Stuart Showalter is a child custody policy advisor to Indiana state policy makers as well as attorneys on child custody cases. For parents he offers child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives, increase their fitness as parents and manage their litigation so they can truly serve the best interest of their children. He provides this Law Blog as free opinion on various issues. Reader submissions of topics are welcomed. Send to Stuart@StuartShowalter.com
Showing posts with label Indiana child custody appeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indiana child custody appeal. Show all posts
In the domain of judicial procedure my area of specialty is Indiana child custody and support payment appeals. I have had numerous successes there as well as with Indiana University when I argued that their procedure for qualifying students as in-state residents was arbitrary and not directly related to domicity. So, when the United states Postal Service [USPS] denied an insurance claim I appealed . . . and won.
The denial of a claim and opportunity for appeal I consider a test of one’s resolve. In the child custody arena I have seen parents often give up after an adverse ruling by a trial court. I have also seen one of my clients in court recently and the effect of his propensity to appeal. When he raised a procedural issue to the court the prosecutor responded that she had no objection because “we will be right back here.” The implication being that if the hearing wasn’t continued at that moment to another day then my client would appeal, the appellate court would grant a new hearing and they would be back a year from now doing it again. It pays to get a reputation that you have the tenacity to appeal but just the act itself can often result in success.
I am a collector in the popular categories such as stamps and coins but also the unusual and unique. I continually buy and sell to build and fund my collections. When selling I have been using the USPS and my carrier. Including when I had a worldwide mail-order business I have sent tens of thousands of packages with loss or damage occurring at a rate <1:10,000 Lately though they have been performing poorly and in one incident I filed an insurance claim for a severely damaged package and destroyed contents arriving to a collector in Georgia.
The items were sent by me in a large flat rate Priority Mail box. The following are the tracking details associated with this parcel.
Day 1 - Indianapolis
Acceptance
Mar-14-17, 09:06 AM, LEBANON, IN 46052
Arrived at USPS Origin Facility
Mar-14-17, 17:47 PM, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46241
Day 2 - Transit
In Transit to Destination
Mar-15-17, 17:47 PM
Day 3 - Las Vegas
Arrived at USPS Facility
Mar-16-17, 00:27 AM, LAS VEGAS, NV 89199
Departed USPS Facility
Mar-16-17, 04:34 AM, LAS VEGAS, NV 89199
Arrived at USPS Facility
Mar-16-17, 19:27 PM, LAS VEGAS, NV 89120
Day 4 - Transit
Departed USPS Facility
Mar-17-17, 04:16 AM, LAS VEGAS, NV 89120
In Transit to Destination
Mar-17-17, 19:27 PM
Day 5 - Nashville, TN
Arrived at USPS Facility
Mar-18-17, 00:06 AM, NASHVILLE, TN 37230
ARRIVE USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 17:33 PM, MACON, GA 31213
ARRIVE USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 17:37 PM, MACON, GA 31213
DEPART USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 17:57 PM, MACON, GA 31213
DEPART USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 18:13 PM, MACON, GA 31213
ARRIVE USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 18:25 PM, MACON, GA 31204
ARRIVE USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 18:43 PM, MACON, GA 31204
PROCESSED THROUGH USPS FACILITY
Mar-21-17, 19:15 PM, MACON, GA 31204
Day 9 - Delivered
DEPART USPS FACILITY
Mar-22-17, 02:24 AM, MACON, GA 31204
ARRIVAL AT UNIT
Mar-22-17, 06:09 AM, WARNER ROBINS, GA 31088
SORTING/PROCESSING COMPLETE
Mar-22-17, 08:50 AM, WARNER ROBINS, GA 31088
OUT FOR DELIVERY
Mar-22-17, 09:00 AM, WARNER ROBINS, GA 31088
DELIVERED FRONT DOOR/PORCH
Mar-22-17, 11:03 AM, WARNER ROBINS, GA 31088
After passing through 11 different postal facilities and being scanned 32 times the parcel arrived at the collector’s house. But it was not without some damage a corner had been ripped off the box leaving a breach of about five inches in diameter.
MAKING THE INITIAL CLAIM
As with any good seller of merchandise I refunded her payment and pursued recompense by filing an indemnity claim with the USPS. That was a rather straight forward procedure: 1] I went to the USPS site and completed the online form; 2] attached a photo of the article as it arrived to the collector; and 3] attached a copy of the completed ebay listing which showed a photo of the items prior to shipment.
