20 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Senator Vaneta Becker has introduced a bill relating to Domestic Violence advocates and service providers in civil proceedings.
Here is the synopsis of the bill;
Victim advocates in civil proceedings. Removes restrictions
on grants from the victim services division of the Indiana criminal
justice institute for certain entities to enter into a contract with the
domestic violence prevention and treatment council. Provides that a
court may allow a victim advocate to attend a civil proceeding and
confer with a victim as necessary. Specifies that a victim advocate is
not considered to be practicing law when performing certain services.
The following language would be stricken from the current statute;
[strike] However, the division may not grant more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the money necessary for the establishment or maintenance of a domestic violence prevention and treatment center during a specified time. The amount granted by the division for use by a single domestic violence and prevention treatment center may not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) each year. [close]
This is replaced by three lengthy section that define “victim,” “victim advocate,” and “victim service provider.” Each includes a provision that services relate to someone who “is not accused of committing an act of domestic or family violence” and other related offenses.
The fourth, and final, section is as follows;
(a) In any civil proceeding, a court may allow a victim advocate to attend the proceeding, sit with the victim, and confer with the victim as necessary.
(b) A victim advocate is not considered to be practicing law when performing the services described in this section.
What I do like about this bill is that it provides clear definitions and allows for advocates to become more involved in the judicial process in an effort to mitigate acts of Domestic Violence. However, unless I have missed it elsewhere I strongly oppose the unilateral approach that it takes towards Domestic Violence - essentially that Domestic Violence is the result of the “victim” not receiving services. The existing language ion the statute provides that services are to include “domestic violence prevention and treatment.” While prevention can be based upon avoiding perpetrators it should also include preventing perpetrators from committing the acts or having the desire to do so. This should include treatments such as anger management, effective communication skills, and cognitive behavioural therapy.
For illustrative purposes I will use shoplifting as an example. This phenomena can be attacked from two perspectives; 1] store based preventative measures [locked display cases, RFID tags, personnel selection], and 2] offender treatment [incarceration, CBT, employment opportunities]. It would seem logical to try this dual attack approach. Providing increased knowledge and security measures to stores but also providing services to the offenders to get at the root of what is sometimes simply an underlying compulsion to steal although one is sufficiently financially able to pay. To deny services to offenders would essentially proclaim the problem to be one that is victim based and incidents would likely increase.
Domestic Violence is a phenomena that can be attributed to a cycle. That is it is primarily a learned behaviour from parents. Perpetrators say or experienced Domestic Violence as a children as a means of exertion of control. In our society and similarly in Germany it is still widely acceptable to teach children, by example, that the reinforcing stimulus to achieve compliance with one's commands is violence. Similarly, “victims” have been taught that violence is the result of a violation of rules and that it is deserved. Both assessments are wrong.
Violence as a means of exerting control is wrong and both “victims” and perpetrators need to hear that message and be able to receive services that can help convey that message.
Proposed amendments -
NEW SECTION
As used in this chapter, “alleged perpetrator” means:
(1) an individual against whom an act of:
(A) domestic or family violence;
(B) dating violence;
(C) sexual assault (as defined in IC 5-26.5-1-8);
(D) human and sexual trafficking (IC 35-42-3.5); or
(E) stalking (IC 35-45-10-5);
has been alleged or substantiated.
AMENDED Sec. 4. (a) In any civil proceeding, a court may allow a victim advocate to attend the proceeding, sit with the victim, and confer with the victim [insert]or alleged perpetrator[close] as necessary.
This bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is scheduled for a Committee hearing on Wednesday 22 January 2014 in Room 130 of the Indiana State House at 0900.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Monday, January 20, 2014
Domestic Violence advocate for victims in civil proceedings - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 138
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Protecting Parental Rights - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 100
14 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Senator Kruse has introduced a bill to provide broad protection to the right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. Here is the synopsis of the bill;
Protecting parental rights. Specifies that the liberty of
parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a
fundamental right. Prohibits a governmental entity from infringing on
that right without demonstrating that the governmental entity's
governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order
and not otherwise served. Establishes the application of these
provisions to laws, rules, and ordinances.
Referred to the Committee on Public Policy which is chaired by Senator Ron Alting.
This bill provides the following new section 31-13-4 to direct government entities in regards to protecting the rights of parents in matters of government intervention affecting their children. The content of the new section is as follows:
Chapter 4. Parental Rights Protected
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to any state or local law, rule, or ordinance and the implementation of that law, rule, or ordinance, whether:
(1) statutory or otherwise; and
(2) enacted, adopted, or effective before, on, or after July 1, 2014.
