13 December 2013
Do you know why court room testimony doesn't make for good television drama? Because it is laborious, boring and – as in this example – so idiotic it make you want to ram your head into a wall.
So here is a brief portion of witness Del Anderson, a GAL for Child Advocates, Inc. of Indianapolis, being cross-examined in a child custody case.
COUNSEL: Are there currently any – any problems that [parents] are having with the custody arrangement and ... parenting time?
GAL ANDERSON: Can you be more specific about problems – what problems?
COUNSEL: That's what I am asking you. Are the – is there anything that you perceive as a problem with parenting time or the – the – the – uh – the – the parenting time schedule or our current custody arrangement? Are there any problems as a result what [parents] have right now?
GAL ANDERSON: Well the arrangements [parents] have is what the Court ordered.
COUNSEL: Right. Yeah – and I'm asking if there are any problems with that?
GAL ANDERSON: Do I have any problems with it?
COUNSEL: Not if you – (Indiscernible). Are there any problems that [parents] are experiencing with the current custody arrangement or parenting time schedule?
GAL ANDERSON: Well apparently [they] are dropping the kids off and picking up as [they] were ordered to do.
COUNSEL: Is that a problem?
GAL ANDERSON: If [they're] doing what [they] were ordered to do, no that's not a problem.
COUNSEL: So then my question was are there any problems with the current parenting time schedule and custody arrangement?
GAL ANDERSON: No, [they] have not had any problems from my understanding.
It is tinged with humor as you likely see someone who either doesn't know how to answer a yes or no question, is being hostile toward one side, or is just too stoned to know what is going on.
Oh and that is who Child Advocates, Inc. of Indianapolis employs to make the critical recommendations that affect the ultimate well-being of children. YIKES!
If you would like to assist in a contested child custody case then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about my child custody and well-being policy efforts may be found on my LinkedIn page.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Friday, December 13, 2013
How many questions does it take to get to the answer of a “yes” or “no” question? - Del Anderson of Child Advocates, Inc.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Self-Imposed Parental Alienation
23 November 2013 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
First let me provide my definition of self-imposed parental alienation. Parental Alienation is the arrangement of behaviours that are intended to sever the relationship between the child and the targeted parent. When the behaviours create a condition in which the child is driven away from the instigating parent I call that self-imposed parental alienation. While the range of behaviours may be the same among different parents it is the child's cognition of the parent's performance that determines whether alienation is established.
The tragedy of self-imposed parental alienation is that the child generally has a healthy parent-child relationship with the targeted parent impeded by the instigating parent, but this also can create an enduring hostility toward that instigator. The child thus loses having a healthful parent-child relationship with either parent.
Self-Imposed parental alienation is the result of a loss of focus on doing what is best for the child. The very act of divorce is a selfish one. As Judith Wallerstein says in reporting on her 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce, “If children had the vote, almost all would vote to maintain the parents' marriage.”[en1] This is because divorce produces worse outcomes for children in nearly all cases and the children know it. The adults rationalize their selfish harm to children. It is through rationalization that an instigating parent accepts the alienation as just. If you want to do something, first declare it “good.” If we deem it good, it just is. This is seen simultaneously at an institutional level.
Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 requires that judicial officers make child custody and parenting time decisions by applying “the best interest of the child” standard. I contend however that a rationale view of divorce outcomes on children produces the realization that a court can not fashion post divorce parent-child relationships for the child that is in his best interest. Rather, I believe that the best interest standard is a delusional adult oriented view of child adaptations to divorce. Reporting from children and objective analysis convey the abject failure of this best interest approach. Empirically it has been aptly demonstrated that, on a whole, the children of divorce suffer adversities far greater than their counterparts who remained in intact households. The resultant effect is then that courts are limited to a standard no better than being able to fashion situations that are “least harmful to the child.”
The moral goodness rationalization is the folly of the parent who subjects himself to this type of abuse. Children are keenly aware of the dynamics of post separation relationships between parents. While some children may align themselves with the instigating parent -- becoming integrated in to the disturbed parents' vengeful orbit -- others may reject such an invitation at the onset.
