Inducing action to improve Child Custody outcomes by identifying a need

I was once waiting in a line starting at three a.m. and upon awakening from my brief slumber which was upon the asphalt surface surrounding the building I began my stretching and meditation routine. The guy whom I was assisting sighed and exclaimed, “I wish I had that type of discipline.” I explained to him as I write here. It’s not discipline but part of fulfilling my biological need for exercise.

I previously wrote in My Top 10 Priorities about the needs which we all actually have plus some other activities that give my life meaning and fulfillment. I felt that what I had originally listed there then was rather comprehensive although when cruising around with Rupert Boneham one evening the subject of needs was broached and he mentioned that fire, or heat, was a need. Coming from someone who had been on the show Survivor multiple times I gave his inclusion of heat as a need full weight and amended my list.

As for exercise being a need it cannot be considered an absolute need as there have been plenty of long-term comatose patients who were bedridden and did not exercise. If however, optimal health or longevity is sought then exercise is essential to achieving those outcomes.

As for me, I seek both. I seek longevity and having a robust active lifestyle while I am biologically plugging away. I have created such a strong predisposition in myself for the attachment of the chemical connectedness to the flow produced from my exercise and meditation routines that it can impede my studies and productivity. Like those who habitually use caffeine, marijuana, cocaine or any other psychoactive drug to alter their mood I use exercise to achieve the same. If I miss my routine I clearly am in a different mood and may get headaches, be irritable, or lethargic. There have been times when I have engaged in vigorous exercise for greater than five hours knowing I should stop but also thriving on the serotonin rush. Thus, I now employ strategies, such as time blocking, to ensure that I do not allow myself to be consumed by physical activity.

By framing exercise in the realm of need, just as oxygen or food, it is no longer considered optional. Every day I awaken and know that I will soon be attending to my needs. Breathing comes naturally as does excreting processed food which tends to set its own schedule. Just like eating, exercise is scheduled - usually prior to eating so as not to have smooth muscles competing with striated [skeletal] muscles for blood supply.

It may seem that doing such things as changing diet, ceasing the use of toxins and mood altering chemicals, and initiating an exercise routine into a lifestyle in which those needs have been neglected is an unsurmountable task. This feeling is more prominent in those people who have been given plans that are set-up to insure failure. I, however, have strategies available to clients that ensures their success in reframing these actions as needs. There is a different need that is of equal or greater importance for parents and children involved in child custody battles.

In child custody cases needs for parents and the children are greater than those of the ordinary person. Continuing with the optimal well-being qualification, attentiveness to children, respect for the other parent, and establishing a long-range view of the relationships with all persons involved can be viewed as essential supplemental needs.

Children have a range of reactions to parental conflict or the reordering of their relationship. Children need parents who are cognizant of and attentive to their reactions to the conflict or turmoil and the effect it is having on them. Attentive parents will act to ensure that their actions are in alignment with fulfilling the needs of the children. This may require going against cultural norms and standing up to pressures from family and friends who lack the greater insight of an attentive and mindful parent.

The United States, especially among the plains and mountain regions, is predominantly imbued by an honour culture. Aggression and violence are expected and often sanctified as means of defending one’s honour or rightful place in the hierarchy of respect. Thus, there is a cultural resistance to substituting the well-being of children for the honour demands of a parent. Likewise, parents who have been a part of organized aggression and violence against children with built in honours, such as serving in the US imperial armed forces, may find this to be a greater challenge but I do have strategies that enable them to come to a child centered cognitive focus.

Children need the attention, affection, respect, and reassurances that both parents can provide during or following a reordering of the parental relationship. By being mindful of every action and attentive to the effect upon the children it is easy to reframe a desire to seek retribution or accountability against the other parent for committing a perceived offense to a thought such as “I need to not perpetuate the conflict and trust myself that I am modeling an appropriate behaviour that my child will understand is in his or her best interest.”

Parents each showed great reverence to the other when establishing that life-long bond surrounding mutual child creation and rearing. Children need for their parents to continue that respect throughout their lives. As a parent who is respectful of your child and his or her needs it is incumbent upon you to continue to revere the other parent for his or her part in creating the child with you and to comply with the court orders regardless of whether that respect or obedience is reciprocated.

