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under section 13 of this chapter would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so; and
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.3-2008, SEC.237.
IC 31-17-2-17 - Custodian may determine child's upbringing
Sec. 17. (a) Except:
(1) as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody order; and
(2) as provided in subsection (b);
the custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious training.
(b) If the court finds after motion by a noncustodial parent that, in the absence of a specific limitation of the custodian's authority, the child's:
(1) physical health would be endangered; or
(2) emotional development would be significantly impaired;
the court may specifically limit the custodian's authority.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9.
In Indiana the decision on legal custody and parenting time in paternity cases is governed by the Indiana Code as follows;
IC 31-14-13-2.3 - Joint legal custody; finding required for award; factors considered in making award
Sec. 2.3. (a) In a proceeding to which this chapter applies, the court may award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of joint legal custody would be in the best interest of the child.
(b) An award of joint legal custody under this section does not require an equal division of physical custody of the child.
(c) In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under this section would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint legal custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint legal custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so;
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody; and
(7) whether there is a pattern of domestic or family violence.
As added by P.L.95-2009, SEC.2.
IC 31-14-13-2 - Factors of custody determination
Sec. 2. The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the child's best interests, there is not a presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parents;
(B) the child's siblings; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
(5) The child's adjustment to home, school, and community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 2.5(b) of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.96-1999, SEC.2; P.L.133-2002, SEC.24.
IC 31-14-14-1 - Parenting time rights of noncustodial parent; in chambers interview of child; rebuttable presumption for supervised parenting time
Sec. 1. (a) A noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time might:
(1) endanger the child's physical health and well-being; or
(2) significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(b) The court may interview the child in chambers to assist the court in determining the child's perception of whether parenting time by the noncustodial parent might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(c) In a hearing under subsection (a), there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who has been convicted of:
(1) child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3); or
(2) child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4(b));
might endanger the child's physical health and well-being or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(d) If a court grants parenting time rights to a person who has been convicted of:
(1) child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3); or
(2) child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4(b));
there is a rebuttable presumption that the parenting time with the child must be supervised.
(e) The court may permit counsel to be present at the interview.
If counsel is present:
(1) a record may be made of the interview; and
(2) the interview may be made part of the record for purposes of appeal.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.15-2004, SEC.1; P.L.68-2005, SEC.19; P.L.95-2009, SEC.4.
The distinction between parenting time and legal custody recognizes that each provides a different set of benefits and objectives. In dissolution 31-17-2-8 provides the eight factors that a judicial officer must consider when making a parenting time decision. These include such things as the child's relationship with the parents and other people who can significantly affect the child's well-being, the child's adjustment to the child's home, school and community, and most importantly the child's wishes. 31-17-2-15 provides that when considering legal custody a judicial officer must consider the fitness of each parent, whether they agree to the custody arrangement, and interestingly the wishes of the child. 31-17-2-17 provides that the person or persons awarded legal custody “may determine the child's upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious training.”
Thus, parenting time is about developing, facilitating and promoting the parent-child relationship while [legal] custody is an administrative process that can be undertaken from afar and, although not practical, without interaction with the child. The interesting aspect of 31-17-2-15 is that it provides for the wishes of the child. While married parents may also consider the wishes of their children in these matters most certainly do not provide their children the authority to decide whether to attend school, practice hygienic activities, or observe parents religious decisions.
Granting to parents an award of joint legal custody allows for input from two decision makers - two researchers, two contemplative minds, two subjective viewpoints - providing input into the decision making process. Much as a patient may seek a second opinion from a medical professional before undergoing a major procedure children should also be entitled to second opinions before their health, education, or religious determinations are made for them. Setting aside these matters, it is important for children regardless of who their legal custodians are that they maintain a healthy and meaningful interaction with each parent. This is the purpose of establishing parenting time.
There is a basic premise underlying the opinions in the legal community that stability and continuity of care is in the best interest of the child.[fn1] However, as applied there is often not continuity in care as most often children experience a decrease in the time they spend in the care of their fathers. Much of this is due to a political agenda that has influenced policy makers.
Research and my observations have demonstrated that sole custody and especially primary physical custody requests are associated with exacerbation or creation of conflict. Courts are reticent to award joint legal custody and Shared Parenting arrangements once conflict erupts. This in a way becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, when the frequency of transitions is reduced, and high conflict parents avoid direct contact with each other during parenting time exchanges and shield their children from their conflict, the negative effects disappear. I contend though that conflict is a normal part of everyday life, and to completely shield children from normal conflict may be depriving them of an opportunity to observe resolution of disputes, healing and reconciliation.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines provide guidance for the purpose of parenting time.