Jared, a boy of age 7, exhibits clear hostility and resentment towards his custodial mother for her attempts to alienate the children from their father – relocating to a new city, seeking sole custody, displaying 'rescuing' behaviours following parenting time with father. Jared has demonstrated his disdain for mother's indignation over his fondness for father and especially her derogation of behaviours that mimic those of father. While initially having a strong attachment to both parents Jared's relationship with his mother has now been sabotaged by her resentment of father. Jared openly refers to his mother as “mean” and says she “doesn't like it when I act like you.”
As Jared enters the pre-adolescent stage he, like his peers in that group, are particularly vulnerable to being swept up into the anger of one parent against the other. It is the embattled parent, often the one who opposed the divorce, who initiates and fuels the alignment against the other parent. Mothers are more likely to have children aligned with them as are fathers.
Katie, a pre-adolescent girl, is demonstrating signs of a realization of mother's alienation attempts and is rejecting mother. In speaking with her about living with mother and her subsequent husband Katie presented anxiety about exhibiting affection for or attachment to father such as wanting to speak with him on the phone, invite him to school functions or display affection towards him when being returned to mother. Her time with father is relaxed and comforting to her but as the time with him approaches an end she becomes lethargic, somewhat uncooperative and resistant to leaving.
Terrance is an adolescent boy whose mother sought to extricate him from the close bond he felt with father since birth. Denying parenting time, returning or destroying items sent with him to her house and rejecting his desire to engage in activities of interest that were shared by his father were hallmarks of her alienation attempts. Terrance and his father managed to maintain meaningful contact throughout this time without father reciprocating the animosity of mother. Terrance now openly displays rejection of mother to other people, often indicating an intense desire to leave the household of his mother and that of her psychologically abusive current husband.
These children all demonstrate an allegiance to the targeted parent and feel that time with the custodial parent is an unwanted imposition for which they wish to be un-tethered. For younger children in this situation they seek a rescuer to remove them from the instigating parent to which they endure the relationship. As children grow older and experience a natural yearning for independence they also feel empowered to determine their own outcomes.
These children as adults become more steadfast in their resentment of the instigator. Sometimes they completely reject that parent who is banished into the child's past.
Some children are without facility for reconciliation with the targeted parents and become effectually isolated from two living but absent parents – one alienated as a target and the other alienated by imposition upon self. For the irrational parent who instigates the destruction of the child's attachments this potential, and likely, outcome is not foreseen. It is incumbent upon practitioners, family, friends and others in the support network to dissuade an alienating parent from perpetuating this harm to the relationships of the child with the targeted parent as well as to self.
[fn1] The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, 2000 Hyperion - Wallerstein, Lewis, Blakeslee
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, May 13, 2013
The Objective Morality Applied to Contested Child Custody Cases: A Strategy for Obtaining Parenting Time and your Child's Well-Being
This article is related to a recent one I posted about applying subjectivity to morality. Here I intend to offer a rational foundation for the contention that the application of objective morality to child custody cases can be detrimental. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
From the time we were infants to young children we exhibited what Freud referred to as the Id. From hunger we cried, for affection we cried, for comfort from soiled diapers we cried. [An attuned attachment figure will recognize and appropriately respond to each of the three different cries] As we matured we grabbed whatever toy we wanted from the hands of a playmate. We were determined to have what we wanted when we wanted it. We lacked consideration for the inconvenience we may cause or the feelings of others.
Gradually discipline was introduced. Our desires were tempered through a system of rewards and punishments based upon mandates from our parents or other authority figures. It is a logical inevitability that the capacity for small children to accept instructions and warnings without subjecting them to their own as yet feeble logical powers does not develop without discipline. We present the abstract concepts of sharing, patience and virtue to the young “me want now, it's mine” brain. Thus begins the progression to morality.
Gradually most children are introduced to morality through the concepts of deism, theism and the organized cults. Much of this comprises societal standards and ultimately law. This is the object moral: You ought behave in this manner because it has been establish as right.
But the abstract as it relates to morals should return during the times of adolescence through maturation. Since man is wholly responsible for himself, as Sartre says, then he should individually be his own moral compass. The proper modality for moralistic determination is the pursuit of pleasure and the minimization of pain. Sartre is joined by other philosophers such as Bentham and Mill in this assertion.
