11 February 2014
notes * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The arena of child custody battles can lead to some of the most vile, hostile, and divisive behaviours parents can express which can be detrimental to the well-being of children. When these offenders get organized and perpetuate their hate as a group the outcomes can be even more detrimental. One such hate-group is Mothers of Lost Children.
As an advocate for the well-being of children and knowing the needs that they have, especially when their parents are going through divorce, I am keenly aware of the necessity of maintaining gender neutrality in child custody laws and policies. Gender neutrality allows judges to make decisions that consider the needs of the children first. The danger with hate-groups like Mothers of Lost Children is that they are motivated to eliminate one gender of parents from the lives of children based solely upon their selfish interest. Creating state policies which discard adverse factors – that either gender may exhibit -- such as mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse in favour of gender based considerations puts children into dangerous situations.
Gender neutrality is the only legitimate means by which to advocate for the best interest of children. I am usually reticent to embrace any organization that is gender specific for inclusion into the policy formulation forum. This is not to say that they can't have legitimacy, as presentation of perceptions or needs generally attributable to a specific gender should be recognized. Gender specificity is surely justifiable in support or a particular gender but not so in policy application. As previously mentioned mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse are not gender specific. All are found to be attributable to mothers in greater frequency while generally in greater intensity among fathers. To effectively manage and mitigate these incidents they should be approached in a gender specific manner but not to the exclusion of a gender from acts adverse to children.
I long ago seemed to catch the ire of father's rights groups by my inconsonance with their agenda when I proclaimed that most NCP – which are overwhelmingly fathers -- are deserving of that status. Like most of those boisterous and hostile leaders of father's rights groups, Mothers of Lost Children are just as likely NCP's because of their behaviours. Some of which are aptly demonstrated in their actions of attacking the character of any person who recommends that they not be the primary custodians. This behaviour is identical to what I saw in some of the most veracious and vindictive father's rights groups. Blaming society, corruption and, fathers for the damage these mothers have cause to their own parent-child relationships supports the rulings against them. These behaviours reflect their failure to accept responsibility. The hallmark of my child custody based life coaching – usually of NCPs – is that parents accept responsibility for their predicament.
Mothers of Lost Children recently sent out an announcement about their efforts to spread their message of bigotry. There they stated: “Many thanks to Andrew Willis of Stop Abuse Campaign for his crucial help in getting us a Congressional Briefing on October 2! We now have the issue of Protecting Abused Children of Divorce and Separation deep into the halls of Congress.” They go on to say “[f]our brave mothers filed a joint complaint on November 6, 2013 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against a variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”[fn1] This is one of the tactics they use – attacking anyone who doesn't make a gender based decision siding with them – to intimidate those people who would seek to protect children from abusive mothers.
Their overwhelming bias and lack of concern for protecting children from all harmful parents is apparent in their request for parents to join in their judicial and legislative efforts. Specifically they say that “mothers from other states can join” and then they ask for the identity of the “partner/husband.” The evidentiary information they seek is only that which would be detrimental towards fathers;
“Criminal record (arrests and convictions)”,
“Reports of physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest”, and
“Intimidation against you that deterred you from reporting”.
They then ask for information about who was responsible for the “Removal of child(ren) from you after you reported criminal physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest.” Not surprising is that nowhere do they ask for court findings that substantiate their allegations or why they did not get custody of their children. Neither of those factors could support their agenda.
Mothers of Lost Children encourages the use of filing petitions for Domestic Violence Protective Orders as a means of absconding with the children and severing a parent-child relationship even when no act of or threat of Domestic Violence is alleged. An obviously bigoted and deceitful approach to child custody decisions should not be tolerated and Mothers of Lost Children should be ignored but they aren't. Those who do not join in their crusade to harm children are targeted for acts of intimidation and being publicly rebuked. After I was requested to make a presentation to the Indiana General Assembly on the subject of false allegations of Domestic Violence in child custody cases and my efforts to bring about gender neutrality and truth in DV cases I was personally vilified by the hate-group Mothers of Lost Children.
It is always my goal to promote healthy parent-child relationships in child custody cases. Yesterday I presented a Report to the Indiana Senate on the effect that banning civil unions would have on child custody. I am currently working with some legislators on crafting a bill that will provide opportunities for people involved in Domestic Violence to be entitled to assistance in breaking free from that. Included in my legislative proposal for Assessment-Treatment Confidentiality for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence I provide a copy of a Petition for an Order of Protection that did not include an allegation of abuse [page 12, paragraph 7].
