15 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents are reticent to admit to harming their children and are less inclined to accept responsibility for doing such. While we possess an innate passion to protect our children the so-called rational mind often works studiously to defeat such an instinct. I have previously written about some of these in postings including Inducing premature puberty in girls - precocious puberty, Most Parents Encourage Sexual Abuse of Their Children
, and Self-Imposed Parental Alienation.
In a more thorough paper that I plan to write I will be devoting a portion to parents inducing depression into their children. But for today, I write about the simple act of delivering children to school in a vehicle and the complex web of adversities that it produces.
In 1969, the year of my birth, the percent of children walking to school was forty-eight. By 2009 that had dropped to just thirteen. What I am going to propose here is not that this decline in children walking to school is the cause of the various adversities that I will explore here. Rather, I present this as one of the factors in an overarching shift in parenting attitudes and activities that are connected to childhood adversities through causation or correlation.
The issue I address, children being delivered to schools in vehicles, is only a symptom of the larger and broader series of parenting behaviours that are choking children's development. The results are immediately observable in some instances, such as obesity, while other effects may not present until adulthood. It in now established that internalising behaviours in children may be linked with parenting styles that might not have traditionally been assessed, such as overprotectiveness.[fn1] The rationalization for the detrimental actions which rest under the umbrella of overprotectiveness is that children are vulnerable. Use of the term ‘vulnerable’ can be a good way of denying children the opportunity to take risks.
Risk engagement is an important resource through which children also learn from their own mistakes. This is a necessary learning process when children engage with their personal health and safety.[fn2] However, as with the divorce industry which harms children for profit so does the industry of fear. When confronted by sensational calls to protect 'vulnerable' children from a myriad of 'dangers' look to the motivation of those making the claims. The connections may not be clear. Large media conglomerates that control television and magazines suppress holistic and natural medical practices to perpetuate harm. Their motivation? Flip through a magazine and look for full page advertisements for drugs. Pay attention while watching television if you choose to engage in that activity.
Not allowing children to take risks associated with walking to school is like not allowing them to be exposed to chicken-pox: when exposure doesn't come until adulthood it is much more likely to lead to death. Children must be provided with knowledge about reasonable dangers, learn to be observant, and given the opportunity to employ their skills rather than be ferried around everywhere in a 4x4 (because hey they're safer in that than in the small car) because of parents overwrought with anxiety and laziness. Suddenly chucking them out when they're 18 and finding they haven't a streetwise bone in their body is catastrophe waiting to happen.
Children need to be allowed to take risks in order to develop ‘risk competence’. Most fatal accidents to children result from them not having learned, or not being allowed to learn, how to look after themselves’.[fn3]
Current child abductions in the US annually are 17 per 100,000. Only about 100 children (a fraction of 1%) are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical stranger abductions you hear about in the news. About half of these 100 children come home.[fn4]
Moreover, only 40% of these stranger abductions take place on the street. The average annual stranger abductions was estimated to be 147 per year for the years 1976-1987[fn5]. So while the population has increased the unadjusted number has declined. In the United States during 2011, more than 650 children ages 12 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes,[fn6] and more than 148,000 were injured.[fn7] A staggering 67,000 children died on average from the years 2000-2005 from unintentional injuries.[fn8]
Clearly the real danger, unintentional injury, is being neglected while children are being placed at greater risk of death by motor vehicle than from the perceived risk – stranger abductions. Children need risk-taking. They need to have the opportunity to build risk competence. The prevalent concept of children as immature, needy, and dependent must change or we risk turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. We already know that children under two years of age show that from their early tactile experiences that ‘risky’ activities is an integral part of their drive to extend their physical prowess and thus their independence.[fn9]So next time you pile the youngsters into the car to take them to school consider whether you are giving them the opportunity to develop risk competence, endangering them through the hazards of vehicular travel, and whether the expense of money and time is inducing stress in you and a subsequent hostile environment for your children.
Notes
[1] Hudson, J.L. and Rapee, R.M. (2002) ‘Parent–child interactions in clinically anxious
children and their siblings’, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 548–55
[2]Christensen, P. & Mikkelsen, M.R. (2008). Jumping off and being careful: children's strategies of risk management in everyday life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(1), 112-130.
[3] Baillie, M. (2005). ... And by comparison. Cardiff: Adventure Activities Licensing Authority.