Theist will argue that the subjective morality is not morality at all as there is no concrete moral code and if every man pursues his pleasures individually then morals don't exist. This proposition ignores consequence though. Epicurus espoused pursuit of pleasure noting that there is no such thing as divine punishment as we can observe. Instead Epicurus posits that virtue leads to the absence of pain and fear.
This proposition can be realized through proof of the immorality of eating meat. Montaigne argued that man was no more superior to other animals just as one culture was not over another. In essence Montaigne could be said to argue that if you believe the Nazi regime acted immorally by adopting a belief that the Anglo-Aryan race was superior to other races then the human race adopting a belief of dominion over the animal kingdom, which has a basis in biblical law, was equally immoral.
All invertebrates can feel pain and have feelings. Thus we are unable to differentiate ourselves from the animals who suffer through factory farming and gruesome slaughter techniques. Hypocrites will rationalize their immorality through arguing that man has self-awareness and an intellectual superiority unique to mankind. But if intelligence and self-awareness is the appropriate standard then one should be able to slaughter the mentally retarded and the comatose, whose intellect is subordinate to some primates or have no self-awareness, while maintaining a morally clean slate. Such contradiction cannot be reconciled though.
There is also an argument to be made that man is less intelligent than his surrounding fauna. One can observed flight patterns of birds or the movements of a school of fish who all move in a wave of congruence. Yet one doesn't need idly observe traffic in a busy intersection long to see a collision. Likewise few animals waste food while humans can readily be seen discarding food while most cannot feed themselves. While colonies of ants or bees work harmoniously together ensuring the survival of their respective groups humans steal from and murder each other. So who is more intelligent?
Now that it has been established that man is not superior to other invertebrates by any current measurable moral standard then let's apply the standard established by Epicurus: that virtue leads to the absence of pain and fear.
If actions are conscripted by moral stipulations and one seeks to maintain morality in an effort to conform to this code to reap its purported benefits and avoid the consequences of transgressions then pain and fear are the result. The acceptance of being an imperfect being leads to the anxiety of a potential transgression and the resulting discomfort from the elevated immunological response. Mill also proposed that right is pleasurable and wrong is painful.
Epicurus espoused pursuit of pleasure without divine punishment. Death was not to be feared as there is no afterlife. Many bodily pleasures have painful consequences and thus become self-correcting by the process known as the Law of Effect. Wisdom he argued was the greatest virtue. Thus wisdom – virtue supreme -- leads to the absence of pain and fear. There is solid reasoning in this proposition. Wisdom is not just knowledge but cognition of knowledge applied and resulting circumstances. Hence book-smart youngsters can still seem to achieve lofty feats of stupidity. They lack the experiences which produce wisdom.
Likewise, Wollstonecraft says that the good of society proceeds from the increase of reason, knowledge and virtue. This is in direct contradiction to the organized cults. These oppressive regimes restrict members access to knowledge, restrict reason with a preference towards “faith” – belief without reason – and shun “non-believers”.
An interesting concept was propounded by Kant who held that there was a universal moral law: your actions should be based upon what you can will everyone else to do. You can will some people to steal but not everyone. Thus, stealing becomes immoral.
Sartre said that because there is no god that man shall individually determine what is best for him. There is no moral guide. Man is wholly responsible for himself. As there is no guarantee that things will turn out for the best, man has the burden of knowing that his life is in his hands. This concept of personal accountability produces an organic moralistic character.
In my experiences I have seen support for the postulate of Seneca who, similar to Epicurus, insisted that the only good is virtue. Happiness is achieved by acting in accord with our internal guide and by being content with one's lot in life. Altruism and simple living are essential to correct living. Empiricus said that there can be no absolutes of good or bad if one is to achieve tranquility. He who has good will fear losing it, he who has bad will feel defeated, he who has neither will be tranquil. Those who have achieved tranquility and live the simple lives are often seen as consistent with most objective standards of morality but, more importantly, are intrinsically moral.
So how is this applicable to child custody litigation? The objective view says that parental fitness can be measured by adherence to an established moral code: particularly an ordained code of conduct presented as a societal standard. There may be various protocols for the objective such as cultists' codes, statutory law or guidelines adopted by Child Protective Services. The subject viewpoint contends that parental fitness is measured by the discipline of the child who adheres to his own moral code. That is when the parent has provided guidance to the child to help him elicit from self-awareness what is moral. Teasing a sibling and getting hit - pain inflicted from the hit was a result of the teasing and the child can then be prompted to deduce that teasing is improper because it can cause pain not that it is improper in the statutory sense.