If I have yet to be convincing at this point then imagine this scenario. Your child is snuggled with his or her future spouse compiling a list of to whom wedding invitations are to be sent. The fiance notices that your child has not included either parent and mentions such. Your child then begins crying and explains that both parents are so bitter towards each other and argue so often that he or she fears inviting them because they may cause a scene and it wouldn’t be fair to invite one and not the other because they both cause the fights.

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

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Indiana Court of Appeal Reverses Shared Parenting Order Today

In Bailey v Bailey published today the Indiana Court of Appeal reversed an order of the Fulton Circuit Court, Special Judge Richard Maughmer presiding, that provided that parents would have joint legal custody and 50/50 parenting time. This was a modification of the existing parenting time order although no petition was before the court to modify parenting time or custody. The court made the changes under the auspices of the Parallel Parenting provision of the 2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines when the parties appeared for mutual actions for contempt.

These were high conflict parents. During the proceedings, there were approximately five contempt actions, one protective order, one request for emergency custody, one petition for modification of custody, one petition for restricted visitation, five attorneys, and two judges.

Judge Maughmer should be commended for taking the position ordering these parents into 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. While some trial courts have taken an approach to hostile or embattled parents by granting primary physical and sole legal custody to one parent to mitigate opportunities for conflict that may be ignoring the best interest of the child. Sometimes the parent who has instigated or perpetuated the conflict has been the one receiving the greater rights and responsibilities. Our reviewing courts have shunned this idea.

In 1996 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that “Allowing modification of custody in favor of one whose misbehavior has led to the supposed 'substantial change,' in circumstances rewards misconduct and should therefore be avoided.”[fn1] A few years earlier the court expressed its rationale for awarding sole custody and primary parenting time to one parent in high conflict cases.

In 1992 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals in arriving at its decision noted that “obstreperous parents sharing legal custody would have significant difficulties reaching a consensus on such fundamental issues as child-rearing philosophies, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[fn2] When divorced parents are charged with making major decisions as a unit, it is apparent that a relationship filled with hostility and resentment presents a significant obstacle. It follows, therefore, that when child-rearing becomes a 'battleground,'[fn3] modification of joint legal custody is a sensible step to take for the best interests of the children.”

One of our justices explained it this way;
Every day in our State, trial courts engage in the fact-finding process of determining which of two parents—oftentimes, both parents who have behaved poorly—is the better choice to serve as a primary physical custodian. All too often, this involves determining who between two parents is the lesser of two evils—which parent is least likely to poison the children and alienate them from their other parent. The majority’s opinion permits sidestepping this process and allows the trial court to “split the baby.” I would reverse on this issue and remand to the trial court with instructions that it award sole legal and physical custody of the children either to James or Jane and grant the other parent parenting time scheduled in a manner that is conducive to the best interests of the children.[fn4]

I contend that those positions are in error, especially given that at least one of the parents who engages in making child rearing a battleground will get rewarded with sole legal and primary physical custody. Concurrent with that is the risk that the parent who so benefits may be the one who instigated the culture of conflict. I believe that it also ignores the best interest of the child. It was this position that was advanced and held while the Domestic Relations Committee was reviewing the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines which were amended in March 2013 to include a parallel parenting section.

In 1989 and cited again in 1994 two other panels of the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the concept of Parallel Parenting when they held, “We must realize that, by allowing [families] to rely on the courts to settle such disputes, we deprive families of the opportunity to work out their problems and be the shapers of their own destinies. To the extent that we usurp the natural functions of the family unit – including handling fallings out – we put an obstacle in the path of reconciliation rather than removing one. By acting as we do, we assume the responsibility for the decisions that would be made entirely internally in a family if it were still intact. If warring family members can blame the court, they will be less likely to recognize and acknowledge their own culpability. Without a feeling of responsibility for, or participation in, either the decision or the result, there is less incentive for the individual family members to improve relations.[fn5]

In the immediate case though the panel reversed the trial court's order of Shared Parenting which modified the prior parenting time order. This is because the parties appeared before the court on dual motions for contempt. The panel articulated its holding in citing “[l]ongstanding Indiana law” which “has prohibited trial courts from sua sponte ordering a change of custody.”[fn6] When such an important issue as the custody of children is involved, a modification generally can be ordered only after a party has filed a petition requesting such a modification, the other party has notice of the filing, and a proper evidentiary hearing is held at which both parties may be heard and the trial court fully apprised of all necessary information regarding change of circumstances and a child’s best interests before deciding whether a modification should be ordered.