[4] National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children -- 2003 as cited by the Polly Claas Foundation
[5] Finkelhor, et al. The Abduction of Children by Strangers and non-Family Members, June 1992 Journal of Interpersonal Violence, p. 234
[6] CDC. Child Passenger Safety: Buckle Up Every Age, Every Trip Vital Signs. [2014 Feb 4].
[7] CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System [online]. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer). [2011 Sept 30].
[8] CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System
[9] Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical risk-taking – dangerous or endangered? Early Years, 23(8), 35-43.
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, March 17, 2014
Driving Children To School, Teaching Risk Aversion - Another harm to Children
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Being an alcoholic doesn't boost child custody chances
What may seem obvious to most people didn't seem so to Robin Ann Parks who appealed the order transferring custody of her children to their Paternal grandparents because of her alcohol abuse.
The marriage of Parks and Cary Grube was dissolved in 2006. The father was awarded custody of the parties four children, ages 10-20 years now. In 2007 the parties agreed to modify custody transferring custody of the oldest child to the mother.
It is undisputed that despite being the noncustodial parent, Parks remained very active in the Children's lives.
Cary Grube unexpectedly died at his residence in late 2008. Parks was called to the home that night by the eldest child living there. She didn't stay long and left the children with the paternal grandparents. The children and grandparents believed that she was drunk at that time.
Cary's will stipulated that his parents, the Grube's, would have custody of the children. Following probate Parks filed a petition for custody of the children. The trial court heard evidence and denied her petition. She then appealed.
During these hearings, evidence of Parks's history of alcohol abuse was presented. Specifically, Parks was arrested twice for driving under the influence of alcohol. In addition, Parks's former friend and neighbor, Milissa Woolwine, testified that she used to care for the Children because Parks was intoxicated and that Parks would “come home drunk with a stranger” during her parenting time with the Children.
Similarly, Parks's former boyfriend, Kevin Hembree, testified that Parks was intoxicated “a hundred out of a hundred and twenty” days that she lived with him in 2007. During an in camera interview two children stated that they believed their mother was intoxicated at a birthday party for one of them, which occurred after Cary had died.
Moreover, pages from the journals of the two children were presented which noted that when Parks is intoxicated, she yells at them, calls them names, and tells them that she does not want to see them again. One child wrote that when she is on the school bus, she prays that her mother is not intoxicated when she gets home.
Parks' sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to award custody of the Children to the Grubes.
In custody disputes between natural parents and third parties, a presumption exists that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the custody of the natural parent. K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453, 458 (Ind. 2009).
Nevertheless, third parties can rebut this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child will be served by placing the child in the custody of the third party. In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287 (Ind. 2002).
Our Supreme Court has stated that the issue is not merely the "fault" of the natural parent. Rather, it is whether the important and strong presumption that a child's interests are best served by placement with the natural parent is clearly and convincingly overcome by evidence proving that the child's best interests are substantially and significantly served by placement with another person.
When making an argument to the Court of Appeals I feel that it is important not to be annoying or petty. Park's failed to do this. In her brief she argued that she had received counseling following her second drunk driving arrest but had never been treated for "alcoholism". The court had this to say in response, "Parks' argument that we find error on this basis is a request that we engage in senseless hair-splitting, which we decline to do."
One thing I encounter in custody modification proceedings is parties attempting to use circumstances prior to the last custody proceeding. Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21(c) provides that “The court shall not hear evidence on a matter occurring before the last custody proceeding between the parties unless the matter relates to a change in the factors relating to the best interests of the child as described by section 8 . . . of this chapter.”
However, as the trial court did in this case a court may consider an ongoing pattern of activities that affect the child's best interest. So even though the 2003 and 2005 arrest for driving while intoxicated occurred prior to the 2007 custody modification, there was evidence presented that the mother was still abusing alcohol and had been doing so for an on-going basis dating back to at least 2003. Thus, it was proper to consider the pre-modification actions.
Finally, Park's argued that the trial court impermissibly relied upon the testimony and wishes of the children to live with their grandparents. Parks is correct that it is a "longstanding rule that a change in the child's wishes, standing alone, cannot support a change in custody.” Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33, 40 (Ind. Ct. App 2005).
However, Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8(3) states that “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,” is a relevant factor when determining a child's best interests. Ultimately the court must make a decision based upon the best interest of the child but the court may, and should, consider the wishes of the child.
I am a parent who doesn't have custody of my child, not because of any wrongdoing on my part, and can sympathize with the desires of Ms parks to have custody of her children. However, I think it is clear from the case documents that she has a significant problem with alcohol and this affects her ability to be an effective parent to her children. Quite simply the lesson to take from this is don't be a drunk and that factor wil not weigh on your suitability to have custody of your children.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Show poor demeanor in court, lose custody
I have seemed to run across a few instances lately where custody of children was reversed or lost in the initial phase because of clearly poor judgment by one of the parties. So, here is part III.