If the child's self-regulated behaviour is not intrusive upon the rights or boundaries of others, but is not instilled by the fear of an unseen omniscient force who will exact some future revenge for transgressions, then it is a positive discipline. That is, the child is respectful of others through free-will: virtue. Thus, as Epicurus and Mill proposed, virtue leads to a lack of pain. This produces tranquility, a valued asset for a child who is experiencing the conflict of a child custody battle.
It is during this transition that children are at risk from a plethora of ills. A properly based moral guide – one based upon pleasure not fear – demonstrates the resolve of a parent to act in the child's best interest. The revelation to the court of this commitment to the child's well-being demonstrates parental fitness while adherence to a top-down moral protocol of an organized cult demonstrates neglect of a child's individual needs.
Courts are well aware of the potential for and effects of neglect of children during the challenging times of separation or divorce. During this time children often experience a form of neglect being “lack of supervision”. The unsupervised children are the ones most likely to engage in sexual relations, drug abuse and violent acts at greater rates than their counterparts who have caring parents. The other common form of neglect is “emotional disengagement”. While the parent may be physically present and supervising the child's activities the parent may herself be so emotionally drained that she is unable to engage the child. Depression, anxiety and mood disorders contribute significantly to emotional disengagement. A parent experiencing these issues may appear joyful or sorrowful regardless of circumstances which can confuse the child relying on appropriate emotional feedback to help guide his actions in a moralistic manner.
Thus, while a parent may profess fitness by an adherence to an objective standard imposed upon self and the child this is not congruent with morality. A child's upbringing based upon the individual nurturing and guidance of a self-regulated moral character, however imperfect at the time, will, over time, result in a more robust zeal for maintaining morality and consequently improved well-being.
When properly advocated for to a judicial officer capable of understanding this concept and the needs of the child a child custody and parenting time order consistent with the true best interest of the child should be achievable.
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, May 6, 2013
Death of Richard Lawlor, JD, PhD - Indiana Parenting and Custody Evaluator
In the spirit of 'nothing is off limits' today I discuss the death of long-time custody evaluator Dr Richard Lawlor and more broadly, the concept and effectiveness, if any, of custody or parenting evaluators. Lawlor died on 13 January 2013 but I was a bit busy on another custody evaluation case which, coincidentally, involved a lying evaluator.
To read the obituary one might feel as though Lawlor was an upstanding and accomplished servant to the community. He received his J.D. (Magna Cum Laude) from Indiana University School of Law in 1979. “[H]is passion for teaching was evident with long-standing mentoring of medical residents (including an Arthur B. Richter Scholar), medical students, law students, and undergraduates. His writings were prolific in the field of Forensic Psychology and will help guide the next generation of practitioners. His administrative work included service in various positions such as the Board of Directors for the Indiana Psychological Association, and as Chairman of the Indiana Psychological Association. Richard received numerous academic and professional honors including the Sagamore of the Wabash.” Also listed were positions on various civic groups and the disconcerting statement “His work doing custody evaluations is nationally known.”
In a contrasting tone Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice in a posting dated 01 July 2010 opens with this statement about Lawlor:
“The more I have dug into this father-loving Whore of the Court, the more I am sickened. During a case Dr. Richard Lawlor was involved in, which a child was taken from the mother and given to the father, he didn't even interview the primary people in the case. His bought-and-paid-for testimony was formed over looking at another therapist's notes. How nice! “
About a year after that posting I was involved in a case helping a mother in which the father had been accused of molesting their young daughter. Although forensic investigators from CPS and the police department as well as the child's regular therapist had substantiated the molestation in came the hired-gun. I personally made no determination myself about the molestation but was coaching the mother during her effort to modify the current parenting time order to suit the best interest of their child based upon a third-party allegation of sexual abuse.
With his parenting time in jeopardy and potential criminal charges facing him the well-financed father did what any parent who wants to bring doubt to these types of allegations – bring in the hired-gun Richard Lawlor.