THE USPS RESPONSE
Within a few days an envelope arrived in my mailbox to my anticipated praises of a job well done in quickly paying the claim. To my chagrin it was a standard denial form which stated as the basis that a sale on eBay is not “proof” of value.
MY APPEAL
In my appeal I made the argument that value was a subjective term which varied by desire, time, and place unlike the price set for a First Class letter which is a fixed price. I explained that eBay was a popular and geographically broad enough venue that the sale prices established there through a competitive bidding process could establish a market value. I also provided a copy of the paypal payment notice which establishes that the winning bidder valued the item enough to pay the bid amount. Subsequently value as to the particular item was established for that time and place.
THE DECISION
Apparently the USPS agreed that an ebay auction listing is proof of value. I promptly received notice of the decision and concurrently, under separate cover, a check. However, I was not recompensed for the postage fees because “Shipping and handling fees are Not refunded.” I have the opportunity to appeal that decision also. I may. Certainly my Senator will hear about this.
The letter closes by stating, “The US Postal Service values your business. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced as a result of this matter.” It is my considered opinion that when a package which you estimate to arrive in two days is instead shuttled around the country for eight days, a hole is punched through the box, and the contents destroyed that you did not perform the service of delivery. They USPS by arguing that they did deliver the parcel and I am therefore not entitled to recover shipping fees does not seem congruent with the statement “The US Postal Service values your business.” But what is a person to do when dealing with a quasi-governmental agency that has a near monopoly? That will be the subject of an upcoming posting.
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.
By specializing in high conflict parenting case and Indiana child custody appeals I have invited into my life the stories of and experiences with high conflict parents who often engage in parental alienation. The emotionally taxing anecdotes and observations of abuse of children by these parents is only ameliorated through knowing that my assistance may mitigate that harm. It is an exhaustive undertaking to challenge the order or ruling of a trial court that unbinds the hands of an abusive parent and gags the mouth of the targeted parent. It is refreshing when a court gets it and the Indiana Court of Appeals upholds the trial court judge who appears pansophical. Such was the case when The Honorable Steven King, Sr. of the Laporte Superior Court made the following finding and conclusion in Paternity of J.T. and I.T.; It has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial change in the interrelationship of [Mother] vis-à-vis [Father], to wit: she so despises and distrusts him that she has exhausted her limited coping skills and, as a result, acted in complete defiance of the existing parenting time orders over an extended period of time. Her repetitive failure to permit visitation is the product of a mindset not likely to change, given her demeanor, testimony and past failure to honor her assurances – in the face of prior contempt petitions – that she would abide by the parenting time order.
As a consequence it is in the best interests of the three children that the existing custody order be modified; otherwise, the children will be denied a meaningful relationship with their father.
Here it appears that Judge King has complied with his mandate as the abitrator of a child custody dispute. “A trial court has a duty to determine whether a custody arrangement—legal or physical—is in the best interests of the children before it.”[fn1] However, it is a greater challenge when children are subjected to the vile onslaught of two parents who mutually engage in an abusive vitriol in the presence of the children. Such was so in a case where the majority of the panel on appeal stated; “Awarding sole physical custody to one party or the other will do nothing to solve the underlying problem—the venomous relationship between Jane and James and the way in which they convey their disgust for the other to their children. No court can be present behind closed doors to act as a referee when Jane makes a biting comment about James in front of the children, and vice versa. That, by necessity, is left to the consciences of the parents involved, and it is clear that Jane and James have cavernous spaces on top of their shoulders where Jiminy Cricket should be perched.”[fn2]
The difficulty that the judiciary faces when confronted with these parents who exhibit “obstreperous, disrespectful, and distasteful behavior” is solidified in the dissent; “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.[fn3]
Recently a client of mine who is engaged in a dissolution action was contacted by a stranger that had his children. Unknown to Father this stranger had been providing supervision and care to the children during much of Mother's parenting time. This person was going to call CPS to take custody of the children but decided to find Father instead as doubts were arising as to whether Mother was actually escaping an “abusive relationship.” Here is some of the allegation from the affidavit provided by this stranger which was attached to the emergency motion for custody; “[Mother] considered giving [Children] full time to [Father] but decided to first drive them to [me] for care. . . . It is our opinion that [Mother] exhibits many anti-social (sociopathic?) behaviors and can be a very self-centered individual that uses people (including her own children) for her benefit. She appears to be a “taker” that gives little to nothing in return. It is our hope that the children get settled in a secure and loving environment with their father and that [Mother] can get the help she needs to become the kind of mother her children need.”