Sec. 2. The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of the parent's child is a fundamental right.
Sec. 3. A governmental entity may not infringe on the right described under section 2 of this chapter without demonstrating that the governmental entity's governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Sec. 4. A statute enacted after July 1, 2014, is subject to this chapter unless the statute explicitly excludes the application by reference to this chapter.
Essentially this chapter requires that a government entity must refrain from imposing upon a parent's right “to direct the upbringing, education, and care of the parent's child” unless the government demonstrates that the government's interest supersedes that of the parent. This bill does not per se create a new burden of proof but rather establishes a new element to the government's burden.
I strongly support this legislation.
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.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children to meet 11 December 2013
07 December 2013
The third meeting of the Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children is scheduled for 11 December 2013 from 10:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M. At the Indiana Government Center South. Members of the public are invited to attend but it is not a public input session.
The multi-branch statewide Commission is aimed at improving the status of children in Indiana. In cooperation with other entities, members of the State Commission on Improving the Status of Children will study issues concerning vulnerable youth, review and make recommendations concerning pending legislation, and promote information sharing and best practices.
I have a meeting with a Commission member prior to the session but will be available during the lunch break to anyone who would like to converse.
If you would like to assist in advancing child well-being legislation 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.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
2014 Indiana Child Custody Bills to be considered
20 November 2013
Yesterday was Organization Day at the Indiana State House. Members of the General Assembly convened to set agendas and, as the name implies, organize themselves for the upcoming legislative session set to begin on 06 January and end on 14 March of 2014. Members have until that first week to get bills submitted. Getting an idea submitted as a bill was as easy as asking.
The four pieces of legislation that I am primarily seeking are;
~ Virtual Visitation - Provides for courts to order various electronic means to facilitate the parent-child bond in addition to in-person parenting time. Provides penalties for interference with the court's order.
~ Joint Custody Presumption - Parents in dissolution actions should be presumed to have been equal contributors to the wellness of their children. Requires a judge to issue findings as to why joint custody is not in the best interest of the child.
~ Domestic Violence Protection Orders - All parties to a DVPO should receive notice of and opportunities to receive related services. Mandates that an issuing court list county level support services on the order.
~ Civil Union Adoptions - This would amend the adoption laws to allow an unmarried household partner to the biological parent of a child to adopt that child.
Getting an idea introduced as a bill is a rather simple procedure. This is just the first step in the legislative process. For today it was arranging to meet with legislators and presenting my child custody proposals. The first meeting resulted in a senator saying he will introduce the bill. The day closed with a senator wanting to engage in further discussions. I was quite humbled by his statement that the Indiana General Assembly is fortunate to have me presenting such relevant child well-being issues.
I am not going to present specific details at this point but, thus far, one bill is going to be introduced. I have legislators in each house looking at another. I have meetings scheduled with legislators in each house for another. I need to get meetings scheduled for a fourth.
I want for you to understand the ease and importance of meeting with legislators. When I am there I am representing thousands of Hoosier parents and children. It is partially a product of mathematics. The total population divided by the number of people who show up to speak about the issue. Showing up at the state house is key. Legislators repeatedly tell me that appearing in-person carries the greatest weight followed by mailing a letter then making a phone call. Personalized e-mails are appreciated more so than form letter e-mails. Petitions carry little weight while on-line versions carry almost no weight. This is why some unscrupulous advocates promote on-line petitions opposed to their agenda – they carry almost no weight and prompt signers into complacency – having felt as though they have already contributed to the effort and then doing no more.
As the session approaches start forming your talking points and collecting your evidence in support of these legislative proposals. I will keep you updated on the progress.
If you would like to assist in advancing child well-being legislation or have ideas you want presented 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.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
November 19, 2013 is Indiana General Assembly Organization Day for the 2014 Session
14 November 2013
Tuesday 19 November 2013 will be Organization Day at the Indiana State House for the 119th session of the Indiana General Assembly. The date and duties of Organization Day for the second regular session are proscribed by statute as follows.
IC 2-2.1-1-3 Sec. 3. (a) The second regular session of each term of the general assembly shall convene on the third Tuesday after the first Monday of November of each odd-numbered year. The general assembly shall then adjourn until a day:
(1) certain fixed by a concurrent resolution; or
(2) when the gavel of each house falls in the presence of a quorum whether or not a day certain to reconvene in session has been fixed.
Organization Day is an opportunity for members to meet in caucus and set their agenda for the forthcoming legislative session that begins in January 2014 and by statute is set to end no later than 14 March.