Depending on litigated outcomes people often express a preference or dislike for a particular judges, attorney or mental health professional such as Lawlor. So it is no surprise to see that some will praise him while others will absolutely malign him. These reporting individuals are not objective but biased based upon their personal circumstances. Complaints however should not be dismissed solely because the accusations are from biased parties. The may still support an objective view.
The problem with the hired-gun Lawlor and his ilk is that his “objective opinions” are not objective even when he was court appointed and the parties split the cost. While reviewing cases and observing Lawlor in court over the past ten years I was able to detect a pattern. Primarily, his opinion favoured whomever hired him, which could be expected but it is the contradictions that confirm this bias. In one case he would propose a theory that supported the position of his client but in another he would discredit the same theory when another MHP was using it against Lawlor's client.
Child custody evaluations are one of the most controversial areas of forensic psychology.[fn1] Some have argued that evaluations lack empirical methods, inappropriate use of psychological tests, and the improper use and interpretation of data. Further, that the evaluation reports are really of no use to the court. Authors of one study suggested a moratorium on child custody evaluations.[fn2]
As for the “independent evaluations” which were court ordered I observed another pattern develop in regards to Lawlor – Lawlor would find that the parent who was most likely to abuse or neglect the child should be awarded sole custody. This wouldn't make sense for someone not being motivated by a paying parent. But getting paid is exactly what Lawlor would anticipate. Not that he would directly get paid by one of the parties but that, instead, another MHP would be hired to perform a subsequent custody evaluation to challenge the absurdity of Lawlor's findings. Additionally, the abused or neglected child would be recommended for counseling sometime during the proceedings. What this does is ensures that MHP's workload stays full. Parents in a different custody case seeking a custody evaluator may come to Lawlor as others are found to be busy. Also using the supply and demand economic model Lawlor ensures that his outrageous fees stay inflated.
One study found that child custody evaluators made physical custody recommendations in 96% of reports. Therapy for parents was recommended in 63% while therapy for children was 40%. Yet mediation, a tactic that reduces conflict and brings resolution to the case, was only recommended in 15% of cases. It appears that evaluators are nearly universally sure as to physical placement of the child(ren) and that, on average, at least one person per case would receive psychological therapy. Parents working together to resolve problems was rarely recommended though.
This is the hidden motivation for which judicial officers and practitioners need to be aware if the best interest of children are to be served. Child custody evaluators' recommendations, if followed, will feed the MHP industry.
1] James N. Bow and Francella A. Quinnell “A Critical Review of Child Custody Evaluation Reports”
2] O’Donohue & Bradley (1999)
If you would like to ensure more positive outcomes for your client when a custody evaluation has been requested or ordered by the court 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 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.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Just when you thought it was safe to lie on the witness stand
When giving testimony under oath in a court of law witnesses are required to affirm that such testimony will be truthful subject to the penalties and pains of perjury – so says the law. It's okay to stand at a party table and give testimony if the court permits. It's okay to sit at the witness stand or even lay yourself there, although I don't recommend it. Someone needs to let Del Anderson know that it's not okay to lie on the witness stand although he may have good reason to feel that he can testify falsely with impunity. When is the last time that you saw or heard of anyone being charged with perjury in a child custody proceeding? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Del Anderson is a GAL who works for Indianapolis based Child Advocates, Inc. and was assigned to the case of Moore v Moore 49D12-0810-DR-44790 to provide a report to the court regarding the parents and children as part of mother's petition to modify custody and parenting time in her favour. After about a year Mr Anderson submitted his report to the court. A hearing pursuant to this was held on Tuesday 05 February 2013.
Under examination about the content of his report Mr Anderson made numerous claims as to the content of a three hour interview that he conducted with the father, Brian Moore. Mr Anderson testified that his report was based, in part, on notations he had written during that interview. I won't recite the particular claims here but the essence was that Mr Moore had engaged in bizarre behaviours including a threat to the children's school that resulted in a “lock-down”, and thus was not fit to be a parent.
This creates a difficulty for the parent who has been, to our thinking, unjustly maligned and falsely accused. How do we redeem this client? Attempts on cross may be fruitless with a well organized liar which leaves the judicial officer to weigh the credibility of witnesses – the liar and your client. There does exist an important alternative though which is accomplished through the interview preparation process.