While it appears that the trial court was correct in its determination of Shared Parenting through a Parallel Parenting plan it suffered from basic due process requirements.

Notes
1] Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
2] Aylward v Aylward, 592 N.E.2d 1247, 1251-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
3] id at 1252
4] Dissent of Vaidik in Van Weirten
5] McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854, 856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)) (alteration omitted).
6] See In re Marriage of Henderson, 453 N.E.2d 310, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (quoting State ex rel. Davis v. Achor, 225 Ind. 319, 327, 75 N.E.2d 154, 157 (1947)).

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

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2014 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Contempt of Court Jail Sentence when Child Refuses Parenting Time Upheld - Indiana Court of Appeals

Oh those contentious parents who make child rearing a battle ground. In one of the most vociferous battles that I have encountered as of late is that of Paula Rorer Hubbard and William Shane Rorer. Mother was found to be in contempt of Father's parenting time and appealed. The appellate panel rendered its decision on Monday 14 April 2014 in an unpublished opinion. The appeal arose under Mother's argument that she was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of confinement, suspended, based upon inadmissible evidence and an improperly imposed jail sentence. The case originated in the Warrick Circuit Court where the Honorable David O. Kelley, Judge, presided.

Mother was found in contempt for her failure to facilitate parenting time between the parties' adolescent daughter and Father which had been recently reinstated following a three year lapse. Mother and Father had one daughter during their marriage which was dissolved in April 2003. After years of disputes between Mother and Father regarding custody and parenting time, the trial court suspended parenting time between Father and Daughter in September 2010. However, on 01 August 2013, the trial court ordered that Father was entitled to parenting time with Daughter who was then fourteen years of age.

Neither parent enters this latest fray with clean hands. The trial court observed that Parents have an “inability and refusal to co-parent effectively.” The disputes are deeply rooted and the duration of the battle appears to mystify Judge Kelley as noted:
The anger they share for each other and the desire to “get the best of the other” is much more important to each parent than meeting their responsibility to rear a child together in a responsible manner. There is plenty of blame to go around for each parent and a recitation of the offenses of each parent would serve no good purpose. Collectively, however, it is clear to the Court that the child and her overall welfare are secondary to the parents’ “personal war.” Given the number of years it has gone on one would think the parents would grow weary of combat but it appears to have worsened rather than improving.

The court has recognized daughter's manipulation of the parents' conflict:
[Daughter] has recognized this conflict and seized the opportunity to “drive the bus.” What teenager would pass on the opportunity to be in complete control of her life? It is clear to the Court that her rejection of her father is pleasing to her mother and continued rejection will guarantee a continued flow of favorable treatment from the mother.

Judge Kelley exemplifies the hopelessness in the predicament that judges face with these high conflict parents. As so many have similarly expressed to me, Judge Kelley articulated his feelings in this manner:
Numerous mental health professionals have not been able to address the parents’ issues and the Court has absolutely no expectation that it can make things work smoothly. The Court has considered drafting specific measures that would direct each parent how to be an effective parent but the Court doubts that either party would follow those directives and also it is not [the] Court’s responsibility to rear the child.

The order that went into effect on 01 August 2013 was initially breached at Mother's first opportunity. On 07 August 2013, Daughter initially refused to participate in parenting time with Father. Ultimately, however, she cooperated after the police arrived. On 09 August 2013, she again refused to participate in parenting time. On 12 August 2013, Father wasted no time in filing a petition for contempt against Mother. Father alleged that Mother “has done everything in her power to attempt to discourage [Daughter] from seeing” Father.