What is likely to be the most hotly contested issue will be the second offering of HJR6 which is the bill to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The bill passed in the 2013 session but must also be passed in a subsequent session before a public referendum. Other key issues may be:
~ Addressing funding and sentencing issues following the overhaul of the state’s criminal code passed during 2013 which left those two major issues open. Those are likely to be issues that should not produce much controversy.
~ Implementation of the Common Core Standards will likely be the subject of multiple bills. This has been and is likely to be a hotly contested issue as proponents and opponents battle over whether Indiana should advance an educational plan or a training plan.
~ Funding for a Central Indiana mass transit expansion may be an issue that could include a public referendum on proposed light rail service from downtown Indianapolis to the NE suburbs.
~ The Children's Policy and Law initiative is seeking to introduce legislation to interrupt the school to prison pipeline. The school to prison pipeline is a loosely formed system designed for schools to guide certain youth into the criminal justice system and ultimately prison.
~ Services for Hoosier veterans will likely be the subject of multiple pieces of legislation.
~ In 2013 there were numerous laws enacted relating to oversight or initiatives to increase child well-being including the creation of the The Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children
Fort Wayne attorney Casey B. Cox will be sworn in as representative for House District 85. Cox will fill the seat previously held by the late Phyllis Pond.
Members generally start arriving to the Indiana State House around 10:00am. The House will meet in session at 1:00pm while the Senate will meet at 1:30pm. The day general concludes around 4:00-5:00pm.
While not in session or caucus members are free to tend to their own business or meet with constituents.
Members of the public are invited to attend Organization Day so I encourage you to do so. If you are interested in affecting child well-being legislation and would like to meet your legislator please call me at 317.474.3143 or contact me by email.
If you would like to assist in advancing child well-being legislation 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.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Determining the Best interest of the Child: Domestic Violence Restraining Orders and Settlement Agreements
This is the second in a three part series of articles about the 2006 Published opinion in re: The Marriage of J.M. v N.M. There are three distinct issues that are covered in this case that will be of benefit to anyone experiencing contested child custody. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The first segment was about the use of third-party evaluators and mental health professionals in shaping child custody decisions. Today I continue with the use of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders [DVRO] in shaping child custody settlement agreements.
From the outset I again note that this is not a case where there have been unjust attributions to parental fitness. This is the type of case where the appointment of a GAL / CASA is a good thing. It is not so much that there is a conflict between the parents over parenting time, but rather, it is the potential endangerment to the child's physical and emotional well-being that is at issue. Of concern is whether the use of a DVPO is being used to achieve a modification of the child custody and parenting time order. I am currently looking for interview subjects who have been involved in cases alleging Domestic Violence.
Three months after preliminary reaching agreement to custody, parenting time and the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem the mother filed a verified petition for a protective order and a verified petition to modify parenting time. In the DVPO petition she alleged instances in which Father appeared to have consumed alcohol and forcibly, over Mother’s objection, took the child from the marital residence; berated the child after a soccer practice – severely affecting him; and displayed an explosion of rage in the kitchen of the marital residence. I have not seen the petition and am not aware of whether there were additional factual allegations.
Ten days later the parties presented the trial court with an agreed order for modification of parenting time. Signed by both parties, the order provided that Father’s parenting time would be supervised by Choices, “in a manner approved of by” the GAL, and that the parties would “follow the recommendations and requests of Choices and the” GAL regarding parenting time issues. The order also stated that Father denied the allegations in Mother’s DVPO petition, and Mother maintained that it was accurate, but that “in exchange for” Father’s agreement not to enter the marital residence unless invited by Mother and to “supervised parenting time at Choices,” Mother would dismiss her petition.
The American Bar Association in it's guidelines for judges making child custody decisions claims that “[c]ustody disputes can be a litigation tactic that allows the battered woman to be revictimized. A father may threaten to sue for custody, seek modification, or oppose relocation as a bargaining tool. He may discover that his wife may be willing to forego rights to child support and alimony in exchange for custody. For example, one study indicated that women reduced their requests for resources during negotiations when they were afraid that they might lose custody.”[fn1-emphasis added] It is not clear whether the original authors supported the ABA's proposition that only fathers could use litigation tactics in custody disputes but I think logic tells us that it is a gender neutral reality. I also find it interesting that the ABA's concluding statement in that paragraph makes no attribution to alleged Domestic Violence by the Father but, just as criminals are willing to forgo some freedom and plead guilty to a lesser offense, some women are willing to reduce demands for whatever reason.