After the outlandish accusations were made Mr Moore then offered into evidence a copy of an audio recording of the three hour interview for the purpose of impeaching Mr Anderson. This immediately drew an objection from Attorney for Petitioner, Jonathan R. Deenik of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey & Glazier, P.C., who claimed that the recording had not be previously disclosed as required by the rules of evidence. Mr Moore correctly noted that the recording was being introduced not for it's substantive value but for the purpose of impeaching the witness, which is an exception to the prior disclosure rule. Judge Welch over-ruled the objection.
Due to the late hour in the day the hearing was concluded for the day and copies of the recording were made and distributed. Mr Moore then moved the court to issue special findings in regards to the truthfulness of Mr Anderson's testimony. This matter was continued to 05 April 2013 in Marion County Superior Court 5. There the principal of the children's school, the superintendent and the Chief of Police all testified that there had been no 'lock-down'. Mr Anderson explained some of the quotes in the report as being a compilation of words Mr Moore said during the interview. This is where Del Anderson falls afoul of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
If your client says sentences in an interview like “I want to come to a reasonable parenting time schedule.”; “It's going to kill me to go on seeing my children disappointed like this.”; and “I just don't understand my ex-husband.” that are melded into the quote “I want to kill my ex-husband” that appears in a custody evaluation report then you better be able to redeem your client. One way to do that is to record all contacts between the parent and evaluator.
This is what Mr Moore did when he was interviewed by Del Anderson. Upon the conclusion and receipt of the special findings the testimony of Mr Anderson will be transcribed. The transcript, special findings and audio recording will then be presented to the Marion County Prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against Mr Anderson.
There existed the idea that it was safe to lie on the witness stand. With vigilance and proper preparation that concept will fade from the minds of Del Anderson and other evaluators or “witnesses” like him who concoct their own version of events to suit their demonstrated bias.
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, April 18, 2013
Determining the Best interest of the Child: Conflict of Interest in Supervised Parenting Time
This is the first 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.
Today I begin with the use of third-party evaluators and mental health professionals in shaping child custody decisions.
From the outset I note that this is not a case where there have been unjust attributions of 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.
The decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals reveals the following about the father.
Father has “an anxiety disorder” and chose to treat this condition by consuming alcohol. I admonish that alcohol although viewed by a substantial portion of society as a medicinal cure-all is not and often exacerbates conditions and subsequent problems;
Father entered an inpatient treatment program for treatment of “severe anxiety,” obsessive compulsive disorder, major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder as well as an “alcohol . . . problem.” Father terminated his treatment. The center suggested that he continue in-patient treatment elsewhere, which he did not do but did participate in intense therapy for the next four weeks. He was discharged by his therapist who recommended follow-up treatment as needed;
Father then filed a petition for dissolution. The parties entered into an agreed provisional order. The order provided parenting time for Father but specified that Father “shall not consume alcohol either before his parenting time or during his parenting time”; and that if Mother “reasonably believe[d]” he was “impaired as a result of alcohol consumption,” she had the right to cancel the visit unless Father submitted to a breathalyzer test administered by law enforcement and the results showed no more than a .02 blood alcohol content.
I have seen similar orders across a broad scope of topics that I have generally found unacceptable because of their subjective clauses that create an imbalance of power in the parenting relationship. Here however, Mother's subjective authority – if Mother reasonably believed he was impaired – is balanced by the objective – a BAC of >.02. At worst it results in a delay of parenting time but established a measurable standard to be applied to Mother's subjective evaluation.
The agreement further stipulated to the appointment of a GAL.
Mother filed a petition to modify asserting that Father’s various mental health and/or alcohol issues interfere with his ability to properly discipline and interact with the child in an age appropriate manner and stated her desires that he maintain a relationship with the child but that it is in the child’s best interest for parenting time to be conducted in a therapeutic setting. The parties agreed to amend that order to stipulate that Father's parenting time would be supervised consistent with recommendations of the GAL.
Testimony indicated that initial parenting time sessions went well. A three phase transition period was put into place for unsupervised parenting time. Before that was completed though Father engaged in inappropriate acts for the child's development and counselors indicated that the child became withdrawn. Mother indicated that the child would cling to her. Father eventually told the supervisors that he would no longer seek parenting time with his child.