A child whose parents live apart has special needs related to the parent-child relationship. A child's needs and ability to cope with the parent's situation change as the child matures. Parents should consider these needs as they negotiate parenting time. They should be flexible and create a parenting time agreement which addresses the unique needs of the child and their circumstances. Parents and attorneys should always demonstrate a spirit of cooperation. The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines are designed to assist parents and courts in the development of their own parenting plans. In the event the parties cannot create their own parenting time agreement, these guidelines represent the minimum time a parent should have to maintain frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact with a child.
When confronted with litigation involving child custody resulting from dissolution of marriage or a paternity action it is essential that you know the differences and purposes surrounding the legal and physical custody of the children. These two dimensions must be harmonized as decisions or agreements that recognize the child's needs and how these two facets of custody interplay with that are essential to the child's well-being and the probability that the decision will endure. Neither legal custody decisions or parenting time arrangements should be made in isolation. These considerations should be juxtaposed and integrated with each other.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Shared Parenting Time, Joint or Sole Legal Custody, and Joint or Primary Physical Custody - Indiana
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Agnostic Parents more likely to retain custody of their children - Magistrate George G. Pancol died at age 87.
05 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A Madison County Indiana magistrate died peacefully at his home on the morning of Tuesday 04 February 2014. George G. Pancol, age 87, was the judicial officer who gained notoriety in 2010 for stripping an Anderson man of the custody of his children because Pancol found him unfit to parent because the man changed his religious preference from Christian to agnostic.
I wrote about the notice of appeal filed in that case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a Stay which had the effect of returning the children's father to the children.
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.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
A fully integrated analysis of child custodian behavioural risks when pursuing child custody modification
26 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
When engaged in parenting children amongst separate households the likelihood of conflict over parenting styles is likely to be exacerbated. It very well may have been the trigger for a divorce and the ensuing high conflict parenting relationship. It is this conflict that leads to hyper vigilance towards perception of any adverse parenting decisions and subsequent litigation.
Often though this litigation, while it may have had legitimate underpinnings, does not produce fruitful results. This can be the results of a chaotic, piecemeal approach to the presentation of the adverse parenting techniques. This is the topic I am addressing here.
The actions of a parent seen in isolation may appear typical of parents or even in the extreme still innocuous. But when the interplay of various behaviours and their impact on the children is adequately coordinated and presented to the court a far different outcome may appear.
To understand the importance of this interplay I guide you to Kate Randal, FBI insider threat analyst. She suggests that organizations develop a central review process for assessing the red flags exhibited by members of the organization. These may include security level clearance, electronically accessing or sending sensitive data, sexual proclivities, sudden changes in mood or behaviour, seeking greater responsibility, and an upsurge in higher economic class activities.
None of those in isolation should be cause for concern. An adept and ambitious employee should seek advancement. As one gains a sense of security in his station in life he may reward himself for years of frugality by engaging in more liberal spending habits. A major life event could produce a temporary stress reaction that is out-of-character but still normal under the circumstances. A particular inter-agency project may demand the transmission of a high amount of sensitive data.
These actions may be viewed by a supervisor, a co-worker, a department head, an electronic monitoring algorithm, or health provider. Without cross-communication or a central collection process and repository these individual red flags provide no alert.
An employee who is being treated for depression, who has recently purchased an expensive sports car, has asked for a promotion including a higher security clearance, is soliciting prostitutes and has had an unusual spike in the transmission of pdf attachments or photocopying can be seen as a threat. This collection of unusual activities seen by one person provides a clear signal to investigate further. In isolation each may produce little more than wild speculation.
So in applying this principle to parenting and child custody litigation practitioners must be acutely aware of the interplay between individual behaviours and the overarching goal of the best interest of the child. For instance using physical violence against a child as a disciplinary measure is still widely accepted. As long as it is not producing physical injury to the point of being declared abusive then that complaint will gain no traction. I had heard attorneys dismiss the complaint of this type of corporal punishment as not being an issue to bring to the court's attention. However, when demonstrated as a means to suppress a child's gregarious nature or as a consequence of shyness in the overall scheme of a parent trying to manipulate inborn character traits then the physical violence is clearly emotional abuse. To dismiss this parenting technique before fully exploring its impact upon the child is to err. Possibly an error that results in a child remaining within an abusive household.
A successful child custody modification is dependent upon having a legitimate parenting plan for the petitioner while crafting the deficiencies of the respondent into a perceptible and cohesive foundation for the modification. IC 31-17-2-8 and its companion IC 31-14-4-3 enumerate the factors from which there must be a substantial change in at least one. These should not be seen as individual acts standing alone but, to be effectively litigated, should be organized within the rubric of effective parenting.