That Petition was written by Angie Warnock. Particularly when I wrote about the murder of Angie Warnock and revealed how the alienation tactics she used which included filing that Petition I was again vilified by these hate-mongers. Interestingly when I wrote that posting I knew nothing about the case other than what I had read in the brief newspaper account which is included at the beginning of that posting. Instead I relied upon my years of experience in the field where I have identified traits that are common to particular personality dysfunctions such as parental alienation.
It should be the goal of all responsible parents to eliminate harms to their children. Unfortunately when one group of mentally ill unfit parents get together and collectively support each others' delusions it has the effect of perpetuating harm against their own children.
Being blinded to the reality of one's own behaviour because of an allegiance to one's demographic classification and clear expressions of their mental illness is the formula which allows the rational judicial officers to make the proper decisions which protect the children. We should be thankful for the “variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts” who are standing up against these hateful parents who try to alienate the children.
Over the years I have served numerous parents who endured ongoing hostile parent-parent relationships. By facilitating acceptance of the parent's responsibility for his or her custodial situation and recognition of the responsibility of the judicial officers parents can progress toward an understanding of the dynamics the lead to better outcomes for children. These outcomes are not a result of policies favouring one gender over the other but in parents, regardless of gender, recognizing that it their behaviours and their responsibility to ensure the best outcomes for their children.
If you care for the well-being of children and believe that child custody decisions should be made based upon the facts of the case and the behaviours of the parents rather than a mandated award of custody based upon gender then please call or write your congressional representative and tell him or her so.
[1] retrieved from Equal Access Advocates, http://www.equalaccessadvocates.com/2013/11/24/ca-protective-parents-association/ 27 November 2013
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, February 11, 2014
Mothers of Lost Children promoting policies of harm to children and gender discrimination in child custody cases to the US Congress
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Increasing School Choice and Charter School Accommodation - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 0205
04 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A bill that would allow non-utilized public buildings to be leased to charter schools for a nominal fee is making its way through the Indiana Senate. Senators Banks, Kruse, and Yoder have introduced the bill that will make buildings available to charter schools that would otherwise remain unoccupied and result in a financial burden on the government agency owner through maintenance and repairs.
Here is the Synopsis of the bill:
Charter schools. Requires an authorizer to submit an annual
report of certain information to the state board and the public. Prohibits
an authorizer from requiring a charter school authorized by the
authorizer to enter into a commercial contract with the authorizer.
Limits the length of a charter agreement to not more than seven years.
Requires municipal corporations and the Indiana department of
administration to notify the department of education of vacant or
unused buildings that are suitable for classroom use so that the
buildings are included in an annual list of buildings available for sale
or lease by charter schools. Requires the state board to establish a
process to be used if more than one charter school applies to purchase
or lease the same vacant or unused public building.
For the most part this bill provides an expansion from only school corporations to include all municipal corporations as those entities who may enter into contracts to lease a building suitable for classroom use. The bill also provides a conflict of interest section and the following section that addresses competing requests for building usage;
The state board shall establish a process to use if more than one (1) charter school sends a letter of intent under subsection (i) to purchase or lease the same vacant or unused building. The state board shall assign weighted values to each charter school's:
(1) academic quality;
(2) financial health;
(3) community impact; and
(4) program design;
to evaluate the competing charter schools. If two (2) or more competing charter schools each receive the same total score on the evaluation, the state board shall conduct a random drawing at a public meeting to determine which charter school may purchase or lease the vacant or unused building.
This proposition, if adopted into law, will give to more parents and students the opportunity to receive the education that meets the needs of the children. Not only will greater choice be achieved but it will be done so at a lower cost. It will also likely result in more 25mph school zones but you can just join me in riding a bicycle around and not be annoyed by having to reduce driving speed.
This bill was read for the second time in the Senate as amended.
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, January 31, 2014
Drug Testing for TANF Benefits and Nutritional Requirements for SNAP Benefits - 2014 Indiana House Bill 1351
31 January 2014
The bill is sponsored by Representative Jud McMillin who is joined by co-sponsors Koch, Kubacki, Messmer, Culver, Neese, Harman, Frye R, Ober, Huston, Smaltz, Rhoads, DeVon, and Mahan.