That matter was eventually settled through arbitration. A report from the Choices counselors was included in the GAL report submitted to the Arbitrator; it recommended therapeutically supervised parenting time. The report of the GAL concluded with the recommendation that Father’s parenting time be supervised at Choices.
Father's former counselor when questioned about his feelings as to Father being a danger to the child stated, “No, not that he would physically be a danger.” The GAL relied upon and made substantial findings from the input of workers at Choices, the center where supervised parenting time had occurred. The arbitrator recommended that if father was to exercise parenting time that it would be supervised by Choices.
I make no aspersions as to the motives of Choices or their integrity but use this only for illustrative purposes. Employees of Choices provided opinion indicating that Father's parenting time should be supervised by their employer – essentially themselves.
When I present testimony in court I try to limit it to factual observations only. The opinions I give relate only to the factual circumstances but not to ultimate decisions to be made by the court. I believe it is overstepping a boundary for a witness to opine as to what the court's ruling should be.
My concern here is that what is essentially a witness who is financially invested in the case is making a recommendation to the court albeit via a GAL and an arbitrator.
In the next posting I will discuss the use of DVPO in case negotiations and finally 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.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Become a GAL or CASA
There is not much that really perturbs me. I have an attitude that allows me to face most adversities with a, shall I say, 'stuff happens' mindset. One of the things that I hear often are complaints from the average members of society who don't like some policy or law imposed upon them or some shortcoming that they see. Generally my response falls somewhere between vote and get on the deciding body.
Lately I have been embroiled in a case involving a GAL and his attorney who both engaged in a deliberate course of conduct to get a parent's custody taken away. This included lying to the parent about the court's order and lying to the judge.
I assisted in exposing the truth, publicized these actions and am now working on writing a code of conduct and rules for child custody evaluators. It may take some time to get the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt my proposals though. So in the meantime all these efforts aren't going to change the make-up of the pool of GAL's that include those who aren't motivated by the welfare of children.
The way to do that is by those of us who care about the well-being of children instead of perpetuating our personal biases joining the ranks of GAL's. So today I submitted my name to be a volunteer as a GAL/CASA. The task is not an onerous one. If you care about children then I assure you that you will not find the time dedicated to this as a burden or effort but, rather, a rewarding opportunity.
So, I ask you to join me and request information on being a GAL/CASA.
If you would like to become involving in advocating for child-friendly policies 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, April 3, 2013
Child Advocates Inc., Perjury Accusations to be Heard Friday 05 April 2013
The accusation against Child Advocates Inc., and particularly its GAL Del Anderson, will be heard beginning at 0930 in Marion County Superior Court 5. Judge Robert Altice will be presiding. Altice formerly sat in the criminal courts.
Anderson is accused of providing a falsified custody evaluation report and subsequent testimony to the Marion County Superior Court 5 with Judge Heather Welch presiding. Anderson's report is an effort to malign the father but Anderson's integrity was called into question earlier this year when the father offered to play a three hour recording of dialogue between Anderson and the father. Statements in that recorded dialogue directly contradict those made by Anderson while testifying under oath in court.
The primary focus will be on the portion of the report and testimony alleging that the Pendleton Elementary School went on lockdown because of a threat made by the father. Prepared to testify on Friday will be Pendleton Police Chief Mark Farrer and Pendleton Schools Superintendent Joseph A Buck who will both state that the school was not on lockdown as Anderson claimed. A request for special findings has been made so those findings can be submitted to the Marion County Prosecutor's Office to support a criminal complaint for a charge of perjury.
Attorney Cynthia Dean of Child Advocates Inc., while communicating with Jonathan Deenik, attorney for mother, attempted to get the father to violate a court order last year which he did not do. Ultimately mother was found in contempt of court for her willful violation of that order. Her sanction is still under advisement by the court.
I was recently requested to appear as a witness in another case seeking the dismissal of Anderson as the GAL but before I was called that matter was continued until June. I will be appearing Friday to provide testimony and documents to refute Anderson's claims.
The hearing on Friday is open to the public. The court may be accessed on the Fourth Floor of the City-County Building by using the west elevators.
If you have been the subject of an adverse custody evaluation and would like to expose the truth 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.