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.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Notice of Intent to relocate - Indiana Code 31-17-2.2 et seq
In Indiana a parent who has a child that is subject to a custody order or parenting time order must file a notice of intent to relocate before attempting to relocate the child to a new residence [31-17-2.2-1]. The notice requirement applies to any party who is subject to a custody or parenting time or grandparent visitation order involving an unemancipated child. The requirement applies regardless of distance involved in the relocation – even if it is across the hallway in an apartment complex. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
“Relocation” is “a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least sixty (60) days” [Swadner v. Swadner, 897 N.E.2d 966, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)].
The relocation notice requirements may seem burdensome but are easily manageable with proper planning. Each element of the requirement serves a legitimate purpose which may initially appear absurd in some cases but are significant in others. The subjective requirements are as follows [31-17-2.2-3(a)(2)];
The intended new residence, including the address of the relocating individual;
The home telephone number of the new residence, if one exist, and any other applicable telephone number for the relocating individual;
The date that the relocating individual intends to move;
A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child; and
A proposal for a revised schedule of parenting time or grandparent visitation with the child.
The notice shall be filed at least 90 days prior to the anticipated relocation date. [31-17-2.2-3(a)(1)(B)]. If the information cannot be obtained at least 90 days prior to the move then the notice can be filed without that information but it must be supplemented not later than ten (10) days after the date that the relocating individual obtains the information [31-17-2.2-3(b)].
If a party wishes to oppose the relocation of the child then he or she may file an objection not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice from the relocating individual [31-17-2.2-5(a)]. Either party may request a full evidentiary hearing on the motion to prevent the relocation [31-17-2.2-5(b)]. The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason [31-17-2.2-5(c)]. If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child [31-17-2.2-5(d)].
If a party opposing relocation has filed an objection the court may issue a temporary restraining order preventing the relocation of the child or the return of the child to the court's jurisdiction pending a final hearing [31-17-2.2-6(a)]. In considering whether to grant the restraining order the court shall consider if the notice requirement was not served in a timely manner and the parties have not presented an agreement concerning a parenting time schedule [31-17-2.2-6(a)(1)], that the child has been relocated without the appropriate notice or an agreement between the parties or a court order [31-17-2.2-6(a)(2)], or from an examination of the evidence presented at the temporary hearing, that there is a likelihood that, after a final hearing, the court will not approve the relocation of the child [31-17-2.2-6(a)(3)]. The court, however, may grant a temporary relocation pending a final hearing if notice requirements have been met and after it reviews the evidence presented at the temporary hearing determines that there is a likelihood that it will approve the relocation of the child following the final hearing [31-17-2.2-6(b)(3)].
Any party may file a motion for the court to set the matter for a hearing to review and modify, if appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order [31-17-2.2-1(b)]. In considering whether to modify its existing orders the court shall consider the distance involved in the proposed change of residence, the hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation, the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable parenting time and grandparent visitation arrangements (including consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties), whether there is any relevant established pattern of conduct by the relocating individual which includes whether that individual has either promoted or thwarted a nonrelocating individual's contact with the child, the reasons provided by the relocating individual for seeking relocation and the nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of the child, and any other factors affecting the best interest of the child [31-17-2.2-1(b)].
In addition to those factors the court must also consider the eight factors found under I.C. 31-17-2-8 which govern child custody orders generally. While the relocation statute is a self-contained chapter and does not by its terms refer to the general change of custody provisions those must still be considered. The relocation chapter introduces some new factors that are required to be balanced, but also expressly requires consideration of “other . . . factors affecting the best interest of the child” [31-17-2.2-1(b)(6)]. The general custody determination required under 31-17-2-8 is to find “the best interests of the child” by examining the factors listed in that section. Thus, the relocation statute incorporates all of the eight factors and adds some new ones. However, there does not necessarily need to be a substantial change in one of the original 8 factors because consideration of the new factors might at least theoretically change this balance of factors [Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1256 (Ind. 2008)].
The statutory framework of the relocation law is for application to child custody matters when one parent is a “relocating individual”. It is not a means by which to test waters to see what affect it would have on the custody and parenting time of the child. It is an abuse of the system to file a notice of intent to relocate without having made the substantial steps towards relocating. This is expressed in the notice requirements which include the address, telephone number, the date, and specific reasons for the relocation. A parent engaging in filing a frivolous motion to relocate may be ordered to pay attorney fees of the affected parties [31-17-2.2-1(c)].