The concern I have in this matter as it relates to the DVPO is that a person agreeing not to perform a legal obligation -- IPTG already says a parent is not to enter the other parent's home unless invited[fn2] – and accepting restrictions on parenting time does not make a true abuser less of a threat. In other cases, divorce attorneys have been known to offer to drop the allegation of abuse in exchange for financial concessions.[fn3] I consider mutual concessions in contested DVPO case agreements that do not involve some type of intervention effort for the alleged perpetrator to reveal either a non-meritorious DV claim or to be neglecting the welfare of the child. It's the equivalent of an agreement with a landlord to drop a health department complaint for leaking plumbing and mold if you get a covered parking spot and new carpeting of your colour choice. The agreement is not germane to the complaint: so how could the complaint be genuine? I caution judicial officers to look for these types of inconsistencies and to reject these agreements and, instead, hold an evidentiary hearing on the DV petition. To do less is to allow judicial economy – the settling of issues by the parties – to supersede the best interest of the child which is contrary to statute.[fn4]
I am deeply disturbed by this trend and concerned by the ramifications. I had one judge tell me that the prosecutor's office usually helps petitioners complete the DVPO petition. When she gets one involving a child custody case and it has not been obtained through the prosecutor's office the she doubts its' veracity. This type of bias, which arises as a result of concocted claims that are really just part of a trial or settlement strategy, cast the shadow of doubt on legitimate complaints. Judges may become dismissive of allegations that truly merit court interdiction.
Bias is aptly demonstrated in one such court hearing where the alleged victim brought photographs of injuries, medical documentation of the emergency room visit, and a copy of the police report. The judge’s explanation for denying the DVPO petition: “Well, you have to expect one knock-down drag-out fight per divorce.”[fn5]
The misuse a DVPO as a trial strategy tool cause those who truly need intervention or protection to find it increasingly difficult to get help. It is incumbent upon judicial officers, practitioners and parents to be vigilante towards recognizing false allegations and ensuring that settlements and the negotiation process are undertaken in good faith. Doing so should better meet the best interest of the children and result in parents abiding by agreements that were entered voluntarily rather than coerced through by the threat of a court imposed power imbalance.
Notes
[1] Lou Brown, Francois Dubau, & Merritt Mckeon, Stop Domestic Violence: An Action Plan For Saving Lives 109 (St. Martin’s Griffin 1997).
[2] IPTG § Sec I(B)(4) Privacy of Residence. A parent may not enter the residence of the other, except by express permission of the other parent, regardless of whether a parent retains a property interest in the residence of the other. Accordingly, the child shall be picked up at the front entrance of the appropriate residence unless the parents agree otherwise. The person delivering the child shall not leave until the child is safely inside.
[3] Cited in Young C. Hitting below the belt. Salon.com, October 25, 1999. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/
[4] Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8 and 31-14-13-2: The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child.
[5] Cook P. Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. pp. 83–84.
In the finally posting I will caution you about the reliance upon attorneys to advocate for your parent-child relationship.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Participants needed for Domestic Violence policy report - Indiana
Interview subjects are needed to discuss their experiences with Domestic Violence for inclusion in a report to the Indiana General Assembly and other state policy makers. Participants may remain anonymous if they wish. Interviews can be conducted in person or via telephone. A copy of my confidentiality policy will be sent to all potential interview subjects before an interview is scheduled.
For purposes of this report the following definition is used;
Domestic Violence: Is the abusive use of physical force or behaviours intended to maintain control in a marriage or intimate/dating relationship.
Subjects of the following demographics are being sought:
[Females or Males who have made a false DV allegation during a custody proceeding]
[Females or Males who have provoked violence in an intimate relationship]
[married mutual DV: both reporting] X
[married no DV: both reporting] X
[pre-divorced - DV by female: female reporting]
[pre-divorced - DV by female: male reporting]
[pre-divorced DV by male: female reporting]
[pre-divorced DV by male: male reporting]
[pre-divorced DV mutual: both reporting]
[post divorce DV ceased: both reporting]
[adolescent witnessed DV in home: reporting as adolescent]
[adolescent witnessed DV in home: reporting as adult]
[adolescent dating DV mutual: both reporting]
[adolescent dating DV by male: female reporting]
[adolescent dating DV by male: male reporting]
[adolescent dating DV by female: female reporting]
[adolescent dating DV by female: male reporting]
[adolescent dating DV all categories: school employee reporting]
[never cohabitated - DV by male: female reporting]
[never cohabitated - DV by male: male reporting]
[never cohabitated - DV by female: female reporting]
[never cohabitated - DV by female: male reporting]
[peer witness of DV] X
[transgender DV: transgender reporting] X
[DV all categories: law enforcement reporting]
[DV all categories: judicial officer reporting]
[DV all categories: health provider reporting] X
Interviews need to be completed by mid-September. The report, The Culture of Domestic Violence and
Child Custody Proceedings: Considerations for Parents, Practitioners and Policy Makers, will be presented to the legislators in October.