This parent was not providing care to the children and instead left them with a stranger whom she had only met two weeks earlier rather that utilize the other parent who was ready, willing, and able to provide care for the children. The sole reason for doing so was to prevent the children from enhancing their relationship with their Father. In addition to being potentially detrimental to the children that action also violates the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.[fn4]
Similarly, I had another high conflict case come on for hearing last week. These parents have been embattled for years and are continuing a battle that is motivated by conflicting positions as to what is best for the children. Such position underlies many high conflict parenting cases: whose parenting methods are best for the children. The reality is often that neither is best and while one would be better than the other, actually reducing the conflict by accepting either method through toss of a coin is better. But, of course, judicial officers may not simply toss a coin to determine custody as there are statutorily enumerated factors that must be considered.[fn5] Thus, these conflicts continue. In this case I would like for the court to order the parents into mediation with me so their conflict can be put to rest. Otherwise these two risk having a child who will hold them accountable in the future for their combative actions now.
Notes
1] See In re Paternity of T.G.T., 803 N.E.2d 1225, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh’g denied,trans. denied.
2] Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
3] Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) dissent
4] ICSG Section I(C)(3) Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time. When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost and without affecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.
5] Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 [dissolution], IC 31-14-13-2 [paternity]
(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.
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.
When it comes to neglect of children I am not hesitant to bluntly provide an assessment which holds parents accountable. I have previously made such bold assertions as some non custodial parents should be and that parents induce the sexual abuse of their children. As I recently read another Domestic Relations opinion from the Indiana Court of Appeals which was dismissed for lack of compliance with the rules I wondered if these parents actually care. I read every opinion of Indiana's higher courts that relate to the custody, parenting time, and support of children. Lately I have noticed a surge in dismissals and deficiencies that result in the merits of cases not being heard.
The recent Shane v Shane in which David Shane appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition to eliminate his child support arrearage or to modify the trial court’s income withholding order was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Although his daughter had died seven years earlier and support payments were terminated he still had a considerable arrears. He sought to have that arrears discharged through writing a letter to the court. The trial court denial the request the following day, 18 July 2013, which was noted in the Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”) that same day. On August 26, 2013, thirty-nine days after the entry of the July 18 order in the CCS, Shane filed his notice of appeal.
At the outset the Court noted that “Shane did not timely file his notice of appeal. As such, we are without jurisdiction to consider Shane’s arguments.” This is because Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) provides that “[a] party initiates an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk . . . within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.” Article 7, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution expressly declares that the Court of Appeals “shall exercise appellate jurisdiction under such terms and conditions as the Supreme Court shall specify by rules . . . .” “This court’s subject matter jurisdiction is specified by the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure adopted by our Supreme Court.” Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller, 980 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), aff’d on reh’g, 980 N.E.2d 863, trans. denied. Thus, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal which was not timely filed. Our Supreme Court has unambiguously and repeatedly held that an untimely direct appeal “involves subject matter jurisdiction” and not the “procedural requirements to invoke a court’s jurisdiction over a particular case.” Greer v. State, 685 N.E.2d 700, 703-04 (Ind. 1997).
It is not Shane's untimely filing that concerns me most. Rather, it was just the latest in a series of dismissals for failure to comply with the rules. The case that I will focus on here is Bridgford v Bridgford which was decided on 08 October 2013. Although Bridgford filed a timely Notice of Appeal it was because “Bridgford has failed to substantially comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure”, that the Court must dismiss his appeal. Bridgford's Appellant's Brief and subsequent dismissal is instructive and comprehensive in the complete absence of compliance with the rules.