The bill does provide an exception for those who test positive for a controlled substance and are participating in a drug treatment program. This carrot-and-stick approach does make it more palatable although I feel a means-based testing approach is more appropriate. That is implicit in the drug testing portion of this bill. If you are wealthy enough to be able to afford recreational drugs then you don't need public assistance. If you are wealthy enough to be able to afford not nutritive snacks, to buy food necessary to carry the extra weight on your body from obesity, or to employ others to prepare your meals for you then you clearly have no need for public assistance. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A bill making it's way through the Indiana House of Representatives would disqualify those testing positive for illicit drug use from receiving TANF benefits. It also establishes nutritional content minimums for “foods” that may be purchased under SNAP – Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
The synopsis of this bill is;
Welfare matters; drug testing. Requires the division of family resources to establish a statewide program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that allows SNAP benefits to be used only for food and beverages that have sufficient nutritional value, as determined by the division of family resources. Requires the office of the secretary of family and social services (office) to administer a drug testing program (program) for individuals who are receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance or receiving TANF assistance on behalf of a child. Establishes requirements for the program and ineligibility penalties. Prohibits an individual who is ineligible to receive TANF assistance under the program from receiving assistance on behalf of a child and provides for an exception. Requires the office to collect data to assess and avoid discrimination in the program. Requires the office to provide information to the Indiana housing and community development authority and any division of the office that implements the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program concerning an individual who tests positive for controlled substances. Requires the department of workforce development to submit a report to the legislative council and the unemployment insurance oversight committee concerning certain unemployment topics.
The list of controlled substances that would disqualify an applicant or beneficiary of TANF is found at Ind. Code § 35-48-1-9 which includes Peyote, Marijuana, Clonitazene, and hundreds of others.
The general problem that I have with this bill is it takes a patchwork approach to public assistance qualifications and implicitly invokes a morality clause – drug use or abuse. However, the measure of moral deprecation through drug use fails to adequately draw a reasonable correlation when the demarcation is legality. A person who treats his or her body as though it were an open sewer and dumps in garbage made to appear as food – artificial colours or flavours, HFCS, hydrogenated oils -- and then encounters the resulting effects such as obesity and diabetes is giving the status of “victim” while the social pot smoker is branded a miscreant devoid of good character and unworthy of societal aide. To the contrary it is the immoral individual lacking any respect for his or her own body and subsequently often that of the person's dependent children who should be branded the moral transgressor – child abuser if the child is obese.
This leads to the second portion of this bill.
This bill provides the following language establishing nutritional requirements for SNAP.
(a) The division shall establish a statewide program for SNAP that allows SNAP benefits to be used only for food, food products, and beverages that have sufficient nutritional value, as determined by the division.
(b) In determining sufficient nutritional value under subsection (a), the division shall consider the food limitations set forth in the women, infants, and children nutrition program (WIC) (under IC 16-35-1.5).
I wrote about the matter of nutrition in my 06 March 2012 posting, Fighting Hunger – A Sensible Cure. In that I specifically mentioned that SNAP benefits should be aligned to the WIC program. “Indiana's SNAP program should receive a major overhaul as it doesn't provide nutrients like WIC does.” I am pleased that these representative have adopted this common sense approach.
While I applaud the sponsors of this bill for their effort to improve the health of recipients I believe that the drug testing portion of the bill is arbitrary and falls woefully short of the appropriate means testing – the first and most obvious being body fat percentage.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Objective truths about HJR3 the Indiana Marriage Amendment: Breaking down proponent's scare tactics
30 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I hold no position on whether marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. It is already in the Indiana Code so for me it is not a germane issue. But as it has been a hotly contested matter that is diverting attention away from legitimate child well-being issues I would like to see it disposed. As I engage in vigorous conversation with and attend informational events held by both proponents and opponents I am struck by the misconceptions, misstatements and blatant lies about HJR3 which come from both sides but moreso from what I see distributed by proponents. Particularly disturbing is the general characterizations that are being flipped on their heads with this issue.
I am not going to cite to authorities is this article. I have numerous years of experience in the field of child custody, marriage – or rather divorce – and advising state policy makers on matters pertaining to these.