At hearing Father produced a police officer who had responded to the 07, 09, and 14 August parenting time exchanges. Mother objected to testimony and documentary evidence of the 14 August incident arguing that it fell outside of the allegations plead two days earlier. On its face to any experienced appellate litigator this is merely cumulative evidence that demonstrates a pattern. Thus it will not be held as a basis for reversal. Mother was clearly already on notice about these allegations. The Court so found stating that the Officer’s “testimony and Exhibit A were merely cumulative of the other evidence, and any error in the admission of the testimony and Exhibit A was harmless.” Thus the Court found that “[w]e disregard errors in the admission of evidence as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.”[fn1]

In finding Mother in contempt the Court found “from the evidence that the Mother has failed to take a positive or active role in encouraging the child to engage in visitation and is allowing the child to decide if she wants to visit.” It has already been observed that children are not to be put in the position of or allowed to make decisions regarding participation in parenting time.

The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines provide:
If a child is reluctant to participate in parenting time, each parent shall be responsible to ensure the child complies with the scheduled parenting time. In no event shall a child be allowed to make the decision on whether scheduled parenting time takes place.
Commentary:
In most cases, when a child hesitates to spend time with a parent, it is the result of naturally occurring changes in the life of a child. The child can be helped to overcome hesitation if the parents listen to the child, speak to each other and practically address the child’s needs.
Parents should inquire why a child is reluctant to spend time with a parent. If a parent believes that a child’s safety is compromised in the care of the other parent, that parent should take steps to protect the child, but must recognize the rights of the other parent. This situation must be promptly resolved by both parents. Family counseling may be appropriate. If the parents cannot resolve the situation, either parent may seek the assistance of the court.[fn2]

Mother failed in her duty to promote a positive parent-child relationship between Father and Daughter as well as failing to facilitate Father's parenting time. Evidence elicited at the hearing indicated that at the 07 August parenting time exchange, Mother engaged in the alienating tactic of crying and hugging Daughter when Daughter was ready to leave with Father. At the 09 August parenting time exchange, Mother would not get out of the vehicle and only cracked her window to talk to Father. A family friend testified that she never heard Mother say anything that encouraged Daughter to participate in the parenting time. Father presented evidence that Mother failed to ensure that Daughter complied with the scheduled parenting

Mother and Father have harmed their daughter to the point that when after three years of absence from the life of her Father she refused to see him. Social science research shows significant benefits to children when non-custodial fathers remain involved in their lives.[fn3] Yet, both parents allowed their ongoing disdain for each other to poison the well from which their daughter drinks. Rather than provide competent nurturing and guidance to their daughter they have instilled in her that she has no intrinsic value but, rather, is only a prize to be fought over and won. Both of these parents are abusive to their daughter.

As for the contempt citation, the primary objective of a civil contempt proceeding is not to punish the contemnor but to coerce action for the benefit of the aggrieved party.[fn4] A contempt order that neither coerces compliance with a court order nor compensates the aggrieved party for loss and does not offer an opportunity for the recalcitrant party to purge himself may not be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding. Thus, Mother holds the keys to her freedom by ensuring that she complies with the court order and facilitates Father's parenting time.

In nearly six years of working nearly exclusively on high conflict parenting child custody cases I have been able to observe a patter in these relationships. The hostile aggressive parent needs a partner in the conflict and ensuing battle. That partner is the other parent. This is not to say that both parents share equally in the blame or initiate the offending actions. It must be acknowledged though, as I have seen, that both parents play a role in perpetuating the conflict. This conflict is mitigated by creating a new concept of the parent-parent and parent-child relationships which ultimately benefit the child.

notes
1] Sibbing v. Cave, 922 N.E.2d 594, 598 (Ind. 2010)
2] Ind. Parenting Time Guideline § I(E)(3) (emphasis added).
3] E.g., Marcia J. Carlson & Katherine A. Magnuson, Low-Income Fathers’ Influence on Children, In re Matter of E.M. And El.M. (Ind. 2014) citing 635 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 95, 107 (2011)
4] In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d 1157, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

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

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2014 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

How many questions does it take to get to the answer of a “yes” or “no” question? - Del Anderson of Child Advocates, Inc.

13 December 2013

Do you know why court room testimony doesn't make for good television drama? Because it is laborious, boring and – as in this example – so idiotic it make you want to ram your head into a wall.