If you meet the criteria for this research project and would like to contribute to formulating Indiana's Domestic Violence policies then please contact my scheduler and provide your contact details.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
2013 Indiana House Bill 1302 mandatory kindergarten enrollment - Legislation Part 35
Representative Shelley VanDenburgh has introduced a bill to mandate that children in Indiana attend kindergarten.
House Bill 1302 affects the following citations: IC 20-33-2; IC 20-51-1 The synopsis is as follows:
Age for mandatory school attendance. Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, requires a student to enroll in a kindergarten program that is at least a half-day program not later than the fall term of the school year in which the student becomes five years of age. Makes conforming changes.
There continues to be argument over whether advancing formalized education produces better educational outcomes. For instance the New York based Alliance for Quality Education has published this document to support their position on beginning formal education for children at a younger age. However, most of the supporting studies for early childhood education used children who where considered “at risk” such as single parent, poverty, or recognized learning difficulties. There has not been an attempt to compact formal education and thus there are no results. Children who are home schooled are often able to complete high school by age sixteen.[fn1].
In my posting about SB399I wrote about statewide mandatory starting age:
What I would rather see though is a statewide effort to advance formal instruction to provide for completion of state sponsored education at an earlier age. Advancing the starting age of grade one by one year can cut two years from the completion age through elementary school compacting. Students would then be completing high school around age 16 which is consistent with other maturation periods and will allow a smoother transition from childhood to adulthood.
Studies that have followed children from early education programs have found that “fade out” occurs as early as grade three[fn2]. The reason for this is that formalized education programs develop curriculum advancement rates targeted towards the slower learners. Accelerated learners are then hampered by the system and the advancement they once possessed is reduced to the mean.
Unlike SB399, Representative VanDerburgh's bill will provide uniformity in the starting age of formal education. Unfortunately, without also compacting the elementary school curriculum then mandatory kindergarten will do nothing more than increase the burden on taxpayers and continue to subject children to more time restricted by the inflated formalized education time structure.
[1] Jon Callahan, Arizona Families for Home Education
[2] Valerie E. Lee and Susanna Loeb, "Where Do Head Start Attendees End Up? One Reason Why Preschool Effects Fade Out," University of Michigan, January 24, 1994
If you would like to improve the outcomes of yourself and your children then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, March 4, 2013
2013 Indiana House Bill 1229 High School Athletics - Legislation Part 34
One of the most steadfast supporters of children, Representative Phyllis Pond, and one who is quickly demonstrating his commitment, Representative Tim Wesco, have introduced a bill to bring uniformity to the academic requirements of high school athletes.
House Bill 1229 affects the following citations: IC 20-26-14 . The synopsis is as follows:
Participation in school athletics. Requires a student who attends a nonpublic high school that is not a member of an interscholastic athletic association but who participates in high school athletics at a public high school that is a member of an athletic association to: (1) follow applicable code of conduct rules; (2) fulfill certain academic requirements; (3) undergo annual department of education approved academic assessments; and (4) comply with any transfer rules of the association.
Well as long as there are going to be academic requirements for participation they may as well be uniformly applied. With that said I can't pass up the opportunity to express an objection to the academic requirement for high school athletic participation. The primary reason that I object to the established requirements is that they are arbitrary and don't emphasize the important subjects.
The most important subjects in high school are biology, physiology, physics, physical education and health. This is true for the athletes and non-athletes although, incidentally, they are essential subjects for the athlete. Unfortunately academic standards are generally set by over-sized and unfit bureaucrats who are not cognizant of the importance of physical well-being. These are the people who encourage students to consume HFCS and trans fats. Instead they place an emphasis on the fluff courses like English. Thankfully our legislature is appearing more like Pond and Wesco who are both fit and active and don't over consume the fluff that life offers.
Let's face reality. If you have already taken 10 years of a subject two more isn't going to do much. This is evident from observations of those who graduated and even went on to take additional years of study in college. With all of that they are still little more than functionally literate but can't distinguish adjectives from nouns. Taking up a sport would have been more fruitful.