To begin with pro se litigants such as Shane and Bridgford are held to the same standard as trained attorneys. A pro se litigant “cannot take refuge in the sanctuary of his amateur status.” Peters v. Perry, 873 N.E.2d 676, 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “As we have noted many times before, a litigant who chooses to proceed pro se will be held to the same rules of procedure as trained legal counsel and must be prepared to accept the consequences of his action.” Id. at 678. Likewise, it is well settled that “[a] litigant who chooses to proceed pro se will be held to the same established rules of procedure that trained legal counsel are bound to follow. Also, the fact that he is proceeding pro se does not excuse him from complying with appellate rules.” Foster v. Adoption of Federspiel, 560 N.E.2d 691, 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason for us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of his appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
So let's just get into the deficiencies in Bridgford's brief and the applicable rules which he failed to follow. To begin with, the seven issues listed in the statement of issues section of Bridgford’s brief are not concise, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(4), are improperly argumentative, and are not addressed in any logical sequence, if at all, in the argument section of the brief.
The linguistic deficiencies continue. Bridgford’s statement of facts does not contain a single citation to the record on appeal, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(a), and thus is essentially an unsubstantiated account of the proceedings from his perspective. The facts are only facts because they are found in the record. The Court may not search the record as that would make them an advocate building a case for a party. Rather the parties have the burden to direct the Court to the portion of the record that supports the statement. “On review, we will not search the record to find a basis for a party’s argument, nor will we search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for its position.” Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Bridgford’s argument does not contain a “concise statement of the applicable standard of review,” as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b), and his contentions are not “supported by cogent reasoning,” as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). The standard of review is essential to establishing for the Court the frame of mind in which they must critique the trial court's judgment. I recently wrote another scathing rebuke of appellate practice in Why a Competent Attorney is a Must or How to Stay in Prison in which it was a trained attorney who was unable to comply with the most basic of the rules. In that opinion the Court cited Jackson v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1030, 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (noting that failure to comply with Indiana Code Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b), which requires that an appellant’s brief include a statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue, results in waiver of that issue for appellate review).
There were also substantial structural deficiencies. Bridgford failed to file an appellant’s appendix, as required by Appellate Rule 49(A). He failed to include a copy of each motion subject to the appeal which violates Appellate Rule 50(A)(2)(f). To fail to include the required materials is inexcusable neglect. The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a detailed listing of what must be included. It's like following the directions for making pancakes by including the proper ingredients. It may get more challenging when cooking comes into play, similar to providing cogent reasoning. Cogent reasoning simply means that a claim must be logically related to the evidence. Likely, we all learned cogent reasoning as children in a manner similar to what I provide here.
We touch the stove top and don't get burnt. While someone cooks something we touch the heat source and get burnt. When the heat source is turned off and the pan is removed we touch the stove top and get burnt. Hours later we cautiously touch the stove top but do not get burnt. Thus, we conclude through cogent reasoning that the heat source can burn us, but, it being on also raises the temperature of the stove top which can burn us. Additionally, the temperature receding is not instantaneous and even after the heat source is turned off we can still get burnt by touching the stove top.
Here are some excerpts from an Appellant's Reply Brief filed by a pro se litigant whom I taught how to write an appeal. The Appellee was represented by an attorney.
Appellee argues that Appellant failed to timely or appropriately request Special Findings pursuant to Ind. T.R. 52(A). Appellee’s argument misinterprets the rule, ignores and omits salient facts, and obfuscates the discourse between the parties and the Court surrounding this issue.
Appellee’s Brief states that Judge “did not grant Father’s request but instead noted it.” Appellant acknowledges and agrees that Judge said she “noted” it. However, Appellee omits and Appellant contends that Judge’s statements on the issue immediately following reflects the true nature of the request and is that which this Court should consider as it is the substance not form of the colloquy which controls.
RESPONDENT: Uh - yes, Your Honor. I would like to request – um – Trial Rule 52(A) Special Findings and Conclusions in today's hearing please.
THE COURT: Alright, very good. Court will note that. Uh – at the conclusion of evidence today we will determine a date wherein the parties can submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I will take the matter under advisement. And – uh – will make that determination. Other preliminary matters?
RESPONDENT: I think that's it.
Clearly the Respondent timely made a TR52A request and that the judge did more than note it. But it gets better. Much of Appellee's argument was based upon the contention that the Court's findings should be considered sua sponte [as though the Court provided them on it's own motion] as Appellant did not properly request Special Findings in compliance with Ind. Tr. Rule 52(A). This is a critical distinction as explained by the Court of Appeals in a case here the trial court entered findings sua sponte. “In such a situation, the specific factual findings control only the issues that they cover, while a general judgment standard applies to issues upon which there are no findings. C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.” This distinction is important because of the relative Standard of Review. “The trial court in this case entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). Accordingly, our standard of review is two-tiered: first, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and defer to those findings if they are supported by the evidence or any legitimate inferences flowing therefrom. Id.” Under a general judgment standard of review the reviewing court need only to determine whether the trial court's ruling can be supported under any legal theory.