This is the best example I have found that exemplifies "having it all and throwing it all away." This is what the court said:
"After both Mother and [youngest child] tested positive for methamphetamine, a child in need of services (“CHINS”) action was filed regarding [both children]. In December 2005, Mother was charged with dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony, but the charges were later dismissed. On January 20, 2006, the CHINS court ordered that Father’s aunt, [XXXX], and her husband have custody of [both children] due to Mother’s drug usage and Father’s anger issues and inappropriate behavior. Father was allowed only supervised visitation."
The aunt and her husband later sought custody of the youngest child. Over the objection of the couple, the dissolution court granted custody of both children to Father.
At some point, the CHINS proceeding was dismissed. Following that, Mother filed a petition seeking parenting time with the youngest child. A short time later the dissolution court granted supervised parenting time to Mother. Just over a year following that Mother filed a petition to modify custody of the youngest child. The court appointed a CASA for the benefit of the child.
The CASA initially believed that placement of the child with Father was in the child’s best interest. As the CASA’s interaction with Father increased, she changed her mind. The child informed the CASA that Father punished him for stating that he wanted to spend time with Mother.
After filing her report, the CASA called Father, and Father hung up on her. When the CASA called back, Father said that she was not allowed to call him, that her report to the dissolution court was a lie, that she was “barren because it was God’s will,” and that she was a “spun Catholic.” Father yelled at the CASA, and the CASA testified that she felt intimidated by a parent for the first time in seven years in acting as a CASA. In his testimony, Father admitted making these statements to the CASA.
After receiving the CASA’s report, the dissolution court entered an interim order allowing Father and Mother to have equal parenting time. Judge Robert J. Pigman was obviously in a tough position here. We have what appears to be two, not good parents. I believe the proper decision here is Shared Parenting because I don't believe either of these parents possesses the skills to adequately provide the sole care, companionship and support to the child.
This is an arrangement that many fathers would feel blessed to be in. Not this father. He testified that the CASA’s report was not truthful, “so [he] figured [he would] enlighten her a little bit with the truth.”
In particular, the dissolution court found a substantial change in the “mental and physical health of the individuals involved.” which is one of the eight statutory factors that must be considered by the court.
The dissolution court found:
"Father’s anger towards the Mother which was evident in both his dealings with the CASA and during his testimony and time in Court is a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Father['s] demeanor while testifying, including pointing repeatedly at the Mother during his testimony, the tone of his voice, and body language made it abundantly clear that he possesses a high level of personal animosity and resentment towards the Mother. This fact was also verified by a number of witnesses who testified to the Father’s anger against the Mother." [emphasis added]
The dissolution court noted that “Father has yelled obscenities at the Mother in front of the minor child. . . . This conduct by the Father is completely inappropriate and not in the child’s best interest.” The dissolution court found that Father routinely referred to Mother as “whore” and “f***ing whore” even when the child was present.
The Court of Appeals in affirming the dissolution court’s decision said it was based mainly on Father’s demeanor toward Mother and inappropriate conduct in front of the child.
In another case Mother intended to relocate and Father objected. The court allowed the relocation based on the hostility between the parents. The court stated in its findings:
"In fact, [Father] testified he did not like [Mother] and would rather not have anything to do with her."
"The parties acknowledge an animosity between them that negatively affects their son. Relocation will allow the parties to minimize their contact with one another, while maintaining a high level of contact with the child on an individual basis."
It should have been no surprise to this man that when he says he doesn't want to have contact with the mother that the court will accommodate his wishes by allowing her to move across the country so as to greatly reduce parenting time exchanges and contact with the mother.
I have provided counsel to many people working in courts in at least 10 different counties in Indiana. I have seen the many differences and similarities in judges.
I have also seen the many differences and similarities in parents. What it comes down to is that nearly all are predictable. Yet somehow it appears that some of these litigants think they are going to be the exception.
Law can be learned from books. The procedures are set forth in the court rules. Pro se, also known as self-represented, litigants are entitled to represent themselves with the same force of law as those who have attorneys doing it on their behalf.
What I find missing in most pro se litigants and some represented parties is the knowledge of the necessary but unwritten court rules. One of these is courtroom demeanor.
Trial preparation as it relates to conduct is as equally important as the rules and facts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