Athletics can be the motivator for a child to seek further academic enlightenment, especially when properly coached. I have known many Olympic and professional athletes and still associate with some. Among all is a common drive to achieve, whether it be in their chosen sport, business or self-fulfillment. Competitors don't need a discipline system based upon dogmatic reward and punishment. Effective coaching and direction is all that is needed. The athlete will do the rest and be better served by it throughout life, even if the corporate world which sponsors the instructional standards suffers from it.
If you would like to improve the well-being of your self or your children then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 344 Child Protection Registry - Legislation Part 33
Senator Randall Head, a former prosecutor, brings to us the Child Protection Registry bill which is aimed at restricting marketers of products which are illegal for minors [tobacco, alcohol] or considered harmful to minors from contacting them through electronic points such as mobile devices or email. This is one of those bills that while serving its stated objective should have an ancillary benefit.
Senate Bill 0344 affects the following citations : IC 24-4.3 The synopsis is as follows:
Child protection registry. Requires the secretary of state to establish the child protection registry. Permits a person to register with the registry certain "contact points" that belong to a minor. Defines a
contact point to be: (1) an electronic mail address; (2) an instant message identity; (3) a mobile or other telephone number; (4) a facsimile number; or (5) a similar point of communication defined by rule by the secretary of state. Permits a school or other institution that primarily serves minors to register its domain name with the registry. Provides that a person may not send a communication to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 days if the communication: (1) has the express purpose of advertising or promoting a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing; or (2) contains or has the express purpose of advertising or promoting material that is harmful to minors, as described in Indiana law. Requires persons who send such communications to check the registry (for a fee) to ensure compliance with the law. Authorizes the secretary of state to adopt rules to administer the statute and the registry. Provides for civil enforcement of the statute.
Advertisers who wants to inundate us with their unsolicited promotions will be required to check the registry to ensure that they do not send advertisements to the contact points of minors that have been registered with the secretary of state. This will be similar to the states Do Not Call list.
The ancillary benefit that I mentioned? There is a fee to check the list. If it can be more costly for us to be annoyed by these ads then all the better. The other benefit – unless there is some sworn declaration about the age of the person whose contact points are being registered – I will become a minor once the registry is established.
Help protect the best interest of your child in a custody proceeding. Visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, February 25, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 392 Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations - Legislation Part 32
Senator Yoder has introduced a bill that would authorize the Department of Child Services to hire more investigations to respond to purported reports of suspected child abuse or neglect.
Senate Bill 0392 affects the following citations :IC 31-25-2-5; IC 31-33-7-2. The synopsis is as follows:
Department of child services. Requires the department of child services (DCS) to hire additional employees by January 1, 2014. Requires DCS to assign for investigation all reports of child abuse or neglect that are received from a centralized call center to the local DCS office in the county where the child is located. Requires a local DCS office to investigate a report of child abuse or neglect received from certain individuals. Requires DCS to adopt rules to implement the provisions of this bill.
In 1974 Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act [CAPTA] which mandated that all adults in positions of responsibility with respect to a child were required to report to Child Protect Services or law enforcement authorities any known or suspected child abuse. In 1984 CAPTA was revised to include any adult, whether in a position of responsibility with respect to the child, to report suspected abuse or neglect within 36 hours. Further, an immunity provision was added to absolutely immune any person involved in the reporting or investigation process from any sort of charge or prosecution, criminal or civil.
The federal legislation was adopted into the Indiana Code through IC 31-33-5 et seq which is in the family law section. Failure to report is a Class B misdemeanor. Representative Davis has introduce a bill to move the duty to report neglect or abuse statute from the juvenile law title to the criminal title.
Not surprising are the incidents of the immunity provision being used to facilitate reports based upon vindictiveness or as part of a child custody litigation strategy. DCS employees also are relieved of a personal obligation to provide unbiased and truthful reporting and are free to allow their personal motivations to influence their findings.
According to the testimony of Senator Dan Coats before a Capitol Hill hearing, in 1963 there were 150,000 reported cases of abuse, in 1993 there were 2,898,000. Two thirds of these abuse and neglect allegations are unsubstantiated or determined to be unfounded, but that still leaves nearly a million children with documented abuse in a single year.
Many of those documented cases could actually be true. It would be helpful if case managers on actual cases had more time to dedicate towards ensuring the needs of the children. Instead of hiring more DCS investigators, creating an ever burgeoning government bureaucracy invading the sanctum of the family, it would be wiser to take efforts to reduce the incidents of false reporting.