So here is where it gets good. The attorney, Jonathan Deenik, argued that the Court only “noted” Respondent's TR52A request and therefore a general judgment Standard of Review should apply. The following colloquy aptly dispels Deenik's false claim.
THE COURT: Very good. All right. Thank you, sir. Let's take care of some procedural issues. So the first is both of you have requested to do findings, which I'm grateful. And so what do you think? How long to get your findings to
me?
MR. DEENIK: Can I take a look at the calendar?
THE COURT: Absolutely, please.
MR. DEENIK: I could have them ready by the 22nd, Your Honor, which is a Monday.
THE COURT: Of?
MR. DEENIK: April.
THE COURT: Well, that's quick. What do you think, Mr. Moore?
RESPONDENT: I think your assessment that that's quick is kind of right. I mean, remember this stuff is a lot harder for me to do. I mean, I was thinking more like 30 days.
MR. DEENIK: I don't have an objection to that, Your Honor.[emphasis added]
Not only does Deenik not have an objection to the 52A request but the Court noted that he also made the same request which he argued upon appeal was not properly made and was only “noted.” His complete lack of cogent reasoning was aptly demonstrated by my client.
Like in Bridgford the father in Sovinski v Sovinski made similar egregious errors. There the appellate panel had this to say.
Father did not file an appendix, as required by Ind. Appellate Rule 49(a), to provide us copies of the parts of the record that would help us review the issues he raised. Nevertheless, Father attached multiple items to his Notice of Appeal that were not admitted into evidence before the trial court. We are not permitted to review items that were not before the trial court. Shafer v. Lambie, 667 N.E.2d 226, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (matters outside the record cannot be considered by the court on appeal).
Nor did he heed the requirements of App. R. 46(A)(8)(a), which states: “The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied upon[.]” Failure to present a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue on appeal. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Father’s brief contains no citation to the record or transcript. Additionally, he cites no case law or statute to support his contentions.
Because Father’s failure to follow the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure has made it impossible for us to address the issue he raised, Father’s arguments are waived. See, e.g., Viccaro v. City of Fort Wayne, 449 N.E.2d 1161, 1162 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (court will, at its discretion, waive issues when parties commit flagrant violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Pro se litigants can effectively perfect the appeal process as demonstrated in Dillman v Dillman last year where both parties represented themselves and the appeal was decided on the merits. The Court did not have to issue any admonishments for rule violations to either pro se party.
Contrarily though the panel in Bridgford v Bridgford concluded “Bridgford has failed to comply with the appellate rules in many other respects, but the foregoing examples are sufficiently substantial to warrant the dismissal of his appeal. Therefore, we dismiss.”
In Griebel v Griebel the panel stated, “Father articulates no specific issue for review but requests several modifications of the order. Without a transcript or statement of evidence, we lack a basis for review of Father’s general contentions as to factual error. We dismiss.
As I have demonstrated here cogent reasoning is not a difficult concept with which we are unfamiliar. The Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the instructions on formatting an appeal. It then becomes a matter of a parent determining whether he or she wishes to dedicate the time necessary to read and comply with the rules. As I have previously said in Why some parents are non custodial and should be if a parent isn't willing to expend the effort to follow the instructions on appeal then is this parent likely to hold the needs of his or her child in high regard?
Neglecting the rules in a child custody appeal is tantamount to neglecting the child. If you would like to learn how to perfect your own appeal then please review this page and contact my scheduler.
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.
As a child custody policy advisor I have written and had child custody related legislation passed into law. My counseling of lawyers and appearances as an expert witness have helped them achieve more favorable results for their clients including winning appeals, gaining parenting time, reducing conflict, and mediating agreements. Additionally I made important contributions to the amended Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that went into effect March 2013 and am currently formulating recommendations for the Indiana Child Support Guidelines which are to be amended this year. For parents I offer child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives and increase their fitness as parents so they can truly serve the best interest of their children.