Regardless of a custody determination or if the parent actually intends to relocate the relocating individual does still retain the right whether to relocate which a court cannot prevent. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that all citizens have a right to interstate travel “uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement,” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 631, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 15 U.S. 651, 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), and laws that chill that right with no other purpose are “patently unconstitutional.” Id. (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968)). The contravening interest in the right of a parent to relocate and the right of the other parent to maintain a relationship with the child are balance using the best interest standard. Thus, a parent is free to relocate but may not be able to relocate the child.
Recently I obtained an injunction preventing a parent from relocating with the children by alleging that parent was a risk to abscond with the children and the relocation was not in the children's best interest. Opposing counsel expressed his intent to withdraw the notice of intent to relocate but that has yet to happen. During my family evaluation of the non-relocating parent the children expressed no knowledge of the proposed relocation scheduled to occur three days later.
This parent has played games for years and always seeks to harm the children. Once it was realized that I would soundly prevent the relocation of the child no further attempt has been made. This parent and the attorney apparently didn't realize that the decision “ultimately turn[s] on the best interests of the child” which is, after all, the “overarching policy goal of all family court matters involving children” [Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176, 1180 (Ind. 2007)].
In summary, when a parent intends to establish a new residence for at least 60 days, notice must be provided to the other parties. The court may temporarily allow or prevent the relocation based upon the likelihood of a similar ruling following a full evidentiary hearing. In addition to the eight factors that govern initial custody determinations the relocation statute also has additional factors. There does not, however, need to be a substantial change in one of the eight factors when a relocation has been proposed. Ultimately, the court is required to determine whether the relocation is in the child's best interest.
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, May 16, 2013
Parenting Time Exchange Protocol - Indiana Parents, Practitioners and Judges
When it comes to making arrangements for interactions between post divorce or separated parents we must use directed consciousness towards a child centric view of parenting. Opportunities for the children to experience interactions between their parents may be frequent and fluid or limited to a rigid, court ordered schedule that occurs only at a neutral location, possibly a police department. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
For years we have heard that when parents aren't willing to forgo the harm to children caused by divorce that they should ameliorate the damage by removing conflict from the children's presence. I contend however that simply obscuring conflict from the view of the children is insufficient. Children possess great acuity about their parents feelings and will often withhold comment or suppress their own feelings so as to protect the feelings of the parents. Parenting time exchanges should be an opportunity for parents to express some civility towards each other. It must be genuine though. Children are attuned to the subtle cues such as an exhaustive sigh that a parent releases upon reentering the vehicle – so as to say I am glad that is over with.
The parenting time exchange location can send numerous messages to a child, sometimes conflicting. When practical parents should agree on an exchange routine that balances transportation responsibilities. I suggest that the parent to whom the child will be with provide the transportation. In effect the child is always picked-up, never dropped off. This travel time will also give the child an adjustment opportunity while heading to your home, so make the most of it. When both parents are capable of providing transportation then practitioners should recommend that the parent exercising parenting time do the pick up. Judicial officers should order the pick up only rule when circumstances avail themselves.
By using the pick up only rule children are never faced with the psychological impact of being dropped off which may instill a sense of a parent being done with them or remind the child of abandonment that may have occurred. Using only pick-up for parenting time exchanges conveys to the child that he or she is always wanted by someone. This is especially true for younger children but can also be important for the adolescent who has had difficulty adjusting to the new family dynamics.
Finally, a common practice that may very well have the most traumatic impact upon your child should be reviewed. I cannot stress enough the importance of examining a common departure ritual from the child's perspective. This applies to parenting time exchanges in particular but all such times as when a child or relative depart from the other. It is not uncommon to tell a child “Go give your grandmother a hug and kiss before she leaves” or some similar demand to exhibit affections either by the departing person or the parent remaining with the child. Parents who try to display a sense of cooperation and harmony around the children may also engage in this behaviour – “give you mom a kiss goodbye before we leave”. I want to be absolutely clear on this point. You may be encouraging and facilitating sexual abuse of your child.
Perpetrators of sexual abuse of children exploit opportunities like this. These departing rituals take control of a child's affections away from himself. Children should always be taught that they own their affections. They should never be forced to display affections or “show love”. Abusers groom children in a manner that skews what the normal adult population knows “love” to be. An abuser who tells a child to “show me that you love me” has a far different intent and may have groomed the child in a manner far different from what we expect when telling a child to “show grandma that you love her”. Do not force your child to show affections during parenting time exchanges or at any other time. Your children should be empowered and know that they always control their affections and are not obligated to comply to the demands for affection by any other person.
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.