If you have been falsely accused of abuse or neglect in a child custody proceeding then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 164 CHINS Petition - Legislation Part 30
Senators Holdman and Broden have offered a bill that appears on track to become law. SB0164 allows a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a child in need of services [ChiNS] petition. This bill restores authority for local prosecutors to file a CHiNS as was the law prior to 2007. HB1129 is the companion bill in the House.
Senate Bill 0164 affects the following citations: IC 31-34-9-1. The synopsis is as follows:
Child in need of services petitions. Allows a prosecuting attorney to request a juvenile court to authorize the filing of a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services, and allows a prosecuting attorney to represent the interests of the state in the child in need of services proceeding. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the department of child services interim study committee.)
The trigger for this bill was an issue raised by a GAL in Illinois where anyone can file a CHiNS. The bill is not an attempt to replace DCS in the capacity of filing CHiNS petitions but offers a redundancy when DCS may not have at first seen a need to file a CHiNS.
During a committee hearing David Powell, Director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, testified as to circumstances in which a prosecutor may better serve children by filing a CHiNS. He stated that prosecutors when unable to file a CHiNS but faced with a disruptive child who may have mental health issues had to instead file a delinquency petition. Powell does not believe that is in the best interest of the children and should not be the public policy of the State of Indiana to leave these at-risk children with the alternative of being either charged as a delinquent or not having the issue addressed.
While numerous parents have viewed CHiNS cases as usurping their parental authority and an attempt to take their children away, that is not the statutory intention of the CHiNS scheme. CHiNS filings are meant to ensure that the child is receiving needed support and services. However, in practice agencies and their employees have been pressured to remove children from their parents as that is one of the measures for funding. Parents and advocates need to be vigilant to ensure that agency actions conform with the agenda of providing services for the child while maintaining family cohesion.
On 05 February 2013 this bill passed through the Senate on third reading by a vote of 49-0. Senator Zakas was excused from voting.
If your child is the subject of a CHiNS action or a custody dispute and you wish to best position yourself for the proceedings then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 399 Preschool Education LOIT - Legislation Part 29
Senator Eckerty has introduced a bill to allow county councils or voters to petition for a ballot question of whether to impose a 1% personal income tax for early childhood education uses. LOIT is a Local Option Income Tax.
Senate Bill 0399 affects the following citations: IC 6-3.5-10; IC 6-8.1-1-1. The synopsis is as follows:
LOIT for early childhood education. Provides that a referendum may be held in a county on whether to authorize the county council to impose an early childhood education income tax. Specifies that such a referendum may be initiated by the county council or by a petition filed by voters. Provides that if such a referendum is approved, the county council may impose an early childhood education income tax of not more than 1% on the adjusted gross income of resident county taxpayers. Requires a county's certified distribution of early childhood education income tax revenue (as determined by the budget agency) to be distributed monthly to the county treasurer for deposit in a dedicated fund. Specifies that, subject to appropriation by the county council, the tax revenue may be used only for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To pay for the acquisition or construction of a facility that is or will be used for early childhood education. (2) To pay for the operation or maintenance expenses of a facility that is used for early childhood education. (3) To pay the salaries of teachers that provide instruction for early childhood education. (4) To pay for instructional materials and educational technology that are used for early childhood education. (5) To make grants to any school, school corporation, or other entity for any of these purposes.
I support the idea of providing local control over tax and policy issues that allow the locality to reflect the will of its citizens. If voters want their taxes raised I am all for it. Those who don't like it are free to live elsewhere.
What I would rather see though is a statewide effort to advance formal instruction to provide for completion of state sponsored education at an earlier age. Advancing the starting age of grade one by one year can cut two years from the completion age through elementary school compacting. Students would then be completing high school around age 16 which is consistent with other maturation periods and will allow a smoother transition from childhood to adulthood.[fn1]
Without establishing a uniform instructional, initiation age the benefits are lost by completion – often in elementary school. Cross population studies have demonstrated that programs such as Head Start do not produce greater educational outcomes by graduation and that “fade out” occurs as early as grade three[fn2]. Fade out is when the student's achievement regresses to the mean -- consistent with grade level peers who did not receive early instruction.
A better policy would be to reduce the bloated funding to educational institutions and return the money to parents. Parents with reduced financial stress and job demands can provide greater opportunities for educational support and learning to their children in a less stressful environment.[fn3]
Most of the research supporting positive outcomes for early childhood education have been based upon small, narrow sample groups. Those most likely to benefit are children who live in poverty, are at-risk of mental retardation and have little or no parental support. Children of more affluent parents exhibit virtually no benefit.[fn4] Support for earlier schooling is more likely to come from more affluent parents than those who would benefit the most.