The hallmark of conservatism is the protection of liberty. So I found it stunning when I received an email yesterday from a proponent of HJR3 attacking Indiana House members who voted to strip HJR3 of it's broad restrictive language. It was not the misunderstanding about conservatism that bothered me but, rather, it was the blatant lies.
American Family Association of Indiana
To me truth matters. I hold truth in such high regard that it is equaled by few other people. When my son was age 2 I told him that the Santa Claus stories perpetuated by our society are lies. I explained truth to him and the importance of being truthful. He understood. There is no one that I have a more trusting relationship than with my son. As someone who goes into courts across this state and provides expert opinion and testimony of observations the veracity of my statements is critical to the best interest of children. So when I hear these blatant lies it raises my ire. Especially when it is directed in a way to cause harm to children. This is why I am compelled to respond to the email from Micah Clark of the American Family Association. This is disturbing to me because I honestly believe that the AFA has made positive contributions towards childhood well-being following divorce.
The AFA states in regards to the House members who voted to amend HJR3, “Some even think that they are 'conservative,' but they are not.” I will address that opinion later after confronting the lies.
52 members voted for same-sex marriage and for keeping the government involved in this issue
NOWHERE in HJR3 as amended and passed is there any repeal of Ind. Code § 31-11-1-1 which prohibits same-sex marriage. The great contradiction here is that while opponents of HJR3 are trying to keep government out of the marriage business and let people decide the extent of their personal relationships not the government.
Every one [of the 52 House members] has tried to take away your right to vote on this issue and now has left the future of marriage in the hands of politicians and homosexual activists.
This is an absurd misstatement of the Indiana Constitution that goes against the basic tenants of our constitutional republic. There is no right of the people to vote on this issue or any other. Our law making process is constructed under a representative form that provides for voters to select other citizens to represent them as a law making body. In Indiana we have two house; a House of Representatives comprised of 100 members, and a Senate comprised of 50 members. These are the people who have a “right” to decide this issue as particularly described in Article 16 of the Indiana Constitution. Now I will move onto more about rights and the people deciding.
52 members of the Indiana House of Representatives ignored the will of 80% of Hoosiers who want to vote on the future of marriage.
I am thankful that we have legislators who are willing to ignore the will of 80% of Hoosiers. Ignore 100% or whatever it takes. Legislators took an oath to obey the Constitution and if upholding those principles conflicts with the will of the people then those representatives have done their job admirably.
Indiana was the first jurisdiction in the world to impose, by law, forced sterilization on citizens deemed to be unfit to procreate. This law formed the basis of the genocide legislation imposed onto certain Germans during the Third Reich. That legislation was supported by the majority.
That illustrates the tyranny of the majority. A simple analogy used by those of us who cherish liberty is that democracy is three wolves and one lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Apparently the AFA wants the wolves to make the laws in Indiana. That is the immorality of pure democracy. It does not respect the rights of the individual.
[A] conservative respects the moral order of society.
What is moral does no harm. HJR3 as introduced would have led to harm. I have written about how it would invalidate Domestic Violence penalties and prevent victims from receiving services. It would also allow for a parent to terminate a child's relationship with the other parent by nullifying laws that would protect the child's right to that relationship.
[G]iving the people of Indiana the freedom to decide the matter once and for all.
This is the statement that shows the true desire of HJR3 proponents and how their claim over voter rights is fallacious. Another way to frame this sentence and give the same effect is to say, “Keep future voters and legislators from being able to have the ability to adapt statutes to the changing dynamics of society.” HJR3 is all about preventing people in the future from having a direct input into the government regulation of their lives. Imagine if one hundred years ago we had a constitutional amendment to define “biological parent” as “those parents who conceived their child through sexual intercourse.” Other parents would be adoptive parents. But then IVF came along and children were born to biological parents, as we know the term, who did not have intercourse.
What You Need to Know about Marriage
I received a pamphlet produced by Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, and The Heritage Foundation.
Let me begin by saying from a public policy standpoint [a position taken that is based upon statistical generalities] that a marriage between a man and a woman is best for raising children. I strongly advocate for presumptions that children are most well-adjusted when they have a meaningful and regular relationship with their mothers and fathers. This is acknowledged in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and numerous published opinions of the Indiana Court of Appeals and decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court.