So here is a brief portion of witness Del Anderson, a GAL for Child Advocates, Inc. of Indianapolis, being cross-examined in a child custody case.

COUNSEL: Are there currently any – any problems that [parents] are having with the custody arrangement and ... parenting time?
GAL ANDERSON: Can you be more specific about problems – what problems?
COUNSEL: That's what I am asking you. Are the – is there anything that you perceive as a problem with parenting time or the – the – the – uh – the – the parenting time schedule or our current custody arrangement? Are there any problems as a result what [parents] have right now?
GAL ANDERSON: Well the arrangements [parents] have is what the Court ordered.
COUNSEL: Right. Yeah – and I'm asking if there are any problems with that?
GAL ANDERSON: Do I have any problems with it?
COUNSEL: Not if you – (Indiscernible). Are there any problems that [parents] are experiencing with the current custody arrangement or parenting time schedule?
GAL ANDERSON: Well apparently [they] are dropping the kids off and picking up as [they] were ordered to do.
COUNSEL: Is that a problem?
GAL ANDERSON: If [they're] doing what [they] were ordered to do, no that's not a problem.
COUNSEL: So then my question was are there any problems with the current parenting time schedule and custody arrangement?
GAL ANDERSON: No, [they] have not had any problems from my understanding.

It is tinged with humor as you likely see someone who either doesn't know how to answer a yes or no question, is being hostile toward one side, or is just too stoned to know what is going on.

Oh and that is who Child Advocates, Inc. of Indianapolis employs to make the critical recommendations that affect the ultimate well-being of children. YIKES!

If you would like to assist in a contested child custody case then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.

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 my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Self-Imposed Parental Alienation

23 November 2013

First let me provide my definition of self-imposed parental alienation. Parental Alienation is the arrangement of behaviours that are intended to sever the relationship between the child and the targeted parent. When the behaviours create a condition in which the child is driven away from the instigating parent I call that self-imposed parental alienation. While the range of behaviours may be the same among different parents it is the child's cognition of the parent's performance that determines whether alienation is established.

The tragedy of self-imposed parental alienation is that the child generally has a healthy parent-child relationship with the targeted parent impeded by the instigating parent, but this also can create an enduring hostility toward that instigator. The child thus loses having a healthful parent-child relationship with either parent.

Self-Imposed parental alienation is the result of a loss of focus on doing what is best for the child. The very act of divorce is a selfish one. As Judith Wallerstein says in reporting on her 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce, “If children had the vote, almost all would vote to maintain the parents' marriage.”[en1] This is because divorce produces worse outcomes for children in nearly all cases and the children know it. The adults rationalize their selfish harm to children. It is through rationalization that an instigating parent accepts the alienation as just. If you want to do something, first declare it “good.” If we deem it good, it just is. This is seen simultaneously at an institutional level.

Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 requires that judicial officers make child custody and parenting time decisions by applying “the best interest of the child” standard. I contend however that a rationale view of divorce outcomes on children produces the realization that a court can not fashion post divorce parent-child relationships for the child that is in his best interest. Rather, I believe that the best interest standard is a delusional adult oriented view of child adaptations to divorce. Reporting from children and objective analysis convey the abject failure of this best interest approach. Empirically it has been aptly demonstrated that, on a whole, the children of divorce suffer adversities far greater than their counterparts who remained in intact households. The resultant effect is then that courts are limited to a standard no better than being able to fashion situations that are “least harmful to the child.”

The moral goodness rationalization is the folly of the parent who subjects himself to this type of abuse. Children are keenly aware of the dynamics of post separation relationships between parents. While some children may align themselves with the instigating parent -- becoming integrated in to the disturbed parents' vengeful orbit -- others may reject such an invitation at the onset.

Jared, a boy of age 7, exhibits clear hostility and resentment towards his custodial mother for her attempts to alienate the children from their father – relocating to a new city, seeking sole custody, displaying 'rescuing' behaviours following parenting time with father. Jared has demonstrated his disdain for mother's indignation over his fondness for father and especially her derogation of behaviours that mimic those of father. While initially having a strong attachment to both parents Jared's relationship with his mother has now been sabotaged by her resentment of father. Jared openly refers to his mother as “mean” and says she “doesn't like it when I act like you.”