This bill has been referred to the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy.
If you need assistance in improving life satisfaction and outcomes for your child and yourself then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
[1] Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. (2002). Culture and adolescent development. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.)
[2] Valerie E. Lee and Susanna Loeb, "Where Do Head Start Attendees End Up? One Reason Why Preschool Effects Fade Out," University of Michigan, January 24, 1994
[3] Robert Holland and Don Soifer, "How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals," The Lexington Institute, March 2008
[4] Lance T. Izumi and Xiaochin Claire Yan, "No Magic Bullet: Top Ten Myths about the Benefits of Government-Run Universal Preschool," Pacific Research Institute, May 2006.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 266 Child Neglect Sentencing 35-46-1-4 - Legislation Part 28
Senator Patricia Miller has submitted a bill that would add child neglect resulting in death to the list of other offenses that include mandated minimum terms of incarceration upon a conviction.
Senate Bill 0266 affects the following citations: IC 35-50-2-2. The synopsis is as follows:
Neglect of a dependent. Provides that, for the offense of neglect of a dependent as a Class A or Class B felony, the court is authorized to suspend only that part of the sentence that is in excess of the minimum sentence, unless the court has approved placement of the offender in a forensic diversion program.
The entirety of the amendment to the law that Senator Miller offers is “(V) neglect of a dependent (IC 35-46-1-4) as a Class A or Class B felony.” IC 35-46-1-4 provides that the offense is a Class A or Class B felony if the neglect in certain situations results in serious bodily injury or death.
IC 35-50-2-2 provides a list of offenses in which the convicted defendant must serve at least the presumptive minimum sentence under the statutory sentencing scheme unless the court has approved placement of the offender in a forensic diversion program under IC 11-12-3.7. IC 11-12-3.7 provides an offender may avoid a prison for having an “addictive disorder” which is just psychological speak for lack of willpower or accepting responsibility for one's own actions. This is the result of the invasion of the non-scientific guesswork by overpaid psychologist into our legislature and courts for their personal financial gain at the expense of society as a whole. It's never the fault of the irresponsible person – TV made me do it, I was abused, it's in my genes, blah, blah, blah. I would like to see this portion of our sentencing structure repealed. Do the crime, do the time!
I am fully in support of any mandates that hold parents accountable for their actions of creating children. The neglect of children, especially by those parents who are fully capable of providing necessary support, should be elevated to one of the highest crimes in both statutory law and societal perceptions. This legislation is a small step towards doing just that and Senator Miller should be fully supported in her attempt to accomplish this.
If you believe that your child is being neglected or harmed and want to seek a custody modification then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
2013 Indiana Senate Bill 147 Status of Children - Legislation Part 26
Senator Tim Lanane has authored a bill that would create a commission on improving the status of children. Senator Lanane has demonstrated a consistent commitment to using our legislative body as a means to advocate for children and I have enjoyed working with him.
Senate Bill 0147 affects the following citations :IC 2-5-36. The synopsis is as follows:
Commission on improving the status of children. Establishes the commission on improving the status of children in Indiana (commission). Requires certain departments, agencies, and boards to submit an annual report concerning the status of children to the commission by June 30 of each year and to submit any other reports and information requested by the commission. Allows the commission to request from other state agencies information and reports regarding matters related to children. (The introduced version of this bill was
prepared by the department of child services interim study committee.)
It is refreshing to see something come into the legislative arena that reflects what so many people claim to be their top priority but rarely is so in action. That is the welfare of children. Threaten the financing stream to union leaders, try to hold teachers accountable for their pay, seek to reduce some government handout and the halls of the state house get inundated with bodies. Try to keep children from suffering or dying and you are likely to get more than a wink from the overwhelmingly hypocritical population who is more concerned with their personal wealth and opportunities to avoid exertion or accountability. Senator Lanane understands this and although not always popular he has shown a propensity to favour protecting children over protecting streams of money. His commission for improving the status of children is evidence of that.
This bill would create a commission comprised mostly of stakeholders from state agencies involving children but would also include a few community members and would seek input from community advocates. This is an extremely important aspect of this commission because too often groups like this suffer from a group think mentality and are predisposed to “academic” viewpoints or data rather than the raw opinions from the front line.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Health and Provider Services. Senator Travis Holdman has added his name as an author. Both men should be commended for their efforts and this bill should be passed into law.
if you would like assistance in improving that status of your child and your child custody status then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