This pamphlet correctly acknowledges that “children need a mother and a father.” In advocating their public policy position on marriage these organization make what I believe to be some spurious claims. These include that marriage “brings together sexually complimentary spouses, in a monogamous relationship,” that “marriage is about the needs of children,” and that “Marriage ensures the well-being of children.” These statements on their face seem plausible from the standpoint of a policy advisor who works in the child custody arena I take issue with each.
Empirical data and my observations or interviews reveal that a substantial percentage of marriages are not monogamous. Further, that a high percentage of same-sex marriages are monogamous and are co-habitating unmarried parents.
While much of the claims of proponents rest on the presumptions about the historical perspectives a traditional marriage their current claim do not bear such congruence. “Marriage is about the needs of children” is a new concept. Marriage has long been a method of securing relationships between families for political or business purposes. Marriages were often arranged by parents. Black's Law Dictionary defines marriage to include “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in a state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife.” That sounds vaguely like a civil union. Likewise to the business or political contractual application, marriages often served as a means of support for a woman and subsequently upon the bearing of children as a means of securing labour for the agrarian man. It was not until post-industrial revolution that a marked shift began to occur in which marriage became more focused on children's needs including the adoption of laws to protect children from being indentured into labour by their parents. To this day, in Indiana, there still exist a statute requiring adult children to financially support their parents. Thus, marriage or rather child rearing in general, is not entirely about providing for the needs of children but is a financial security blanket for parents under threat of imprisonment.
Then there is the well-being of children claim. If marriage does ensure the “well-being of children” then why are children in married households being abused and neglected? Why I am always involved in at least one court case involving allegations of domestic abuse between married parents?
Much of the information cited for opposing gay marriage or civil unions is that married mothers and fathers produce the best outcomes for children. Again, I emphatically say this is true. However, these authors juxtapose this data to same-gender civil unions. This is misplaced as the researchers generally are comparing married parents to unwed parents or single parents where one parent has abandoned the child. After traditionally married parents a civil union among monogamous same-sex “parents” is best.
One interesting claim I found was that “no one has the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” I almost find this bizarre. Allow same-sex civil unions would do nothing to restrict marriages as they currently exist between mixed gender adults. However, HJR3 would bar the government from recognizing same-gender relationships similar to marriage including allowing grant money to be used to supply Domestic Violence service to victims of same-sex abuse.
I will close on this statement. Marriage is “a permanent and exclusive union of a man and woman for childbearing and rearing.” Based upon that limitation then sterile persons should be barred from marriage. This also ignores the numerous cases I have seen where same-gender “parents” solidified their relationship through a ceremony for the purpose of being parents to the child or anticipated child of one of the partners.
Regardless of the position one holds on this issue the debate should not be tainted by misinformation, omissions, or lies.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
GPS Tracking following Domestic Violence conviction - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 390
29 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
One of the advantages to state legislation is that it is rarely verbose. Senate Bill 390 which has been introduced by Senator Richard Young easily complies with this practice. Senator Young is seeking to add a new section to the criminal code related to sentencing of Domestic Violence offenders. The complete text of the bill is;
Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2.8
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), if:
(1) a person is convicted of a crime involving domestic of family violence; and
(2) the person is placed on probation or parole;
the sentencing court shall require the person to wear a GPS tracking device as a condition of probation or parole. The court shall require the person to wear the GPS tracking device for at least the first six (6) months of the person's probation or parole.
(b) If a court requires a person to wear a GPS tracking device as a condition of probation or parole, the court shall require the person to pay any costs associated with the GPS tracking device.
(c) A court is not required to require a person described in subsection (a) to wear a GPS tracking device if:
(1) the person is unable to pay the costs associated with the GPS tracking device due to indigency; and
(2) funding for GPS tracking is not otherwise available.
The effect of this bill is readily understood. Upon a conviction for Domestic Violence an offender, as part of the sentencing, will be required to wear a GPS device for no less than the first six months of probation or parole. The offender is required to pay for the cost of the monitoring. If, however, the person is indigent and funding is not otherwise available then the court is not required to order the GPS monitoring.
I have had clients who were on GPS monitoring as part of the condition of pre-trial release. While there is a financial cost associated with it, in at least one case it served my client well as he was able to use it to demonstrate that he had not violated the pre-trial No Contact Order as had been alleged. With the risk of probation revocation being high along with a reduced due-process standard the GPS monitoring could aid the probationers.