As Jared enters the pre-adolescent stage he, like his peers in that group, are particularly vulnerable to being swept up into the anger of one parent against the other. It is the embattled parent, often the one who opposed the divorce, who initiates and fuels the alignment against the other parent. Mothers are more likely to have children aligned with them as are fathers.

Katie, a pre-adolescent girl, is demonstrating signs of a realization of mother's alienation attempts and is rejecting mother. In speaking with her about living with mother and her subsequent husband Katie presented anxiety about exhibiting affection for or attachment to father such as wanting to speak with him on the phone, invite him to school functions or display affection towards him when being returned to mother. Her time with father is relaxed and comforting to her but as the time with him approaches an end she becomes lethargic, somewhat uncooperative and resistant to leaving.

Terrance is an adolescent boy whose mother sought to extricate him from the close bond he felt with father since birth. Denying parenting time, returning or destroying items sent with him to her house and rejecting his desire to engage in activities of interest that were shared by his father were hallmarks of her alienation attempts. Terrance and his father managed to maintain meaningful contact throughout this time without father reciprocating the animosity of mother. Terrance now openly displays rejection of mother to other people, often indicating an intense desire to leave the household of his mother and that of her psychologically abusive current husband.

These children all demonstrate an allegiance to the targeted parent and feel that time with the custodial parent is an unwanted imposition for which they wish to be un-tethered. For younger children in this situation they seek a rescuer to remove them from the instigating parent to which they endure the relationship. As children grow older and experience a natural yearning for independence they also feel empowered to determine their own outcomes.

These children as adults become more steadfast in their resentment of the instigator. Sometimes they completely reject that parent who is banished into the child's past.

Some children are without facility for reconciliation with the targeted parents and become effectually isolated from two living but absent parents – one alienated as a target and the other alienated by imposition upon self. For the irrational parent who instigates the destruction of the child's attachments this potential, and likely, outcome is not foreseen. It is incumbent upon practitioners, family, friends and others in the support network to dissuade an alienating parent from perpetuating this harm to the relationships of the child with the targeted parent as well as to self.

[fn1] The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, 2000 Hyperion - Wallerstein, Lewis, Blakeslee

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

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

A Failing Attorney-Client Relationship in Child Custody Proceedings

14 October 2013

Like any intimate relationship the attorney-client relationship must meet certain foundational requirements – trust, mutual respect, like outcome based goal, and acknowledgment of the relationship limits. Distress in the attorney-client relationship is often a result of the breakdown of one or more of those foundational principles.

Parents come to me with the complaint that their attorney has completely botched their case. I first ask who appointed your attorney to represent you. Rarely is the answer something different than the parent having selected the attorney by himself or herself. While most can acknowledge that they are accountable for that decision they still feel trapped in that the cost to get a new attorney fully familiarized with the case appears to be cost prohibitive. This is generally accompanied by the declaration that the attorney was recommended.

From the attorney perspective again comes frustration. When attorneys seek my assistance with a case it is usually a high conflict parent who “just doesn't get it.” While attorneys can often be quite effective in eliciting the necessary information and building a case strategy, the very pedagogy of law school for the most part fails to equip them with the tool to handle the emotionally charged client determined to win at all costs. These parents are the saboteurs of their own case. It takes much more than training in law to be able to effectively advocate for these parents. It is not that they are inherently bad people but they have lost focus and need to be reeled in. I have seen attorneys dismiss these parents even when the money kept flowing in from the myriad of legal combative maneuvers. Sometimes the frustration just isn't worth it. Nor is upsetting a judge.

Where ever you are in the case proceedings, if you do not have a supportive attorney-client relationship then you are unlikely going to be unable to obtain a parenting time order that is best for the children. Talents and resources are also likely to wasted as the case drags on for much longer than most people anticipate. If you are in a failing attorney-client relationship then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make arrangements for me to assist with your next attorney-client session which should be to re-evaluate that relationship. There is no charge for this initial attorney consultations.

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

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com