Likewise, the GPS monitoring could aid the protected person by certainly providing an incentive to the offender to not intentionally violate the No Contact Order. While the orders are never a guaranteed protection and neither would be the GPS monitoring it could still provide a valuable sense of security to the victim.
It is not clear to me from the language of the bill that a victim could offer to pay for the monitoring if the court could not otherwise require it. It does seem permissible though and could be worth it for those victims who would wish to pay the costs.
This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
How to get a 28 year Protective Order lodged against you and then waste time appealing it
22 January 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The Indiana Court of Appeals delivered an opinion in A.N. v K.G. Yesterday which it chose to publish. [A published opinion is one that can be used as precedent and usually reflects an important legal decision or a change to prior decisions] The matter was originally heard in the trial court by Barbara Crawford, Judge Marion County Superior Court.
On May 18, 2010, K.G. filed an ex parte motion for a protective order against A.N., which the trial court granted the same day. On June 11, 2010, following a hearing, the trial court granted him a protective order for two years. The protective order prohibited A.N. from acts of violence, stalking, and “harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or directly or indirectly communicating with” K.G. and three other persons.
Over the course of two years K.G. filed multiple information for contempt alleging that A.N. had in addition to making “non-stop” phone calls to his home phone and his ex-wife’s phone, A.N. had “spray painted [his] knew [sic] house.” Upon the first hearing, April 5, 2011, the trial court found A.N. in contempt. She received a suspended sentence of 120 days in the Marion County Jail and was ordered to complete 80 hours of community service and pay a fine. K.G. later claimed that A.N. had made numerous calls to his home and that he possessed a picture of his home phone that recorded the telephone number A.N. used. K.G. alleged that on one occasion, he spoke to A.N., who said, “I’m back[.] [Y]ou better watch your ass.” When reminded by K.G. that a protective order was in place, A.N. allegedly responded, “F*** that protective order[.] I can do what I want.” Apparently so but that can come with consequences. The trial court found that A.N. violated the protective order and ordered her 120 day sentence executed and placed her on home detention. The trial court thereafter extended the protective order to November 29, 2040, for a total of 28 years.
I won't go into a detailed legal analysis of A. N.'s appeal as most of it was without merit. However, the one issue that deserves attention was her claim that the judge acted as an advocate. This is something that it often brought to me as a concern by potential clients when the judge asked questions during the proceeding or made sua sponte [on the judge's own motion] objections. The Court of Appeals addressed it in this manner;
The record shows that the trial court’s questions were neutral, served to clarify K.G.’s testimony, and did not discredit A.N. or her defense. Although A.N. alleges prejudice since the trial court cited the photograph when explaining its rationale for finding A.N. in contempt, A.N. was not prejudiced because she cross-examined K.G. on the photograph. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not act as an advocate by asking K.G. foundational questions regarding the photograph. See Trotter, 733 N.E.2d at 532.
A trial court has a duty to remain impartial and refrain from making unnecessary comments or remarks. Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied. However, not all untoward remarks by a judge constitute reversible error. Id. at 567. The remarks must harm the complaining party or interfere with the right to a fair trial. Id. Further, the court does not engage in improper advocacy by stopping improper cross-examination on its own motion. Id.
The record reveals that each time the trial court interrupted A.N.’s cross-examination, the questions posed either mischaracterized K.G.’s testimony or were argumentative. However, the critical question here is whether the trial court’s remarks harmed A.N. or denied her a fair trial. See id. They did not. In the first instance, A.N. simply rephrased the question and proceeded with cross-examination. After intervening in the three instances of argumentative questioning, the trial court sought to move the proceedings forward, for example, by instructing A.N.’s counsel to “stick with the facts of these contempt petitions.” Consequently, A.N. has not shown that the trial court’s remarks constituted improper advocacy or interfered with her right to a fair trial. See Cook, 734 N.E.2d at 566.
Legal analysis of the proceedings aside, the important fact to take away from this is that violation of a Protective Order or a No Contact Order can result in a civil order of confinement. It can also lead to a separate criminal charge. As in this case A.N. is going to be burdened with being required to comply with this order until the year 2040. She seems to demonstrate a clear unwillingness to comply for the first three years, even after incarceration, and if it doesn't cease a criminal charge will likely follow.
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.
